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.
I've been meandering between San Francisco and Seattle. One day, I feel like SF is a better place to live, another, Seattle. Anyways, I'm fairly certain Seattle is a better fit for me, but everyone I know pushes me towards San Francisco. It also seems like everybody online prefers SF as well. They are my two top cities in the US, and I would love to live in either one. Just a note-I've only actually been to Seattle, hoping to get out to SF soon. Oh, and all of my view of SF are based on stuff I've read, not experienced in person, so I'm pretty naïve there. Because of this, I was wondering if I could see the argument from SF based on what I've heard:
1) Climate-I enjoy a grey and misty climate, it makes everything feel clean and relaxing. However, I can't complain about the endless sunshine people seem to get in SF. I'd also like some variety between seasons, which Seattle seems to have more, but much more subtle than the North East.
2)Nature-A lush green setting is really important to me, which Seattle easily fulfills, but San Francisco's more dramatic setting by the Pacific is also great. I've heard people describe SF's setting as "ugly brown hills," which is pretty different then what I was looking for. I know SF has some spectacular Redwood Forests, but they're fairly secluded, where you don't need to make an effort to find nature in Seattle. Overall, I've heard Seattle has a more lush setting, but SF has a more dramatic one. Also, I'm a sucker for palm trees. Does SF have easy access to nature, and have substantial natural beauty aside from it's coast?
3)Cleanliness-Seattle was so clean it was almost sterile, SF I know has a reputation for being filthy. The reason this is important to me is that the shape a city is in reflects a lot about the people there (not talking about everyone; I've heard SF's problems come from a few small groups). I've heard it's not uncommon for people to urinate down the escalators to the BART, and stuff like that.
4)Rapid Transit-Right now SF's system is much more extensive and useful, but Seattle is rapidly building a streetcar/subway/light rail system, that when completed, will easily rival SF's, and will be more modern and cleaner. That being said, when Seattle will have it's system completed, SF could easily have extended their's quite a bit.
5)Government-I've heard a lot about how California's government lays out high taxes, and gives nothing in return, and generally how inefficient and cash-strapped they are. SF seems to have a very nice city gov. On the flip side, Washington's gov. seems to be in much better shapes than CA's, and has no income tax. Seattle has been known for an inefficient city gov.
6)Cost of Living-I could live in SF, but I could have a much better lifestyle in Seattle. Not sure if it's worth it in SF.
7)Things that lean me towards SF: San Francisco is larger than Seattle, meaning it seems like there's a lot more to do. San Francisco also seems a lot more cultured, though both have their own unique vibe. An old friend of mine, who had spent her life in Seattle said "I love Seattle, but I hate how it's been heading downhill so much recently. I hate how it's changed." A lot of people talk about Seattle heading upward, but I'll take a native's word above all of that.
Overall, both are fantastic cities, my two favorite in the US, and I'd love to live in either one.
The weather in SF is mild and remains basically the same throughout the yr. However, it almost always seems to have some cloud cover. However, if you include the Bay Area as a whole, yes the sunshine is plenty and weather imo the best in the country. You dont see palm trees in SF or East Bay proper.
SF is also much more diverse and you can feel straight away it's just in a different league altogether compared to Seattle. SF is among the most unique cities in the world. I was in Seattle in Jan (been many times), it's nice enough but I think it's overrated.
Lol at this thread. The opposite needs to be happening, someone needs to convince me why Seattle is better than SF. Where to start with Seattle? Such a cute little pacific northwestern town with a small/average downtown. There is not much going on there and the city is not on a world class level. Seattle's attempt at technology was not even successful IMO with that crappy Microsoft. Now, on to SF they are world class to the max and they beat Seattle on everything from skyline to food and technology with Apple. Seattle is more on the level of Minneapolis.
Last edited by Ice Cream Man; 03-24-2013 at 09:54 AM..
Of the 2, I've been to San Francisco. I think it is the most impressive city on the west coast.
I'm sure Seattle is nice too. But given that it's considerably smaller, less cosmopolitan and more isolated than San Francisco, I wouldn't expect it to be better. Still, I might be pleasantly surprised when I visit though.
Of the 2, I've been to San Francisco. I think it is the most impressive city on the west coast.
I'm sure Seattle is nice too. But given that it's considerably smaller, less cosmopolitan and more isolated than San Francisco, I wouldn't expect it to be better. Still, I might be pleasantly surprised when I visit though.
Why do you say that Seattle is more isolated? You've got both Portland and Vancouver 2 hours away, plus Victoria a bit farther out but still probably doable as a day trip (or certainly an easy weekend jaunt). The Bay Area doesn't really have any interesting (major) cities within a day trip distance.
1) Climate-I enjoy a grey and misty climate, it makes everything feel clean and relaxing. However, I can't complain about the endless sunshine people seem to get in SF. I'd also like some variety between seasons, which Seattle seems to have more, but much more subtle than the North East.
You've never lived in San Francisco then. It's called Fog City for a reason. Seattle does have more variety in seasons. I'm pretty sure 9 people out of 10 will agree that San Francisco has better weather, however.
Quote:
2)Nature-A lush green setting is really important to me, which Seattle easily fulfills, but San Francisco's more dramatic setting by the Pacific is also great. I've heard people describe SF's setting as "ugly brown hills," which is pretty different then what I was looking for. I know SF has some spectacular Redwood Forests, but they're fairly secluded, where you don't need to make an effort to find nature in Seattle. Overall, I've heard Seattle has a more lush setting, but SF has a more dramatic one. Also, I'm a sucker for palm trees. Does SF have easy access to nature, and have substantial natural beauty aside from it's coast?
Also time to get into unspoiled nature is less in Seattle. Although, really, we're talking about two of the most naturally beautiful parts of the country. I prefer Seattle's lushness and less developed surroundings.
Quote:
3)Cleanliness-Seattle was so clean it was almost sterile, SF I know has a reputation for being filthy. The reason this is important to me is that the shape a city is in reflects a lot about the people there (not talking about everyone; I've heard SF's problems come from a few small groups). I've heard it's not uncommon for people to urinate down the escalators to the BART, and stuff like that.
And worse. The routinely get clogged up by human feces and have to be taken apart and cleaned. Great job. The good news is if you get caught three times doing that the transit cops can now kick you out. Three!
Now, if you're in Belltown/Pioneer Square, it's pretty much like San Francisco. Watch out of mysterious puddles, get used to the occasional pungent draft of urine especially on warm days, ignore the bums. At least they're restricted for the most part to those neighborhoods unlike San Francisco where they're in half the city.
Quote:
4)Rapid Transit-Right now SF's system is much more extensive and useful, but Seattle is rapidly building a streetcar/subway/light rail system, that when completed, will easily rival SF's, and will be more modern and cleaner. That being said, when Seattle will have it's system completed, SF could easily have extended their's quite a bit.
Completely wrong on that. San Francisco starts from a huge head start and Seattle's current 1.3 mile network which is currently undergoing construction to add another 2.5 is at least 40 years behind San Francisco, even if San Francisco does nothing which isn't the case. They just added T Third line which is 5.1 miles. So not only is San Francisco starting from a massive head start, they're also adding rail faster. BART is similarly of much larger scope than LINK.
Quote:
5)Government-I've heard a lot about how California's government lays out high taxes, and gives nothing in return, and generally how inefficient and cash-strapped they are. SF seems to have a very nice city gov. On the flip side, Washington's gov. seems to be in much better shapes than CA's, and has no income tax. Seattle has been known for an inefficient city gov.
Both are poorly run. I'd give Seattle the win though in that it does a better job and with less resources than San Francisco.
Quote:
6)Cost of Living-I could live in SF, but I could have a much better lifestyle in Seattle. Not sure if it's worth it in SF.
Big one there.
Quote:
7)Things that lean me towards SF: San Francisco is larger than Seattle, meaning it seems like there's a lot more to do. San Francisco also seems a lot more cultured, though both have their own unique vibe. An old friend of mine, who had spent her life in Seattle said "I love Seattle, but I hate how it's been heading downhill so much recently. I hate how it's changed." A lot of people talk about Seattle heading upward, but I'll take a native's word above all of that.
I wouldn't. You get the same thing in San Francisco among "natives". The cities both are changing, and part of that change is driving out the old to make room for the new. San Francisco has already largely gone through that where as Seattle had a lot of that occur in the '80s and '90s as tech and tech money drove out blue collar people who used to work in resource extraction (lumber, mining, fishing, boat repair, etc). Look at South Lake Union. Is it better now that it's Amazon & Biotech and condos, or was it better before when it was mini-warehouses and dilapidated four squares? I don't really like new South Lake Union, but that's personal preference. San Francisco is the same. Is South Beach better now that it's condos and loft conversions, or was it better when those warehouses actually were working warehouses?
Why do you say that Seattle is more isolated? You've got both Portland and Vancouver 2 hours away, plus Victoria a bit farther out but still probably doable as a day trip (or certainly an easy weekend jaunt). The Bay Area doesn't really have any interesting (major) cities within a day trip distance.
What a strange post and limitations...
First off the Bay Area population is as large as the entire Seattle, Portland and Vancouver metros combined and I'd argue more interesting and iconic than all 3 of them combined. If you want to include places like Victoria there is Sacramento, Santa Cruz, Tahoe...
Second, ahem... Los Angeles the 2nd biggest city in the country is 5 hours to the south and has 17 million people in the metro and people live and go back between them more than Pac NW. The LA/SF flight is the 2nd largest air traffic route in the U.S.
Third SF and LA are two of the top 5 major international cities in the United States. Nothing in the Pac NW is on either cities caliber.
Fourth, California is FAR more in tune to the rest of the country and world than anywhere in the Pac NW.
Hence, Pac NW would, for most people feel more isolated.
SF is pretty much a global city, while Seattle isn't quite at that level. SF is "major", while Seattle is "big". SF has better weather, for those fair-weather fans. SF has more/better sports teams, for bandwagon sports "fans".
Lol at this thread. The opposite needs to be happening, someone needs to convince me why Seattle is better than SF. Where to start with Seattle? Such a cute little pacific northwestern town with a small/average downtown. There is not much going on there and the city is not on a world class level. Seattle's attempt at technology was not even successful IMO with that crappy Microsoft. Now, on to SF they are world class to the max and they beat Seattle on everything from skyline to food and technology with Apple. Seattle is more on the level of Minneapolis.
That's not exactly a put-down.
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.
What a strange post and limitations...
