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 voted Portland as it's basically a smaller and poorer Seattle with a very similar mindset and climate. I've lived in both cities and I believe that Portland has a more committed liberal mentality (Portlandia anyone?) while Seattle has a similar mindset but not if it gets in the way of the economy.
I voted Portland as it's basically a smaller and poorer Seattle with a very similar mindset and climate. I've lived in both cities and I believe that Portland has a more committed liberal mentality (Portlandia anyone?) while Seattle has a similar mindset but not if it gets in the way of the economy.
This pretty much answers the question perfectly. However, Seattle is much more poly-centric than the Portland metro area. By this I mean to say that the Seattle metro area has an urban core, and several other smaller dense urban districts throughout the region that are gaining in density and population. This is dissimilar from Portland which for the most part has one main urban district.
Vancouver- How it is like Seattle: Probably the most visually similar. Pac NW city set on a harbor. How it is different: Canadian, smaller MSA, but more developed residential core, more international/Asian, less developed economy.
Portland- How it is like Seattle: US Pac NW city, probably the most culturally similar. Somewhat similar DT street life feel. How it is different: feels like a smaller market, less of a "big city feel", no big harbor.
San Francisco- How it is like Seattle: Sometimes Seattle is viewed as an "emerging" SF-type city: a liberal, west coast tech hub, noted for its natural beauty. How it is different: SF is bigger, denser, pricier, more urban/international. SF has more of a Cali-Med feel.
Denver- How it is like Seattle: clean, up and coming liberal tech hub. Big outdoors culture. Lots of investment in new urbanism and transit. Also fast growing.
How it is different: feels a little "blander", not as urban.
Minneapolis- How it is like Seattle: the most comparable regional MSA and economy by size. Bigger than Den/Port/Van but smaller than Bos/SF. Similar to Denver with it's clean, liberal, new economy feel. How it is different: not a fast growing, lacks the western "booming" region feel. Minnesota is beautiful, but lacks the scenic nature cache of the west coast/Rockies.
Boston- How it is like Seattle: both are similar in the ways they are both compared to SF: liberal, well educated tech hub, somewhat pricy. Has a similar tier cultural cache: interesting cities with compact "big city" downtowns. Portland is quirky "big college town" and Den/MSP are great places to live, but not really "destination cities". How it is not like Seattle: They aren't that similar outside of the fact that they can both be compared to SF. Overall, Boston is more established and larger. Boston is a slightly smaller east coast peer of SF, while Seattle generally considered to be a full tier below SF, but a tier above Portland/Denver.
IMO, all have elements but hard to pick one. Make a Seattle salad, combine: 1) the culture of Portland 2) the MSA/economy size of Minneapolis 3) the growth rates of Denver and 4) the natural setting of Vancouver.
Last edited by jpdivola; 04-14-2015 at 09:55 AM..
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.
