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’ll give my review for the few years I’ve lived here as a male in my 20’s.
It was wonderful... as a tourist, and if your not old enough to retire I’d keep it as a tourist town if you want to keep liking it.
Florence has been one of the most difficult places for me to live due to high prices and little availability. You can find work alright; However, most jobs don’t give you enough hours. You cannot afford rent on your own, even if you work at the hospital or casino. On local classifieds people constantly ask for too much money for their stuff, even if I haggled to a price slightly higher than reasonable they’ll reject the offer.
I’ve been single for the past eight years and five of those years I’ve wanted to leave the single life, the main problem with that is 99.99% of the women my age already have a boyfriend or have moved out for better opportunities and more options (I can just as easily say the same thing about the men only more at a 95% based on my friendship crowd)
There isn’t much for someone my age to do out here, people say there’s public events, ya sure, maybe once every couple of months. People have also said there are volunteer programs, the only ones I’ve been able to find is the food share program, habitat for humanity, and the humane society, other than that there really isn’t much on volunteering.
The weather will definitely get to you sooner or later.
In my opinion, don’t move to Florence, OR unless you’re ready to retire
P.S. I’ve worked with a lot of retirees who were once retired but had to work again.
Well yeah, I think most people know that Florence is a retirement town. The age demographics say it all. The average age in Florence is 60, vs 39 for Oregon. So 50% of the population are senior citizens. That doesn't leave much for anybody in other age groups.
You should probably move over the mountains to Eugene ASAP. As for local classifieds, you should be buying that stuff on eBay.
I have spent some time (mid-2000's) on the Oregon Coast, and simply said it is perhaps among the most beautiful stretches of coastline in the lower 48. The area north of Florence, Heceta Beach and Heceta Head is terrific. The weather is about the same as areas north, mild in the winter, cool in the summer. Florence itself is not as scenic as say, Newport or Lincoln City, as the highway is a bit inland. However, still great beaches if you search them out.
On the negative side, Florence is a bit isolated. Almost 90 minutes on mostly 2-lane highway to the nearest larger city, Eugene, and that is without any major traffic which is becoming more rare. Eugene airport is OK, but generally more expensive to fly out of and you will need to have more connections than PDX.
Florence itself has limited retail. There is a Fred Meyer and a smallish Safeway, but I don't think those who live there really care about that.
I will ditto this isn't really a place for young people, or atleast most young people. More a vacation and retirement area.
Despite the natural beauty and beach qualities, I personally have no interest in living on the Oregon Coast due to possibility of the next big mega-thrust quake that is overdue. While the OR and WA coast could be devastated, of course nobody really knows if this will happen tomorrow or even in our lifetimes.
I personally have no interest in living on the Oregon Coast due to possibility of the next big mega-thrust quake that is overdue. While the OR and WA coast could be devastated, of course nobody really knows if this will happen tomorrow or even in our lifetimes.
I don't get why some posters keep saying this. If you are smart, you can live in one of the coastal areas, find a property that is say... 20 feet high in elevation minimum, perhaps more, and you should be safe from any tsunami danger. Or are you referring to older buildings perhaps collapsing? If so, the mega-thrust earthquake would effect Seattle and Portland areas similarly in that regard. So I don't get why posters single out "the coast" as a place to avoid in this type of event.
Yes the marinas and boats would likely be destroyed... but an individual home and one's self on a bit of elevation should escape.
I don't get why some posters keep saying this. If you are smart, you can live in one of the coastal areas, find a property that is say... 20 feet high in elevation minimum, perhaps more, and you should be safe from any tsunami danger. Or are you referring to older buildings perhaps collapsing? If so, the mega-thrust earthquake would effect Seattle and Portland areas similarly in that regard. So I don't get why posters single out "the coast" as a place to avoid in this type of event.
Yes the marinas and boats would likely be destroyed... but an individual home and one's self on a bit of elevation should escape.
There are some beachfront towns like Pacific City and Canon Beach that would likely be hammered or washed away But there are plenty of places on the coast with elevation. It is not like the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts where you have to go miles and miles inland to find any elevation and safety. The state produces detailed Tsumani hazard maps and much of the coastal population is outside the danger zones. The question is whether you want to be living on the coast after the big one when all the highways are cutoff and all the infrastructure is destroyed.
I don't get why some posters keep saying this. If you are smart, you can live in one of the coastal areas, find a property that is say... 20 feet high in elevation minimum, perhaps more, and you should be safe from any tsunami danger. Or are you referring to older buildings perhaps collapsing? If so, the mega-thrust earthquake would effect Seattle and Portland areas similarly in that regard. So I don't get why posters single out "the coast" as a place to avoid in this type of even.
Yes the marinas and boats would likely be destroyed... but an individual home and one's self on a bit of elevation should escape.
So you are saying what happened in Japan in 2011 couldn’t happen here? That was a 9 and this could be the same magnitude. But again this could be decades or a century away. It is all about how much risk you want to take.
There are some beachfront towns like Pacific City and Canon Beach that would likely be hammered or washed away But there are plenty of places on the coast with elevation. It is not like the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts where you have to go miles and miles inland to find any elevation and safety. The state produces detailed Tsumani hazard maps and much of the coastal population is outside the danger zones. The question is whether you want to be living on the coast after the big one when all the highways are cutoff and all the infrastructure is destroyed.
And won’t sheer magnitude of shocks be much more severe and destructive on the coast, i.e. closer to the epicenter? So, it’s not just about tsunami.
Yes it is. The tsunami would cause many more deaths and damage than the initial quake. I don’t have time to list references here but this is common knowledge.
Yes it is. The tsunami would cause many more deaths and damage than the initial quake. I don’t have time to list references here but this is common knowledge.
Yes, wood-frame construction of the sort used on the Oregon coast is very earthquake resistant. It is the un-reinforced masonry and adobe type construction used in much of the developing world that comes crumbling down and kills so many people in places like China, Mexico, Pakistan, etc. during big earthquakes.
When the big 9.2 Good Friday earthquake hit Anchorage in 1964 it was (and remains) the strongest earthquake ever to hit North America and the second strongest ever recorded in world history. Very few people died in Anchorage and mostly from landslides. Most wood frame houses survived fine. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Alaska_earthquake
The question is whether you want to be living on the coast after the big one when all the highways are cutoff and all the infrastructure is destroyed.
I think this is addressing the focus on why "the coast" seems to get more attention, doom/gloom forecasting about the mega thrust quake. The coastal communities would almost certainly be cut off and isolated from larger metros. Difficult accessing these towns to provide aid and assistance in such an event. But in the same sense the highways could all be destroyed in Portland and Seattle as well, so...not that different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwguy2
So you are saying what happened in Japan in 2011 couldn’t happen here? That was a 9 and this could be the same magnitude. But again this could be decades or a century away. It is all about how much risk you want to take.
I'm not saying that, I know a > 9.0 quake could hit the PNW at any time. I was just trying to scratch my head and figure out why people think the coast is so destined for destruction. Let me be clear....above the tsunami inundation zone is what I am referring to. Not areas at sea level. Not able to wrap my head around why elevated parts of the coast would be destroyed, yet Portland and Seattle....not far from the coast at all, would somehow escape. As if there were an imaginary line in-between the coast and the major metros shielding them from building collapse and other damage. Doesn't exist...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mossa
And won’t sheer magnitude of shocks be much more severe and destructive on the coast, i.e. closer to the epicenter? So, it’s not just about tsunami.
That's the thing though...I guess they are a *bit* closer to the epicenter, so in theory yes, but this doesn't even come close to guaranteeing safety in the major PNW metros. If you look at major quakes of the past...they can be felt hundreds and hundreds of miles away. Yes less shaking, but still there. So if a 9.0 hit off the coast of the PNW, Seattle and Portland would definitely have severe shaking with some chaos.
My entire point in bringing all this up is just trying to see why people say avoid coastal communities at all costs (assuming elevation)... when Portland and Seattle won't be spared...so what difference does it make. If you choose to live in the PNW ( or really anywhere in the Western U.S. for that matter) then you must accept some degree of risk it could possibly happen in our lifetime. I think texasdiver hit the nail on the head.... cutoff from additional resources and aid.
I think this is addressing the focus on why "the coast" seems to get more attention, doom/gloom forecasting about the mega thrust quake. The coastal communities would almost certainly be cut off and isolated from larger metros. Difficult accessing these towns to provide aid and assistance in such an event. But in the same sense the highways could all be destroyed in Portland and Seattle as well, so...not that different.
.
I don't know that it would be worse. But the coast is more isolated and dependent on the outside for pretty much everything. A couple of the highways to the valley get destroyed and 101 gets major damage in a few places, like some major bridges go out. And it could be years until real connections to the rest of the world get restored. There aren't alternative roads other than 101 and the few mountain roads that through to the valley. There are no railroads. There are no modern ports that can receive container ships. There are no airports that can take jets. How do you get stuff into the coast other than air-dropping essential emergency supplies?
By contrast, the larger cities in the valleys have endless alternative highways and are much more impervious to damage. If sections of I-5 get buckled up they can have machinery in and level it back off in a day or two. If a mile-long section of 101 slides into the sea it will take months of blasting to carve another highway back along those cliffs. Portland and Vancouver can take endless amounts of container shipments from elsewhere. There are railroads heading north, south, and east. And there is just a lot more foodstuffs grown and processed there locally.
Yes, Portland will be in a world of hurt if some of the bridges come down. But there are also newer bridges that are seismically retrofitted compared to many of the historic 1930s bridges along 101 that would be hugely time consuming to replace. So if 3 or 4 bridges in Portland get wiped out there will be epic traffic, but trucks will still get through on the remaining newer bridges.
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.
