Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
Thanks @CrazyDonkey! Are any of those neighborhoods better when it comes to traffic?
I think they are all great areas. They are all close to parks, beaches, or trails. Traffic can be bad almost everywhere, especially during commute hours. If not commuting, it is less of a concern. People who have lived here a long time know the "routes", sometimes serpentine, to avoid most of the traffic snarls. The worst traffic by far is on the Eastside, which doesn't have Seattle's street-grid to handle it.
Loyal Heights, Sand Point, Wallingford/Northlake, Magnolia, West Queen Anne are pretty laid back, safe, and without a lot of through traffic, but not far from more "happening" areas for shopping, wining/dining, entertainment, etc.
The Sand Point/Bryant areas are subject to the infamous "Montlake Crush" if needing to go south, and not just on gamedays.
Magnolia is like an island, with only three ways, often clogged, in and out, but you have beautiful Discovery Park (and beach) as compensation.
West Queen Anne has no through traffic, except on Dravus and Gilman, but you have to rely on 15th Ave W, the same busy arterial that feeds Magnolia, to go north and south - it is midway between Ballard and Lower Queen Anne, without being in either, which I liked. You can get some street noise from 15th, but it was mostly blocked where I lived, and noise from the Interbay rail yards, which was mostly "music" to my ears (if by John Cage). You are within walking or biking distance of Elliott Bay Trail, which can take you all the way to the Waterfront and Downtown.
Alki is very busy, with beachgoers, in the summer, but not in the winter, when you'll mostly have the place to yourself. Fauntleroy has ferry traffic. West Seattle is similar to Magnolia, with limited ways in and out, although with better access now that the repaired West Seattle Bridge is finally open.
Last edited by CrazyDonkey; 10-13-2022 at 01:30 AM..
For Seattle proper, I would recommend the Green Lake area. The entire lake is a city park with a 2.8 mile paved trail around the lake. Nearby Ravenna Blvd is a great path that can connect you to Ravenna Park and the Burke Gilman Trail.
The neighborhoods east and north of the park have plenty of apartments coffee shops, supermarkets and other shopping. The north side is quieter with less traffic, so may be more to your taste. Buildings from the 1980s or 1990s are the sweet spot to have in-unit laundry while being more affordable than newer buildings.
I just spent a week in Seattle. The entire city to me seemed kind of the same, in terms of having neighborhoods built in the early 1900s, now with many newly built apartment buildings, and areas of coffee shops and restaurants all over the place.
It's all beautiful. One thing I noticed is that neighborhoods near the water often have a more quiet, community feeling because they do not have big roads and commercial development running through them. Examples are Ballard, Edmonds, and West Seattle, all quiet with adorable houses and charming and relaxed waterfront areas ideal for walking and biking. These areas couldn't be lovelier. I also adored the area near the zoo and near Green Lake. Also the Madrona area is wonderful.
Other than those observations (relative to your question), I observed a couple of other unique aspects of the city. The traffic is extremely thick and I found myself thinking that Seattle would be a bad place for an older person to live due to the driving situation. Being an older city, and with all the water (and thus bridges everywhere), the roads are hilly, curvy, fast-paced, jam packed, and a bit complicated with lots of forks, merging, and odd places to get from one street to the next.
My google maps and Waze apps would send me from a large highway through a quiet neighborhood, up and down a bunch of hills, around curves, and then suddenly to the next highway which passes underneath the one I just exited. It's the opposite of a nice, brand-new suburban area in a flat landscape where the roads are mostly north/south or east/west and easy to navigate. I specifically found myself thinking that this city would not be safe for an elderly person to try to navigate.
The other unique feature I noticed about Seattle was the lack of police. In my home city, there are police literally everywhere. When I drive around my hometown on a normal day, there is virtually always a police car within eyeview virtually at all times. Conversely in Seattle, in my week there I don't recall seeing a single police car. Although Seattle is extremely rich, if you look on crime grade.org they actually have a fairly significant violent crime rate, presumably due to the lack of police. (I'm referring to the city of Seattle as I did not visit the suburbs).
For an older person, I definitely would recommend a suburb rather than the city of Seattle, particularly one that has a large police presence and also one that has relatively straightforward roads and moderate to light traffic. I did drive through Bellevue actually. I went early Saturday morning because on weekdays there is no way to get from Seattle to Bellevue that I could see, because of Seattle traffic being at a standstill.
As soon as I crossed into Bellevue, it was like entering a different world. Traffic was light, the homes were all on large wooded lots (and mostly homes from the 1970s and later), and everything felt quiet, calm, and immaculate. The problem with Bellevue is that apparently home costs are in the millions. This suggests to me that a normal person who is older would need to live in a suburb on the far, outer edge of Seattle in order to find light traffic, police protection, and affordable homes.
The other unique feature I noticed about Seattle was the lack of police. In my home city, there are police literally everywhere. When I drive around my hometown on a normal day, there is virtually always a police car within eyeview virtually at all times. Conversely in Seattle, in my week there I don't recall seeing a single police car. Although Seattle is extremely rich, if you look on crime grade.org they actually have a fairly significant violent crime rate, presumably due to the lack of police. (I'm referring to the city of Seattle as I did not visit the suburbs).
For an older person, I definitely would recommend a suburb rather than the city of Seattle, particularly one that has a large police presence and also one that has relatively straightforward roads and moderate to light traffic. I did drive through Bellevue actually. I went early Saturday morning because on weekdays there is no way to get from Seattle to Bellevue that I could see, because of Seattle traffic being at a standstill.
As soon as I crossed into Bellevue, it was like entering a different world. Traffic was light, the homes were all on large wooded lots (and mostly homes from the 1970s and later), and everything felt quiet, calm, and immaculate. The problem with Bellevue is that apparently home costs are in the millions. This suggests to me that a normal person who is older would need to live in a suburb on the far, outer edge of Seattle in order to find light traffic, police protection, and affordable homes.
The Seattle PD has had trouble recruiting and retaining police, among other issues. The whole topic of Seattle police could quickly explode into its own mega-thread, so I'll leave it at that.
Funny you should mention suburbs. I was about to post some affordable suggestions. In any case, the OP will be renting, not buying, fortunately. Bellevue always was the high-end suburb for upper-crusters, compared to Seattle, which used to be (relatively) lower-income working-class, although Seattle always had neighborhoods for the well-to-do, as well, and still has properties of 1 acre or more. (That extra square footage is getting mighty expensive tax-wise, though!) So that explains what you were seeing in Bellevue. It's where people chose to locate, who wanted a "better quality of life", meaning more personal space, a more laid-back, almost rural feel, etc. Nowadays, though, even rather ordinary Seattle homes can cost over 1 mill, and there's no end in sight in terms of the price inflation. Luckily, the OP doesn't need to worry about that.
But since you mention the east side, there are rents in Kirkland and all around the area that are within the OP's means. The problem is, one can't assume those rents are stable. I probably posted this earlier, but I want to reiterate, that when looking for rentals, it's essential to find out how stable the rents are, and whether a building or complex is corporate-owned or is locally-owned. REIT-owned rentals will go up in rent by a minimum of $100/month each year. That puts a lot of the rentals in the OP's price range out of his range, speaking even from a short-to-medium term perspective. However, in a quick check of "Kirkland" rentals, I did find this, which seems to be below the market rate there, but that's because it doesn't seem to be in Kirkland proper, but in, or bordering, Bothell: https://seattle.craigslist.org/est/apa/7548836738.html
What I was going to suggest for the OP, if he's still with us, is to look in Edmonds, Mukilteo, and Everett. All have transit connections with Seattle (and there WILL be traffic, even--or especially--out in the suburbs going into and out of Seattle), but I think the OP might find he'll have less need to go into Seattle, if he finds a pleasant spot in the northern suburbs. The rents will be lower out there. There are walking trails through the woods, waterfront with beach parks on Puget Sound and ferry service to explore the west side of the Sound, good health care, and other basic amenities. Among all the big apartment complexes, one can find small, locally-owned buildings, even duplexes, at reasonable rates, or a ground-floor daylight apartment in a private home. I would encourage exploring the listings regularly, to see what gems might turn up.
I'm not sure why our rental searches were Seattle-centric earlier, given that the OP states he's quite open to being in the suburbs. I think for some reason we wanted to show, that Seattle proper was doable on his budget, but he might actually prefer a smaller-town feel, and slightly less urban environment.
I just checked Mukilteo, just to get an idea of rental rates out in that area. Good news; a 1-br. can be had for $1750 and up, a 2-br. for around $2200+. There's one building that borders on a nature trail. Seek and ye shall find, should be the OP's operative phrase.
That's an interesting take. As a resident, the suburbs are where I see so many traffic and car issues. Here in the city, I am easily able to get around by foot and on busses and don't have to interact with traffic at all.
But if you're here for a week as a tourist, I can see how your perspective would be totally opposite of that.
Living in Seattle's Central District we are almost entirely insulated from the traffic woes others are constantly complaining about.
I couldn't disagree more about living in the suburbs as you get older. It's far better to live within the city where all the goods & services you need are within a short distance, including healthcare, and can be easily reached without a car.
Living in Seattle's Central District we are almost entirely insulated from the traffic woes others are constantly complaining about.
I couldn't disagree more about living in the suburbs as you get older. It's far better to live within the city where all the goods & services you need are within a short distance, including healthcare, and can be easily reached without a car.
There aren't that many neighborhoods in Seattle, where all goods & services are within walking distance, or that have convenient bus service to amenities. Maple Leaf doesn't, which may seem counter-intuitive for some people. The Central District may be an exception, but it also would depend on what part of the CD one is in.
Capitol Hill, Queen Anne, Madison Valley, Leschi, Madrona, Mt. Baker, Beacon Hill, First Hill, Central District, Seattle Junction, Morgan Junction, Westwood/White Center, Columbia City/Hillman City, Ballard….
You’re right, not many with good busses and commercial districts.
Ruth, I disagree. We're in Squire Park but everywhere in the Central District at least, if not Seattle proper, has transit coverage ranging from adequate to excellent.
Maple Leaf. There is bus transit along the 3-4 north-south arterials and at least two east-west arterials, not to mention nearby Northgate Station for Link access. Yes you can live in Maple Leaf without requiring a car. We lived just north of Maple Leaf in Olympic Hills for nearly a decade from the latter 1990's to the mid-naughts, and even then we could have managed fine without one. At the time, neither myself nor my husband drove in to our workplaces (at the UW and in Redmond) or to run our errands. Our then not-quite-elderly next door neighbor in Olympic Hills didn't own a car nor had she ever had a drivers license, yet she raised a family in that house.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 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 2 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.
