Is Seattle a "vast suburb" by Bay Area standards? (George: fit in, insurance)
Seattle areaSeattle and King County Suburbs
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, Seattle is over 7,400 people per square mile.
That makes more sense - I think my data source had SF density for city while Seattle for the metro area. Anyways, point still remains - SF is significantly more dense than Seattle. Merely walking around each city would tell you that. And in terms of urbanity, density matters. A lot.
However, I wouldnt call Seattle one big "suburb". It's a city but at lower density than more compact cities like SF, NYC, or Boston.
I HAVE seen the Ghost of San Francisco Past; it is Seattle. Really. Don't go up there if you don't want to get depressed. While San Francisco has become increasingly poor, grimy, polluted, traffic-gnarled, inefficient, cranky and Balkanized, Seattle has become a living theme park of the San Francisco they used to write songs about. The San Francisco I visited and fell in love with a couple of decades ago.
SF has more tech jobs than Seattle (more start-ups, more innovation in programming, etc). Its great for 22 year olds who want to work 12 hours a day slaving for The Googles.
But for adults who want to own a house and maybe spend time with their families? Seattle is much better. Not living in an 900 sqft apartment is worth living in this "vast suburb".
If you are a 22 year old code monkey at Google, chances are you are Stanford/MIT/Cal grad and will be able to afford a house in the Bay Area when you are 30. I think where the real difference is for middle class folks not working in tech at a market leader like Google or Facebook. If you are in the middle, then it IS hard to own a home in a city with good schools in the Bay Area.
As for 900 SF living - some of us like it. Prefer it even over lower density SFR living. High density means better transit, more walkability, better social/cultural options with close distance, and generally more diversity.
If you are a 22 year old code monkey at Google, chances are you are Stanford/MIT/Cal grad and will be able to afford a house in the Bay Area when you are 30. I think where the real difference is for middle class folks not working in tech at a market leader like Google or Facebook. If you are in the middle, then it IS hard to own a home in a city with good schools in the Bay Area.
As for 900 SF living - some of us like it. Prefer it even over lower density SFR living. High density means better transit, more walkability, better social/cultural options with close distance, and generally more diversity.
Neither is "better." just different.
Really? Google doesn't actually pay that much. For us, it wasn't more than we're making here in Seattle to make it worth the move. I think you're supposed to be thrilled to work there because they offer free dinner and unlimited ping pong.
As for 900 SF living - some of us like it. Prefer it even over lower density SFR living. High density means better transit, more walkability, better social/cultural options with close distance, and generally more diversity.
Neither is "better." just different.
High density also means more pollution and more easily spread lung infections. Since I moved to Seattle I have not had nearly as many allergies or lung ailments. I also haven't had to pick up my inhaler once in the several months I have been here. Come to think of it, I have not seen anyone here use an inhaler since I have been here. In the SF's area's East Bay I saw kids on inhalers all the time.
If you know how difficult and sometimes painful it is to not be able to breathe, you understand that escaping that problem is a good enough reason to move anywhere.
Surely you are aware that 65,000 in San Francisco gets you a quality of life that includes 3 roommates and a bus pass, right?
Assuming one does not have kids, $65k a year would easily get you your own nice studio apt in one of the more hip neighborhoods, or a nice 1BR in one of the outer neighborhoods like Sunset or Richmond or Glen Park. You can even find small 1BRs closer in, although they won't be nearly as nice.
And since you absolutely do not need a car to live in SF as the transit is excellent (despite locals complaints about MUNI), that bus pas will do you just fine. I have lived completely car-free in SF (and now Oakland) for over 7 years. And not once have I felt like "man, I really wish I had a car."
Car ownership is expensive. If you need to own a car in order to live in a particular area, then you really need to add that to your housing cost. Car loan (or amortized cost of the car) plus gas plus repairs plus insurance plus vehicle registration fees is a LOT more costly per month than that bus pass.
High density also means more pollution and more easily spread lung infections. Since I moved to Seattle I have not had nearly as many allergies or lung ailments. I also haven't had to pick up my inhaler once in the several months I have been here. Come to think of it, I have not seen anyone here use an inhaler since I have been here. In the SF's area's East Bay I saw kids on inhalers all the time.
If you know how difficult and sometimes painful it is to not be able to breathe, you understand that escaping that problem is a good enough reason to move anywhere.
Kind weak sauce when your rallying cry is “But our air is cleaner!” Are all Seattleites so sensitive to being a 2d tier city? I used to live in Boston and I honestly never harbored any illusions that we were in the same class of city as NYC, LA, Chicago or SF on the “global” or “alpha” city scale. I liked living there and was happy at the time with it for what is was. But I never kidded myself that it wasn't a bit of a smaller social/cultural/economic pond
And anyways, its not really density that is the issue for air quality in California. LA is much lower density than SF but has far worse air quality. Much of California on the coast is subject to a climate condition known as a thermal inversion layer which keeps ground level pollutants trapped. Combine that with the sheer population numbers and the effect of lots of sunshine creating photochemical smog, and you have air quality issues, regardless of density.. Fact is, since the creation of state’s air quality districts, more people live in the Bay Area (and thus, there is higher density) but air quality has continued to improve over that period.
As for those kids in the East Bay, that’s a function of poverty. The East Bay is the poorerregion in the 9-county Bay Area region and it’s a lwell established fact of public health that children in low income areas are at significantly higher risk of developing severe asthma problems due to a variety of factors related to poverty. I expect if you took a regular stroll through Seattle’s Central District, you’d find more kids with those inhalers.
Which is more weak sauce: Defending your city against trolls who quote stupid SFgate comments to "stimulate" discussion? Or being the SFer who attacks the people who are trying to defend their city and the reasons they chose to live there?
I think we all know which sauce is the weakest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoBlueInSF
Kind weak sauce when your rallying cry is “But our air is cleaner!” Are all Seattleites so sensitive to being a 2d tier city? I used to live in Boston and I honestly never harbored any illusions that we were in the same class of city as NYC, LA, Chicago or SF on the “global” or “alpha” city scale. I liked living there and was happy at the time with it for what is was. But I never kidded myself that it wasn't a bit of a smaller social/cultural/economic pond
And anyways, its not really density that is the issue for air quality in California. LA is much lower density than SF but has far worse air quality. Much of California on the coast is subject to a climate condition known as a thermal inversion layer which keeps ground level pollutants trapped. Combine that with the sheer population numbers and the effect of lots of sunshine creating photochemical smog, and you have air quality issues, regardless of density.. Fact is, since the creation of state’s air quality districts, more people live in the Bay Area (and thus, there is higher density) but air quality has continued to improve over that period.
As for those kids in the East Bay, that’s a function of poverty. The East Bay is the poorerregion in the 9-county Bay Area region and it’s a lwell established fact of public health that children in low income areas are at significantly higher risk of developing severe asthma problems due to a variety of factors related to poverty. I expect if you took a regular stroll through Seattle’s Central District, you’d find more kids with those inhalers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
