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.
First off, I agree weather is subjective and it's more "ideal" for me as well, as I stated. But most people in life generally don't seem to feel that way based on my travels and mixing with people and hearing their thoughts on "ideal" weather. Of course everyone's going to have their own opinion, as with everything in life.
I'm not suggesting there is a ton of rain in Portland, but it rains most of the days in the year. As opposed to CA, where your talking a total of a few weeks when adding up all the days in most areas where people reside. It doesn't take a genius to observe that there are A LOT less people out and about doing "outdoor" activities when it's raining. I'm not talking about going to the grocery store or movies or daily activities. But look at a football field or go to the mountains and there are clearly a lot less people out there engaging in those outdoor activities (hiking, football, soccer, etc.), because most people (even in Portland), don't want to do those things in the rain. Just because some do it (and some may even prefer it) doesn't exclude my comments from having merit.
Besides, who says people can't recommend or speak well of California in the Portland forum. Did I miss something and City Data made you the boss around here?
You are aware that you're supposed to stick to the subject matter of the thread, aren't you? Call me dumb, but I fail to see what the California weather has to do with with the financial considerations of the OP and whether a commensurate salary in Portland versus California is workable ... which is the subject of this thread. And no, I'm not the boss. Just someone making an observation.
I must commend you, however, on how well traveled you. Last time I looked, there were like 314 million people spread throughout the country. That you've taken the time to speak with the majority of them, and inquire as to what they think ideal weather is for living in, just to report back to us your findings, is really commendable.
You are aware that you're supposed to stick to the subject matter of the thread, aren't you? Call me dumb, but I fail to see what the California weather has to do with with the financial considerations of the OP and whether a commensurate salary in Portland versus California is workable ... which is the subject of this thread. And no, I'm not the boss. Just someone making an observation.
I must commend you, however, on how well traveled you. Last time I looked, there were like 314 million people spread throughout the country. That you've taken the time to speak with the majority of them, and inquire as to what they think ideal weather is for living in, just to report back to us your findings, is really commendable.
Sure...and you can state that the person I was responding to wasn't "stick(ing) to the subject matter of the thread", or for that matter neither are YOU with your "observations". But in your own arrogance, you think only other people commit transgressions. I actually responded with a reasonably lengthy post on topic. Unlike YOU, where the ONLY posts you've "contributed" to this thread are to express your disapproval of others and their point of view. But we both know that's par for the course where you're concerned.
Most comments on this or any other forum will not be fact based, but based on our observations in life. I will say this much. Of the dozens, if not hundreds, of Portlanders who have commented on my being from CA during my time here, no one's EVER said to me things like "How can you stand the heat down there?" or anything to that effect. They've almost entirely responded to the effect of "I bet you miss the weather." or "Oh, the weather is really nice down there." But God forbid I make an inference based on my own observations that touch so delicately upon your sensibilities. How DARE I?
San Jose, San Diego and Sacramento all have populations comparable, or maybe even larger, than Seattle. And living in SF Bay Area or LA, it is so much larger than Portland that it's apples and oranges and there is less to get away for. Also, LA is only few hours from Las Vegas, one of the most visited cities in the world, and completely unique, if you're into that sort of thing, which obviously tons of adults are.
They may have comparable populations because of sprawl but they're definitely not someplace I was excited to visit when I lived in CA (with the exception of San Diego to a degree). Saying Sacramento and Seattle are comparable in any way is, well....numbers aren't everything. There IS something fun about having Seattle and Vancouver CA nearby. Living in San Francisco Las Vegas was inaccessible, as was San Diego. So you were left with San Jose, which was pretty much an armpit until the dot com stuff hit in the 90s, and Sacramento, which is like visiting Salem. And then LA was 400 miles away. So coming from SF I really appreciate Seattle and Vancouver being close. Plus they're gorgeous cities and I enjoy visiting them.
They may have comparable populations because of sprawl but they're definitely not someplace I was excited to visit when I lived in CA (with the exception of San Diego to a degree). Saying Sacramento and Seattle are comparable in any way is, well....numbers aren't everything. There IS something fun about having Seattle and Vancouver CA nearby. Living in San Francisco Las Vegas was inaccessible, as was San Diego. So you were left with San Jose, which was pretty much an armpit until the dot com stuff hit in the 90s, and Sacramento, which is like visiting Salem. And then LA was 400 miles away. So coming from SF I really appreciate Seattle and Vancouver being close. Plus they're gorgeous cities and I enjoy visiting them.
I would agree that Seattle is more attractive of a destination in most people's minds than Sacramento or San Jose. But I certainly wouldn't come close to saying that Sacramento is anything like Salem. Come on! You're way out there on that. In fact, many of the amenities available in Portland are available in Sacramento and Sacramento has plenty of charming and hip neighborhoods. And good looking women are VERY prevalent, much more so than Portland or Seattle IMO, or for that matter much of the SF Bay Area. And Vancouver is not exactly what most people would describe as being really all that close to Portland. From a driving time distance, it's probably not that much longer to go from most parts of the SF Bay Area to LA.
I would agree that Seattle is more attractive of a destination in most people's minds than Sacramento or San Jose. But I certainly wouldn't come close to saying that Sacramento is anything like Salem. Come on! You're way out there on that. In fact, many of the amenities available in Portland are available in Sacramento and Sacramento has plenty of charming and hip neighborhoods. And good looking women are VERY prevalent, much more so than Portland or Seattle IMO, or for that matter much of the SF Bay Area. And Vancouver is not exactly what most people would describe as being really all that close to Portland. From a driving time distance, it's probably not that much longer to go from most parts of the SF Bay Area to LA.
I disagree about Sacramento. It may not be as bad as Salem but it's not a destination. And amenities don't make it a nice place to visit. It's the over all experience. Plus it's so freaking hot in the summer it's miserable there.
Yes, Vancouver is almost about as far time wise as SF to LA, but my point is that in less than the time it takes to drive to LA you can get to two major cities from Portland--Seattle and Vancouver.
I grew up in SF. Went to Sacramento maybe 10 times. OK place, but not some place you "get away" to.
LA has lots to see/do but again, it's not a day trip, where as Seattle is. That's my main point--I do a day trip to Seattle every few months. It's a nice get away and I very much enjoy the option to visit another large city on a whim rather than having to make plans, get a hotel, etc.
I would agree with most of that. I guess my main point is that Portland isn't the SF Bay Area. If you're living in SF, you're already in a world class city, though I've personally never been much of a fan, even having lived there. Or if you're anywhere in the Bay Area, you have SF to go to within an hour, or a much longer drive to LA. If you're in Portland, it's not exactly anything like SF, so the need to get to a Seattle is something that doesn't even exist in the first place if you are in the SF Bay Area or LA. More than anything, and I'm sure you're aware of this, most of those residents are looking for a more quite retreat, like Napa, North Bay, mountains, Santa Cruz, Monterey, Palm Springs, Catalina, etc. They're not looking to go to another big city or buzzing environment because they already live there.
Sure...and you can state that the person I was responding to wasn't "stick(ing) to the subject matter of the thread", or for that matter neither are YOU with your "observations". But in your own arrogance, you think only other people commit transgressions. I actually responded with a reasonably lengthy post on topic. Unlike YOU, where the ONLY posts you've "contributed" to this thread are to express your disapproval of others and their point of view. But we both know that's par for the course where you're concerned.
Most comments on this or any other forum will not be fact based, but based on our observations in life. I will say this much. Of the dozens, if not hundreds, of Portlanders who have commented on my being from CA during my time here, no one's EVER said to me things like "How can you stand the heat down there?" or anything to that effect. They've almost entirely responded to the effect of "I bet you miss the weather." or "Oh, the weather is really nice down there." But God forbid I make an inference based on my own observations that touch so delicately upon your sensibilities. How DARE I?
Gosh, it's nice to hear that the people you meet respond with platitudes like that. Hundreds of Oregonians have commented on your being from California? What ... do you wear a sign or something? But nothing has "touched so delicately upon my sensibilities". Just can't see why anyone would even imply that they, or anyone, could encounter enough people to speak to what everyone thinks with even a modicum of authority. How silly that would be.
I would agree with most of that. I guess my main point is that Portland isn't the SF Bay Area. If you're living in SF, you're already in a world class city, though I've personally never been much of a fan, even having lived there. Or if you're anywhere in the Bay Area, you have SF to go to within an hour, or a much longer drive to LA. If you're in Portland, it's not exactly anything like SF, so the need to get to a Seattle is something that doesn't even exist in the first place if you are in the SF Bay Area or LA. More than anything, and I'm sure you're aware of this, most of those residents are looking for a more quite retreat, like Napa, North Bay, mountains, Santa Cruz, Monterey, Palm Springs, Catalina, etc. They're not looking to go to another big city or buzzing environment because they already live there.
I always wanted to get out and go somewhere new when living in SF. That was one of the things I disliked about living there--that it was so difficult to get a way for a bit and visit somewhere new. But that's just me--it doesn't matter if I lived there, here or anywhere else, it's just about going somewhere new for a day or so. I like mini trips. San Fran is world class and I lived there most of my life, but I still wanted to get away for a day here and there. San Francisco always felt small to me, but I guess when you live somewhere long enough anywhere starts to feel that way. I think you're focused on Portland being smaller than San Francisco so people would go to Seattle or Vancouver to do something they can't do in Portland but I usually end up doing the same stuff, just different locations. I like the option.
I always wanted to get out and go somewhere new when living in SF. That was one of the things I disliked about living there--that it was so difficult to get a way for a bit and visit somewhere new. But that's just me--it doesn't matter if I lived there, here or anywhere else, it's just about going somewhere new for a day or so. I like mini trips. San Fran is world class and I lived there most of my life, but I still wanted to get away for a day here and there. San Francisco always felt small to me, but I guess when you live somewhere long enough anywhere starts to feel that way. I think you're focused on Portland being smaller than San Francisco so people would go to Seattle or Vancouver to do something they can't do in Portland but I usually end up doing the same stuff, just different locations. I like the option.
I just had to comment because I found this really interesting. I guess living in LA, there's a lot of destinations within a few hours. Versus being up in SF, you're kinda already in THE destination.
I never once felt like there was no where to go. From LA, you have San Diego, Mexico (okay, Tijuana, but lots of ppl go), Las Vegas, Laughlin, Big Bear, Santa Barbara (and all the cities in that central coast area). You can add in Orange County if you like, depending on where you live, it can be a destination (over an hour away) and well, it's got Disneyland. Even going up to the valley, you have Magic Mountain. I'm sure there are way more.
Just wondering....when you lived in SF, did you never go to Tahoe/Reno? Wine Country? All those coastal cities up there?
As for major cities. I would count Orange County, San Diego County, Las Vegas, Laughlin (well, maybe not), and Santa Barbara (it's not huge, but big enough that there's a lot to do).
Me living in Portland now, I keep thinking, where would I go? The coast definitely. It's not a big city, but always nice to visit. Seattle/Tacoma is always an option. It seems that a lot of people in Portland do that as a day trip, which boggles my mind, since that's like me going to Vegas and coming right back. Vancouver, Canada isn't too far, but 5 hours is a long ways. Other than that, all the other cities are pretty small within themselves.
It's just an interesting perspective, since you came from SF and I came from LA. We view here and there so differently.
I went all of those places. But if I wanted to visit another big city I had to fly, or drive at least 6.5 hours. I love cities. And especially compact cities. Compared to the east coast large cities on the west coast are very spread apart. Seattle, Portland and Vancouver being the closest to each other, SF and LA being the furthest. There were lots of destinations in the Bay Area, but other big cities weren't on the list.
Obviously Seattle and Vancouver aren't big by east coast standards, but they're nice to explore for a day or weekend. There's a lot I enjoy about Seattle and I like that it's possible to do day trips there.
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.
Vancouver, Canada isn't too far, but 5 hours is a long ways. Other than that, all the other cities are pretty small within themselves. 
