What city is the best alternative to California? (schools, moving)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by ExeterMedia

Housing Comparison SF vs Seattle, April 2013 to April 2014 from Zillow:
San Francisco - +13.8% 1-year change, Price SQFT: $749, MSA: $392
Seattle - +7.5% 1-year change, Price SQFT: $317, MSA: $169

Do you enjoy being wrong about everything?

Did you read what I wrote that you quoted - and actually think about it? I acknowledged the difference in rate of change.

What you are not considering is the natures of the two cities' neighborhoods, the rate of construction underway in Seattle's urban core, and the new rental rates in that core area, which, as I linked, are already meeting and sometimes exceeding some of SF city rates. You should see Seattle's downtown skyline right now, it's being called "the city of cranes". Lots of big money investing here. They're not stupid.

Then realize Seattle's yet to be maximized outer city neighborhoods (which are far less dense than SF). With less density further away from the downtown area, when downtown is maximized (soon) the average rental and sales prices will climb at an alarming rate, just similar to SF.

This discussion we are having has been a fun topic in the boatyard as we work up here. Friend's father was in urban planning and sister is also still working for major cities on the east coast. I am getting quite an education on urban growth. But I realize that's not your interest. You are focused on ridicule.

Nevertheless I continue for those other readers who do find interest.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

I acknowledged the difference in rate of change.

Then you must also acknowledge that what you are claiming is not backed up by any reliable source of data. You presented the following statement as some sort of fact:

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

if you're thinking of Seattle to beat the cost of SF you better hurry.

... when the reality is, no data backs up that Seattle's COL is closing in on San Francisco's. In fact the data we do have shows that the COL between Seattle and SF probably got much wider from April of 2013 to April 2014.

Nothing you have posted is supported by any reliable source of data. Just idle geriatric speculation from someone who has never claimed residence in Seattle ever. You expect people on here to simply believe what you're claiming because ... well because you're Tulemutt?

Sorry, not enough to make such a claim, yet. But you're welcome to start a thread about "Tulemutt's Theories on why Seattle's COL may match SF".

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Nevertheless I continue for those other readers who do find interest.

No, let's be honest. The reason you continue is because you've gotten thrashed pretty badly because all the data says you're wrong, and now your ego won't let you come away from this thread without trying to reclaim some shred of dignity while you lament over ever making your original claim about Seattle and SF. Don't worry, no one really cares Tulemutt. You can step away from the computer and stop leaving your rich real estate investor/navy seal/boat captain/urban planning PhD "friend" hanging dry as he tries to fix his broken down boats.

[bigdumbgod]

You two are arguing two different things: Present data on what has happened so far vs. projections on what will happen. Kind of hard to find data on speculation (it's stuff that hasn't happened yet), so qualitative firsthand analysis will have to do in place of raw data, and be properly scrutinized for logic, reason, and accuracy. So the question is, has a reasonable argument been put forth that shows that Seattle may soon see an upward surge in COL as the urban core approaches maximization, such that rents and other costs begin to reach those of SF?

Then again, the original premise of this thread is kind of bizarre: Are we really comparing the whole state to any of a short list of cities? It's rather large with vastly different aspects, last I checked.

[nslander]

Wherever it is, it's not in the US.

[8to32characters]

Without a doubt, that distinction belongs to Perth, Western Australia.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

You two are arguing two different things: Present data on what has happened so far vs. projections on what will happen. Kind of hard to find data on speculation (it's stuff that hasn't happened yet), so qualitative firsthand analysis will have to do in place of raw data, and be properly scrutinized for logic, reason, and accuracy. So the question is, has a reasonable argument been put forth that shows that Seattle may soon see an upward surge in COL as the urban core approaches maximization, such that rents and other costs begin to reach those of SF?

Then again, the original premise of this thread is kind of bizarre: Are we really comparing the whole state to any of a short list of cities? It's rather large with vastly different aspects, last I checked.

Exactly. And you beat me to the topic of what I was going to offer as my final contribution to the discussion.

Here's the thing, data and statistics are critical tools for all kinds of analysis - despite how they can be manipulated. But when using them to project future trends they are just one part of any productive process. It is completely worthless to use trending data without evaluating resources and sustainability issues. If this were not true then people would have been wise to continue buying real estate right up to the bubble bursting seven years ago. Heck, the prices were going up steadily for years! This is the new reality! It will just keep going up!

Except, it didn't did it? The market was ill supported and unsustainable.

What I have offered in commentary here is advice that SF has less headroom left than Seattle but because of certain realities in Seattle, future growth there will also challenge sustainability - soon. Now Exeter wants past data proof of the future - which is impossible. What is available is expert analysis of the opportunities and limitations of that market. I'll provide some reading for anyone interested:

First, in the link below you will find all the supporting data and summary of resources and sustainability you need to grasp the Seattle situation as I have been offering it:
The Evolving Urban Area: Seattle | Newgeography.com

Some additional indicator commentary with links - including acknowledgement that Seattle is not apace with SF. However, understanding the data and analysis above, one can appreciate that SF's rate of growth is not sustainable - while Seattle's is just now kicking into high gear. Hence my original comment: if you think Seattle is a place to escape the COL of SF - you'd better hurry. Now read on:

Red hot rentals: Seattle’s South Lake Union now more expensive than some San Francisco neighborhoods

by John Cook on 1/27/2014 at 4:44 pm | 7 Comments

inSha

A comparison between rental prices in San Francisco and Seattle

Rental rates are creeping up in Seattle’s South Lake Union neighborhood, surpassing prices in even some of the hottest neighborhoods in San Francisco.

According to an analysis by online real estate company Trulia, the median rental price per bedroom in South Lake Union comes in at a whopping $2,248. That makes it the most expensive area in Seattle’s downtown core. And, as the map above shows, it even tops some of the hot spots in San Francisco like Noe Valley and the Mission.

According to Trulia, rents jumped by 8.9 percent during the month of December in Seattle when compared to the same month last year. That’s higher than the national average of three percent, but not quite on pace with San Francisco’s torrid 10.6 percent price jump.

Meanwhile, across the board, a 2-bedroom apartment in Seattle is about half as much as San Francisco.

Red hot rentals: Seattle's South Lake Union now more expensive than some San Francisco neighborhoods - GeekWire

“Downtown Seattle’s residential development is off the charts right now. We have more units under construction than any other metro area outside of Houston, Texas and our employment numbers are stronger than they’ve been in years,” stated Joncas.

A prime mover of the activity is Amazon.com, which, along with Paul Allen’s Vulcan Real Estate, has created a trend-setting urban headquarters campus in South Lake Union and is set to build the first of three skyscrapers in the Denny Triangle. But corporate and developer interest goes deeper. For example, R.C. Hedreen is preparing a massive two-tower project on the site of the Greyhound bus station. The downturn-delayed Fifth and Columbia Tower is on again; it would be the tallest building erected here in 20 years. One wonders if the city is adequately protecting the views of the iconic Space Needle.

The Seattle metro area is witnessing a historic boom in apartment construction: More than 7,000 units opened last year in King and Snohomish counties, including many in downtown Seattle. At least 10,000 more will open this year, and perhaps 14,000 next year.


Across the street at the high-rise apartment tower Aspira, a one-bedroom unit starts at just under $2,000 — more than twice what many residents pay at the three-story Williamsburg Court.

Rents on new leases

In the first quarter, the average rent on new leases in King and Snohomish counties rose 6.8 percent from a year earlier — more than five times the general inflation rate — to $1,233 a unit, according to Seattle-based Apartment Insights Washington.

A one-bedroom in downtown Seattle? About $1,800 a month, on average, according to Dupre+Scott Apartment Advisors.

More than 80 percent of properties in Seattle and King County plan to raise rents in the next six months

Rising rents, rising towers push out tenants of modest means | Business & Technology | The Seattle Times

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

If politics controls your day to day outlook on life you're missing some really great stuff, slick. Same for obsessing on the state's revenue stats. Amazing how California remains number 1 national economy in spite of all that you fear, ain't it?

It's a little more subtle than that, and I think you know it. What CA has done in recent decades is akin to putting a frog in a pot of water and then slowly turning up the heat. Eventually, more and more frogs are forced to jump out to survive.

It's not hard to be the #1 economy in the U.S. when you're the most populous state. It's a dumb statistic and you know it.

[mysticaltyger]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

You two are arguing two different things: Present data on what has happened so far vs. projections on what will happen. Kind of hard to find data on speculation (it's stuff that hasn't happened yet), so qualitative firsthand analysis will have to do in place of raw data, and be properly scrutinized for logic, reason, and accuracy. So the question is, has a reasonable argument been put forth that shows that Seattle may soon see an upward surge in COL as the urban core approaches maximization, such that rents and other costs begin to reach those of SF?

This is what I was thinking, and you and I don't agree all that often .

Seattle's cost of living may be going up quickly. But then again, so is San Francisco's. No one knows the future, but since the COL in both cities is going up quickly, I'd guess Seattle will not close the gap with SF.

Just my opinion.

[i_love_autumn]

bigdumbgod~

Then again, the original premise of this thread is kind of bizarre: Are we really comparing the whole state to any of a short list of cities? It's rather large with vastly different aspects, last I checked.

LOL!

[i_love_autumn]

Originally Posted by nslander

Wherever it is, it's not in the US.

EXCELLENT point since ALL of the US pretty much SUCKS anymore... including the Golden State!
Economically,and especially politically! New Zealand for me,though the Scandanavian countries are the happiest in the world.