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.
Nobody seems to have mentioned how different the PEOPLE in both cities are
SF is about as close to a busy East Coast mega city as it gets on the West Coast
Pace-wise, Seattle is slooooooow.
I like each city for different reasons, but you really have to consider the type of lifestyle you'll be living. SF is fast paced and energetic, while Seattle is about as laid back as you can get for a large city.
Interesting observation. Having visited SF 5 times, I find it very leisurely paced for a major city in the US, and far from the bustling atmosphere of East Coast. Still, you might be correct that it's as close as it gets on the West Coast, since the entire WC is very laid back... although perhaps Silicon Valley is less so (don't know for sure).
I highly doubt it will financial suicide -- plenty of people live here and don't make huge salaries and do just fine -- but it's also true that you will NOT have the same lifestyle at anywhere near the same price as you do in the Twin Cities (or, I would assume, Seattle, which seems to be a notch above the TC, cost-wise, but still well below the Bay Area). I think if you're willing to rent, not own (and don't need a huge single family house or a bunch of luxury cars) odds are that you'll be fine. A lot more people rent in the Bay Area than they do in the Twin Cities (where there is still, I think, a big stigma against those who rent). Rent isn't cheap, but again, it's definitely doable, especially since you're a two-income couple without kids. It's really only if you're expecting to replicate your suburban Twin Cities lifestyle in the Bay Area that it will get difficult, and the increased salaries probably won't fully reflect the higher cost of purchasing a house. (on the plus side, locally grown organic produce is plentiful and way more affordable in CA, so not EVERYTHING is more expensive!) And if you're looking at Bay Area as a whole, and not just San Francisco, you'll have a broader range of housing options and price points. Not MN affordable, and I assume not Seattle affordable, but still perhaps in your budget. (just don't get sucked into buying an "affordable" house in the Sunset or you'll wish you hadn't tossed the sun lamp!)
I will whole-heartedly admit that I'm baffled by CA's tax rates. My understanding was that Prop 13 greatly discourages new residents from purchasing a home. If it does actually benefit a new homeowner in any way, can someone explain that? My sister-in-law, Pat, (in Santa Cruz) said that she pays THREE times the amount of property taxes compared to her next door neighbor who has the exact same house, but purchased it two decades before Pat. That, with the high income tax rates (it's 7.95% in MN), really do scare my husband and I. If we didn't love the Bay area as much as we do, we would have tossed out the idea of relocating there years ago. Literally, every single person who has heard us talk about a potential move to CA, especially the Bay area, has told us it will be financial suicide. We've kept thinking/saying that we'll just work within the budget we'll have set. We're not "stuff" people and certainly don't need anything ostentatious. We're beginning to feel, though, like our budget would be quickly blown, even with a good income. A lot really does seem to hinge on the November 2012 elections. Financially, Seattle is very appealing, but the repetitive grey skies could really be soul-sucking. That's a different kind of "cost".
Sure... happy to explain.
First... all taxable property in California is taxed based on the fair market value at the time of transfer.
So, everyone is treated the same based on what they choose to spend at the time plus voter approved extras.
Second... people buying today are the ones getting the deals... I have been tempted to sell the home I bought in 2005 because the Assessor still has it at what I paid for it less 7k.
Every home that has sold in my neighborhood has been larger and in better condition with a sale price about a 1/3 less then I paid...
So, those buying now are enjoying a better deal in just about every corner of California then those that bought even 7 years ago like me...
Just for reference... the retired couple I bought my home from built it in 1956 and they paid $1200 a year property tax on the 1725 square feet home... when I bought it, my tax, based on my purchase price went to $9,000.
Folks buying today are seeing tax bills in the $6,000 to $6,500 range for upgraded and larger homes.
I don't begrudge the 80 year old couple that reluctantly sold me their home to move to a retirement facility... they and those like them are what made the neighborhood the nice place it is...
The hard thing is being in a neighborhood with similar enviro/vegan types of people at a good price and with the nice weather. Those neighborhoods tend to be in SF and Berkeley, which are pricey and foggy. You want cheaper and sunnier, then you'll be in more boring suburbs. In the end, it all depends on where your jobs are. Stay as close as you can afford to avoid traffic, and stay away from the coast.
I'm really surprised to hear that Minneapolis is considered such a sunny city. On this site at Average Annual Sunshine in US Cities - Current Results, it shows Minneapolis at 58 percent annual sunshine, which is comparable to New York, Boston, Providence, and Raleigh -- pretty middle of the road. SF has 66 percent annual sunshine, which puts it with Salt Lake City, Tampa, and almost the same as San Diego (in fact, a friend of ours from SD who moved to SF says that the amount of sunny vs cloudy days seems almost identical between the two cities, based on bayside locations in both). And the number of sunny days in SF is 60 percent higher than in Minneapolis. It's still way cloudier in SF than in LA or Sacramento, for example, but it's still way sunnier than Minneapolis. And both are way sunnier than Seattle, which is one of the cloudiest cities in America. Of course, the inland Bay Area cities are even sunnier than SF proper, and it seems like it's almost always sunny to me in the East Bay.
Where do they measure the sunshine? I would agree that Minneapolis is fairly average (having lived in a bunch of different places around the country) but based on my personal experience, San Francisco felt, to me, FAR less sunny. Dramatically so. Depressing-causing so. Of course that may have just been where I spent the majority of time. Let's just say that I needed my sunglasses in Minneapolis year-round (and was better about remembering the daily sunscreen) and in SF I think I had some weather-related depression. That's kind of a moot point since the OP is moving from the Twin Cities (although given problem of finding vegetarian dining options and vegans, am assuming fairly far away from Minneapolis, which may or may not be relevant, weather-wise; the Twin Cities don't have the extreme microclimates like you find in the Bay Area). I think with San Francisco it all comes down to WHERE you are in the city, and I (can't speak for the others) just made a big deal about the weather because having spent time living in both SF and Minneapolis, I had a tough time with the lack of sun in the areas where I spent time in the city. I also knew many people who based their home decision based on fog charts. Since OP is in search of the sun, they should make sure to research the sunshine in the SPECIFIC location before signing a lease or buying a home, as they could potentially end up somewhere with far less sun than what they'd find in Minneapolis.
They may also want to consider at what time they need the sun. I think some of my problem was that I like to have sun in the morning. I would guess that a lot of those "sunny" days in that chart had cloudy, foggy mornings. Obviously not a problem if you live in a neighborhood where it all burns off at noon, or if you don't care what the weather is like while heading to work, but a factor worth considering in the housing search if you need a sunshine burst in the earlier hours to get going.
Where do they measure the sunshine? I would agree that Minneapolis is fairly average (having lived in a bunch of different places around the country) but based on my personal experience, San Francisco felt, to me, FAR less sunny. Dramatically so. Depressing-causing so. Of course that may have just been where I spent the majority of time. Let's just say that I needed my sunglasses in Minneapolis year-round (and was better about remembering the daily sunscreen) and in SF I think I had some weather-related depression. That's kind of a moot point since the OP is moving from the Twin Cities (although given problem of finding vegetarian dining options and vegans, am assuming fairly far away from Minneapolis, which may or may not be relevant, weather-wise; the Twin Cities don't have the extreme microclimates like you find in the Bay Area). I think with San Francisco it all comes down to WHERE you are in the city, and I (can't speak for the others) just made a big deal about the weather because having spent time living in both SF and Minneapolis, I had a tough time with the lack of sun in the areas where I spent time in the city. I also knew many people who based their home decision based on fog charts. Since OP is in search of the sun, they should make sure to research the sunshine in the SPECIFIC location before signing a lease or buying a home, as they could potentially end up somewhere with far less sun than what they'd find in Minneapolis.
They may also want to consider at what time they need the sun. I think some of my problem was that I like to have sun in the morning. I would guess that a lot of those "sunny" days in that chart had cloudy, foggy mornings. Obviously not a problem if you live in a neighborhood where it all burns off at noon, or if you don't care what the weather is like while heading to work, but a factor worth considering in the housing search if you need a sunshine burst in the earlier hours to get going.
Like you're suggesting, part of it I believe is based on where they're doing the measuring, for sure. I would imagine the sunshine numbers are being taken from somewhere near downtown, on the eastern bay-side of town. The weather in the outer neighborhoods (particularly those not shielded by Twin Peaks, Mt. Davidson, or Mt. Sutro) can be considerably different (cooler and foggier). It can often be 55 degrees and foggy at the coast in the outer Sunset/outer Richmond, and near 70 degrees and sunny downtown (this is especially common in the late morning/afternoon after fog has burned off in most areas of the City, except immediately at the pacific coast).
I think another point is that the fog is not that balanced throughout the year. There are long stretches during some parts of the year where it is foggy for days at a time. And on the flip side, there are long stretches during the year where it can be sunny for days at a time. So, even if there is a lot of sunshine in SF, it's not balanced throughout the entire year that much (in the western neighborhoods especially). This can be difficult for some people to deal with because of those long stretches of foggy and gray skies.
Seattle has a similar issue with gray skies dominating for days at a time during long periods of the year, and having the sunny days compressed into certain times of the year (late summer, early fall). But SF will still, on average, be much sunnier by comparison (especially if you're in the eastern SF neighborhoods).
You'll often get this non-balanced sun load in places that have maritime-induced weather. I previously lived in Rochester, NY (which is perched on Lake Ontario) before moving here, and in the winter months the lake effect snow clouds would dominate the weather and there would be very little sun for months...in the summer, though, it was sunny almost every day. Despite this abundance of sunlight, people still got seasonal depression in the winter.
Most areas along the pacific coast suffer from fog/the marine layer (even places in "sunny" SoCal have this issue). Places away from the coasts generally get more balanced weather and sunshine, so it's not a huge surprise that you felt like the Twin cities were sunnier, even if the statistics say otherwise.
If one is focused on living within the SF city limits, choosing the exact location will be important in minimizing any potential fog-induced depression issues. Focusing on the eastern neighborhoods, especially those directly east of Mt. Sutro, Mt. Davidson, Twin Peaks, would be best. But, honestly, if you want to increase your sun, the best way is to just get out of SF and head a few miles either across the bay (Oakland/Berkeley) or down the peninsula (preferably south of South SF/San Bruno, as they do get fog sometimes).
For weather, the Bay Area will definitely be a better choice than Seattle, especially because the issues with gray skies can easily be escaped and avoided (i.e. just don't live near the coast). It's basically impossible to escape the gray issues in Seattle without actually leaving the Seattle area (you'd have to go pretty far to get away from their weather issues). Microclimates are definitely a positive, in this regard.
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 06-25-2012 at 12:55 PM..
Hands down, the weather will be better in the SF Bay area than in Seattle. Thankfully, due to all of these insightful posts, we would definitely look in the East Bay area to avoid the more foggy/grey conditions of the city proper. I have lived in the Twin Cities area nearly my entire life (I'm in my mid-30s) and can attest that we do get peeps of sunshine each season. Depending on what season it is, it may only be one or two days a month or several per week (obviously, that's our Summer). Because my husband's job is the constant - as I'm hoping to make a career change - stability and opportunities in the (bio)medical field is probably the most important factor in our decision. The SF Bay area does seem to be doing well in that regard. Salaries seem higher than in the Midwest, or mountain states, but they still don't seem to "cover" the inflated costs of housing and day to day necessities. That actually scares us. We live comfortably now but certainly don't have a lavish lifestyle. We're relatively simple already. I/we feel such a pull towards the Bay area and just can't shake our desire to live there, despite the many shared negatives. I honestly cannot tell you how many people have told us we're INSANE for wanting to move there. We do love Seattle, and it's slightly lower cost of living vs. SF, but one just can't put a value on sunshine (if you're mood and energy levels are affected by it's presence, or lack of). We're really trying to sort out fact from fiction re: SF and determine what talk is really just hype (or paranoia). Has anyone recently moved to the SF Bay area from the Midwest? If so, was it difficult financially?
If it helps, I lived in the Easy Bay (Pleasanton/Dublin) and moved to Minneapolis four years ago. While I've never been to Seattle, I can tell you that the East Bay gets very, very hot in the summer - worse than the Twin Cities although not at humid. I enjoyed my time in the Bay Area very much, however, the pricing was so prohibitive that I looked elsewhere to settle (along with a variety of other reasons). Also, my experience regarding your comment about salary increases tends to be spot-on: salaries in places like California are generally higher, however, they are not enough to justify the differences in housing costs. I/we absolutely love Minneapolis and I hope to live here the rest of my life. For me, California (especially Northern California) is a wonderful place to visit but I would never want to live there again. Too crowded and far, far too expensive for me I am glad that many of the people who do live there are able to enjoy it so much!
I grew up in Minneapolis, moved around the country, lived in SF for a few years, returned to Minneapolis for a few years when the economy tanked in California, and moved back here this spring. I never thought of Minneapolis as a grey city, but it was definitely far more humid (and, obviously, cold and snowy). Minneapolis is much hotter in the summer, too, compared to some parts of the Bay Area, while some parts of the East Bay can get very hot (although not humid). When we moved back to Minneapolis I had to drastically expand my wardrobe to cover everything from sub-zero temperatures to 100 and humid. Now that we're back, I've pared it back again. When we moved away from MN I often missed those big summer thunderstorms, but don't miss the oppressive July humidity.
The other really nice thing about the Bay Area is its proximity to so many other place to explore; you have other cities, lots of nice small towns, mountains, delta, ocean, you name it. Since you brought up the vegetarian thing as an issue I can't imagine it would be an issue anywhere in the Bay Area, but then again, I thought that Minneapolis was about the same on that front. I knew more vegans in Minneapolis than I did here, but that's probably just luck of the draw. We're vegetarian, not vegan, but haven't had any trouble, although at some of the Chinese restaurants the vegetarian options have been more limited. San Francisco has a vegetarian society that hosts dinners and events throughout the year, if interested. Both places seem about equally liberal and progressive, although in both cities it obviously depends on where you're living. More people rent in the Bay Area, which is perhaps one of the biggest differences. The different demographics also very much depend on where you live. Parts of San Francisco feel very Chinese, while in other parts of the Bay Area the ethnic mix is different. Marin has always struck me as a more expensive version of SW Minneapolis with better scenery. Same kind of crowd, though (i.e limosine liberals who compost and have designer chicken coops in their backyards). Lots of other areas have more the Wedge/Whittier crowd, i.e. classic blend of immigrants and hipsters (and immigrant hipsters). Rockridge in Oakland seems sort of like 50th and France and Linden Hills combined, if that helps: upscale and yuppie and with good food and bookstores.
Sounds like you've done a lot of research to narrow down your top two cities, have you considered other smaller cities in California? If it's not big city in particular that you're craving (in which case I don't know if SF will really do it for you, although it has a bigger feel than Minneapolis) there may be some other California city that would have the total package at a more affordable price. But if the Bay Area is where you want to be, I think you're right to be focusing on East Bay -- it's much cheaper than SF proper, the weather is sunnier, and you'll have equally, if not better, access to outdoor activities. A lot of Minneapolis types seem to be drawn to Albany or north Berkeley. Oakland has a ton of neighborhoods that could be a really good fit, too. You'll have an easier time since you won't need to worry about whether or not the area is zoned for a decent public school.
For what it's worth, we're really enjoying the East Bay. The weather is SO much sunnier than when we lived in SF, there's a wide variety of different types of neighborhoods and places to see, public transportation seems to work pretty well (better than in SF, I think) and it seems a little less hyper-gentrified as a whole, and perhaps (not sure how to best word this!) a little less smug.
Housing is clearly far more expensive in the Bay Area than in the Twin Cities, but with two working professionals you certainly will have the means to live somewhere nice. You'll mostly really start to feel that difference if you start looking at buying a house (although perhaps if you've lived here a bit the sticker price difference won't surprise you anymore) or if you were to have kids. Food is more expensive here if you buy a lot of convenience and processed food, but if you're cooking from scratch I don't think you feel it nearly as much (that's how we've drastically cut our food budget) -- as vegetarians you're presumably buying a lot of produce, and the nice thing about the Bay Area is that decent, locally-grown affordable options are available year-round, and can be really affordable if you're buying in-season. I had renewed sticker shock when we went shopping at Safeway (was used to shopping at Rainbow in Minneapolis), where things like boxes of pasta are significantly more expensive than in Minneapolis, but that's balanced out somewhat by our savings on produce (which can really add up in MN during the winter).
If you don't want a car, or want to live in a one-car household (and save a ton of money) that's easier to do here, too, at least depending on where you're living. The car-share programs are really good (much more extensive than HOURCAR) and public transportation is better, although of course that also depends on where you're living. But I think it's easier to live without a car here than comparable locations in the Twin Cities. My husband lived in Dublin without a car, and while that was not always the easiest, it was still both actually realistically doable, whereas in the equivalent far-out suburb in the Twin Cities it would be nearly impossible, or at the least highly limiting. We don't own a car, and it's a huge savings. Not enough to make the Bay Area a bargain, of course, but it does help offset some of the higher housing prices.
Also for what it's worth on the expenses front, we found a very affordable apartment here. Really, it's about what we'd pay in Minneapolis (although granted, the Minneapolis equivalent for this price would be nicer). So it CAN be done. I've also seen some listings for duplexes in nice locations that seemed very reasonably priced, given that they come with an income-generating unit. So if you do want to buy and are a little flexible with locations, that is probably realistic, too. It will take a larger bite out of the budget than it would in the Twin Cities. Just think of it as paying for location on a bigger scale (just like you pay more to buy a house by Lake Calhoun than you would if you bought the same place in Crystal.). If you can get jobs here and can still cover your bills and save for the future, why not do it somewhere you want to live?
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 06-25-2012 at 02:42 PM..
Best wishes to you on your move! I'll throw in my $.02...'cause I can
I grew up in WI/MN, moved to Oregon for college, have lived in Seattle since 1993, and we're now moving to the Bay area.
I love the 4 seasons in the Midwest. But I HATE being cold.
This is my driving force for our move to the Bay Area. I've posted on these forums about this before....I was never as cold in MN as I have been in Seattle. The damp, grey cold sinks to the bone. It's not a "dry" cold, but a "WET" one.
There are many folks here who just don't care - and they trek out in the rain and grey to do their outdoor activities. If you're one of those people, then you won't mind the Seattle weather and you'll maintain a certain level of sanity!
As for being Vegan/Animal lovers....you'll find pockets in both places who are accepting of the lifestyle. (We're not vegan, but are very holistic and organic-minded)
Oh, and I should add - the "Ocean" in Puget Sounds is more like living on a big, salt water lake. If it's the ocean surf you're looking for, you won't find it in the sound It's a couple hours drive to get over the the WA coastline.
My husband and I are working professionals - not extravagant, but we make a decent living. In WA, we're considered "mid-upper" class, in the Bay Area, we'll be average (if not below). We own a 3000 SF home on 5 acres in WA, and we'll be renting a home in the East Bay which will be smaller on all fronts. It's a lifestyle choice, so it depends on what works for you.
Have you considered Oregon? Based on what you're saying, you may really like it there! And the weather may be a decent compromise.
Let us know if you have more questions or if we can clarify further. This is a pretty helpful group of folks!! We know Seattle pretty well, and we've done a ton of research on the Bay Area regions, so we're happy to share!!
Last edited by OzPod; 06-25-2012 at 06:06 PM..
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.
I am glad that many of the people who do live there are able to enjoy it so much!
