U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 12-18-2008, 11:56 PM
 
108 posts, read 286,347 times
Reputation: 31

Advertisements

How to handle that if you are? Don't want to lie to everyone you meet... bad way to start friendships.
Also, what are the economics like for jobs in Olympia? High tech? Web design?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2008, 12:02 AM
 
108 posts, read 286,347 times
Reputation: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by scirocco22 View Post
Seattle proper is not "run down" like one might observe LA as being. It's what I'd consider a vibrant city.

It's the only city of that size that doesn't have a rail system in place. Sure, one's being built now but decades too late. Because of this, you can imagine the traffic congestion. The freeway system was built without any foresight ...like the SR520 bridge, gimme-a-break! c'mon, what were they thinking??! Residents voted down freeway expansion in the 60s, voted down rail in the 80s --now the area is showing that lack of foresight.

Because of the hourglass shape of the city proper, I-5 going through the city is generally gridlocked the majority of the time now. I believe the suburbs are just as congested as the ones in LA. Again, to me, the Seattle area traffic is a nightmare that I don't wish going back to. Unlike the suburbs of LA or Las Vegas, the streets aren't wide to handle traffic. I'm amazed at the size of the streets in the burbs of Las Vegas or the Henderson area! Seattle's suburbs have nothing like that and can't handle the same volume of traffic.

So, if you want less traffic, get out of the greater Seattle/Tacoma/Everett area ...you'll just be back to the same kind of congestion you're used to in the LA burbs. Olympia might be nice (or nicer), then.

--'rocco
Invaluable info on traffic, helps so much to get the local perspective - thanks!!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2008, 04:09 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
263 posts, read 912,352 times
Reputation: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShadowXOR View Post
I just found out he actually moved to Lynnwood, does anyone have any info on that place? I think he wants me to move there. I can't find much info on it. Thanks.

man, last year at least in december it snowed in the seattle area. i lived in bellevue. i drove to lynnwood and they had way more snow than bellevue. i don't know if that is always the case, but it was last december. current temps: Renton is -4 and Lynnwood is -6, so there may be some truth to my observation last year.


seriously, i think you should move to renton. find a place you think is good (your definition), then come back here and see what everyone else thinks of it.

renton will be in the middle of both seattle and bellevue job markets. people in WA will tell you traffic sucks and they would be right. however, the time may be long, but the distance is nothing like us in the south west have done. so 10-12 miles from renton to both seattle and bellevue is short by LA standards, but the traffic is pretty darn slow. hey, no sun and usually beautiful views will keep you entertained, though.


I used to have to drive over the 520 from east to west and it was the worst traffic i've ever been in...you won't even believe that you could be sitting still for so long. I don't know if this holds true for traffic going west to east (lynnwood to bellevue, say), but it's something to ask your friend about.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2009, 03:09 AM
 
4 posts, read 12,511 times
Reputation: 11
you should maybe try something like Lynnwood Or Edmonds it's not too expensive well depends where some Edmonds houses cost a lot. But be careful where you live because some places in Lynnwood are bad places so i suggest Edmonds
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2009, 11:21 AM
 
3,453 posts, read 2,676,561 times
Reputation: 8927
Seattle, Bellevue, and Tacoma form a triangle of north south and east locations along the I-5 corridor, they have been, and will be, the major employment areas. Each of these cities have a cluster of smaller towns surrounding them, Kent, Auburn, Redmond, Dupont, Yelm, Burien, Renton, look on google earth to determine the population density of these towns. The last 15 years have brought huge changes in our traffic, housing, schools, and crime stats. The problem in Washington has been the lack of any comprehensive planning in regard to the additional tens of thousands of new citizens coming to the state, we just don't have an unlimited geographical expanse of land to accomodate the sprawl. Mountains to the east, water to the west, a narrow strip of land running the length of the state, north to south, that is western Washington. Eastern Washington is another type of geography entirely, it's a dry, hot, mostly agricultural area, low population numbers when compared to the west side of the Cascade Mountains. People are coming here to escape the large populations and heat of Cali, Nevada, Arizona, and points east of the Rockies. We have a Marine climate on the west side of the state that gives us plenty of rain, this has been a sticking point for a lot of transplants, not only does it rain, but along with that climate is the fact of cloudy cool days even when it doesn't rain. This has been a shock to those who assumed that on days of no rain they could expect sun and warmer temps, the persistent cloudy damp weather is hard to get used to. As far as employment is concerned the economy here isn't that much different than the nation as a whole. Boeing, Paccar, Weyerhauser, Microsoft, and all that supports these giants is the main source of work here, unfortunately these companies are laying off and don't look as though they will be hiring back any time soon. That said, we still have a somewhat viable, livable economy at present. Housing is coming in line with the new reality of diminished realty markets, there are good oppertunities for new home rentals now that developers can't sell the houses they built in the last year or so. We have no convenient transit system for the outlying areas, I'm speaking of towns 70 miles or so from the big employment centers, this puts a burden on home buyers that want the best living for the least money. Towns like Chehalis, Centralia, and Olympia, to the south, and those further north in Skagit county could become the bedroom communities to the big three cities on Puget Sound should we ever stretch out the transit systems to accomodate those areas. some folks are already commuting from these smaller burgs but the high cost of fuel has dampened their hopes of continuing the rural living-city working, arrangement. Jim Kunstler's book, The Long Emergency, is a great study of our choice to live like we do, unfortunately the conditions in California are not that different from the population sprawl we've seen all over the US, the same problems are surfacing everywhere, even in those areas of our country that thought they were immune to the spread of housing developments and strip malls have found that these types of city and county "planning" are the norm. Of course they won't be able to continue this type of construct in the future due to the impending oil crisis that will inevitably affect us all. You might want to factor in the scenario of limited and costly fuel in the future, rural living might get a bonus for cheaper housing, but eventually the cost of commuting will far outstrip the cost differential. Those who can get to work with the least amount of hassle will be in an enviable position over those living 40 or 50 miles from the job. For the younger crowd, to get a leg up on the future will require a lot of research in regard to changing paradigms, it could be the near end to suburbia and the car oriented way of life, I would not want to be confronted with the neccessary changes that will be required of those who will be in the workforce for the next twenty to thirty years and trying to commute long distances at 7 or 8 dollars a gallon for gas. All in all, you'll have to come to Washington, spend a week or so in the fall or winter and contemplate the future in an area that has sent many packing in search of a better climate. It's not all bad, but truthfully, we have seen our state become over populated and polluted beyond what we thought was possible thirty years ago. There is no easy answer as to where we could live and not be pressured to endure the burdens of over population, it could be that we have moved beyond that possibility.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2013 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top