Leaving SF, but to where? (San Diego, Alameda: neighborhood, university, living in)

[PDF]

Originally Posted by gray horse

Can one live in NYC on $250K a year? Seattle is going to give you more bang for your buck.

Huh? Are you seriously asking if someone can live in NYC on 250k a year?

[PDF]

Also, has the OP perhaps considered they might not find somewhere as good as San Fran? They said they just want to leave for a change. But often times you might be less happy in the new place. So that's a possibility to consider. Especially if you're going from SF to somewhere smaller, like Seattle for instance.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

Less homeless, crazies, crime, trash, cookie cutter houses with shared walls

Have you spent much time in Seattle? There's plenty of homeless and crazies, and shared cookie cutter houses. Seattle specializes in non-descript, cheap-construction cookie-cutter houses, in fact. That's one thing about it I could never get used to. Radically different from Berkeley in that respect.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Have you spent much time in Seattle? There's plenty of homeless and crazies, and shared cookie cutter houses. Seattle specializes in non-descript, cheap-construction cookie-cutter houses, in fact. That's one thing about it I could never get used to. Radically different from Berkeley in that respect.

I lived there for multiples years and still have almost my entire dad's side of the family there. Cookie cutter, cheap construction homes being the norm in Seattle? Where on earth did you go in Seattle lol?

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by bmw335xi

I lived there for multiples years and still have almost my entire dad's side of the family there. Cookie cutter, cheap construction homes being the norm in Seattle? Where on earth did you go in Seattle lol?

Everywhere. Seattle isn't known for its residential architecture. It's full of cheap, boxy cr@p, except for some parts of the U District and Ravenna. And part of Madrona. A few pockets here and there of nicer, more stately homes.

[04kL4nD]

I'd actually argue that Seattle's crazies and homeless are worse and more aggressive than in SF. The only reason it seems so much cleaner is because the constant rain washes away all the trash and urine. I like Seattle quite a bit, but again, I think it's a lateral move from SF. It's not a cheap place to live and I think the people are more introverted and weird. The only thing I like better about Seattle is that the pace of life is a lot slower and people seem like they're in a way less of a hurry. The OP sounds like he's looking for excitement and Seattle just doesn't fit the bill at all.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Everywhere. Seattle isn't known for its residential architecture. It's full of cheap, boxy cr@p, except for some parts of the U District and Ravenna. And part of Madrona. A few pockets here and there of nicer, more stately homes.

It's known for it? Not from my experience. It's known for homes with a lot of character and big windows to capture the light considering the weather is overcast much of the year. Very similar to homes in Portland and Vancouver. The Bay Area is known for connected houses and square boxes that cost $1 million.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I'd actually argue that Seattle's crazies and homeless are worse and more aggressive than in SF. The only reason it seems so much cleaner is because the constant rain washes away all the trash and urine. I like Seattle quite a bit, but again, I think it's a lateral move from SF. It's not a cheap place to live and I think the people are more introverted and weird. The only thing I like better about Seattle is that the pace of life is a lot slower and people seem like they're in a way less of a hurry. The OP sounds like he's looking for excitement and Seattle just doesn't fit the bill at all.

So completely false, when people from Seattle visit SF they are shocked by the amount of homeless, crazies and street trash. The homeless in Seattle look and act like normal people generally speaking. As far as nightlife goes, the difference isn't too kuch. SF isn't known for exciting nightlife, it's more about wine bars and pubs. The club scene sucks in the city, Seattle isn't Los Angeles either, but to say SF Bay Area is more exciting is a stretch.

[04kL4nD]

I totally disagree. Belltown and Pioneer Square are just as bad, if not worse than the TL.

And you're also wrong about SF's nightlife. It has one of the best EDM/underground clubs scenes in America and it gets all the same acts as Vegas, Miami, LA, etc. Seattle doesn't even come close, unless you enjoy coffee shops and smoking lots and lots of weed by yourself at home.

[bmw335xi]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I totally disagree. Belltown and Pioneer Square are just as bad, if not worse than the TL.

Did you seriously put Belltown and Pioneer Square in the same category!? Belltown is one of the nicest downtown neighborhoods! It's gorgeous there and super clean. It's like putting TL and Telegraph Hill in the same category. You must have not been in Seattle in a very long time. Belltown is an expensive and very desirable area to live now. Really there is no point in discussing this because this post proves to me you have no idea about Seattle neighborhoods, at least in 2015.

Pioneer Square is the homeless area in Seattle though. However, most residential neighborhoods in Seattle won't see homeless people, kids are actually able to play in their yards.