carless relocation later this year (Seattle, Bellevue: rental car, apartments, rentals)

[spicedhazelnut]

I'm hoping to relocate either to Portland or Seattle (posted in both forums) later this year (late summer into autumn), and have been doing a lot of research on the area in general, but am having a bit of trouble without actually visiting figuring out where I could live. I'm hoping to get a job at one of the local universities and do not own a car (I recently returned from 6 years living in Europe where I didn't need one, and sadly cannot afford relocation and a car at the same time).

I'm currently living in a suburb of Milwaukee, WI and really don't like it here - what appeals to me about the PNW are the more liberal attitudes, the outdoorsy lifestyle and the public transportation. I am looking to rent a studio-1 bed apartment (after living in Europe I am not greedy at all on space) within walking distance to public transportation, a grocery store, laundry facilities, and a cafe/coffee house. I have two cats I'd be bringing along, but it seems from my initial research that finding cat friendly apartments isn't too much of a hassle. I really wouldn't want to spend more than $1k/mo (preferably including utilities). I am in my early 30s and do like to have things to do, but don't mind having to take transport to get to them. However, I am not into bars/clubs; an area does not need to be hopping and exciting for me to be happy there. I prefer somewhere a bit more laid back. I also would like easy access to parks where I can do a bit of walking/hiking. I do also enjoy a sense of community and events that may go along with that (art crawls, farmers markets, yard sales, parades, etc).

The areas that have sort of caught my eye thus far are Capitol Hill, Ballard, Queen Anne, South Lake Union, Fremont, and Pioneer Square. I am single, have no children, so it's only my needs I have to cater for. If anyone can let me know whether the above areas are easy without a car or recommend somewhere else that fits my criteria I would be most grateful

[Hemlock140]

All of those areas would work, with ood bus service and the availability of zip cars. Pioneer Square, however, does not have all that many decent apartments compared to the rest and has nowhere to hike, though I suppose you could walk to Alaskan Way and walk the waterfront with the tourists.

[SitoUK]

Out of the areas above, I would say, depending on where you work, Capitol Hill and Queen Anne are probably the best ones to live in without a car. I live in West Cap Hill and there is everything here in walking distance you need, shops, restaurants, bars, entertainment etc. There is also a large number of zipcars, should you ever need a car. You can also easily walk to downtown and there a number of bus routes to downtown and the U-district, Queen Anne etc.

I would say Lower Queen Anne is not too dissimilar in that respect although it has a slightly different vibe to Cap Hill. SLU is very good in terms of location but it used to be mostly industrial/commercial buildings and has now been taken over by Amazon. There are some apartment buildings there but it's mainly dead after office hours and the restaurants in the area cater mainly to office workers. There's also no decent grocery store in the area (apart from maybe the totally overpriced wholefoods at Westlake and Denny).

Fremont and Ballard are both really nice areas to live but they are a bit further away from Downtown, especially Ballard. If you're happy to stay in your area these are good options but if you move around town on public transit a lot I don't think they're ideal, although that all depends on how much time you want to spend on buses.

Pioneers Square is well connected by Public Transit but can be sketchy at night. I go out there occasionally or just hang out during the day but I am not sure if I wanted to live there.

[Apathizer]

Just to give you my bonafides: I've lived in Seattle about 15 years. Most of the time I haven't owned a car, except for a short time when my mom gave me her old POS (it died after 6 mos). I'm a public transit operator, so I know the transit system pretty well.

Chosing between Portland and Seattle is tough: I was actually considering moving to Portland at one time. Both areas have their +s and -s, esp if you are car-free. Seattle is more of a major city, while Portland is still feels much like a large-town or medium sized city. While I think Portland's transit is more elegant (their light-rail is quite extensive, while ours is just getting started), it's probably a bit easier being car-free here because Seattle is a more compact land-area. If you compare both areas on a map you'll see Seattle is flanked by water on the E and W. Generally, everywhere you'd need to go regularly is within about a 5 mile radius of most residential neighborhoods. Portland is a much larger land-area: Consequently, the population is more dispersed.

While Seattle's bus system isn't the most elegant, it's generally decent (despite what some will tell you). There is decent bus service to most neighborhoods within about a 5-8 mile radius of downtown. Generally, the further away from downtown, the less frequent the bus service. As long as you're aren't traveling late at night, buses generally run about every 15-20 min, and about every 10-15 minutes morning and afternoon rush-hour. Admittedly, city buses aren't always the most pleasant way to travel - though it's hardly worse than driving in the city. I'm actually baffled why so many seem to insist on driving so much in this city.

As far as neighborhoods, I think you're on the right track, but I would also include Wallingford as well. Since South Lake Union has been taken over by Amazon, it's now ridiculously over-priced and gentrified, so it might be out of your price range. All the other neighborhoods should have decent apts in your price range.

I looked and ZipCar when it was FlexCar, and it seemd a bit overpriced to me. When I want to hike, etc, or otherwise need a car, I usually just rent one; it seems like a better deal if you need a car for an entire day - though ZipCar might be better if you only want one for a few hours. You also might want to consider bicycling: It's really efficient, and Seattle is one of the bike-friendliest US cities. Just something to consider...

I hope this has been somewhat helpful, and feel free to ask if you have any other questions. Good luck whatever you decide.

[SitoUK]

Originally Posted by Apathizer

J
I looked and ZipCar when it was FlexCar, and it seemd a bit overpriced to me. When I want to hike, etc, or otherwise need a car, I usually just rent one; it seems like a better deal if you need a car for an entire day - though ZipCar might be better if you only want one for a few hours.

You really need to decide this on a case by case basis. I pay around $75 for an all-day zipcar. This includes insurance and gas for 180 miles. If you go further than that it quickly becomes too expensive. If you only go a short distance a rental plus insurance plus gas might be, depending on the seasonal rate, the cheaper option. However, I tend to take zipcars all the time, even if a regular rental car would be a few bucks cheaper, just because it is so convenient. You pick it up round the corner, you can reserve it from your smartphone and you don't have to complete stacks of paperwork when you pick it up. For short trips of only a few hours zipcar is always the better option.

The only scenarios when a rental car seems better to me is when I need one for more than 4 days (Zipcar maximum) or when I know I'll drive significantly more than 180 miles per day. Did I mention that I love Zipcar?

[Apathizer]

Originally Posted by SitoUK

The only scenarios when a rental car seems better to me is when I need one for more than 4 days (Zipcar maximum) or when I know I'll drive significantly more than 180 miles per day. Did I mention that I love Zipcar?

I just took another look at Zipcar - still seems renting is better. Typically, I find daily rentals for about $30 (give or take a few bucks), + about $12 for insurance = total of about $42/day. Even with paying for gas, that's still less expensive than the $74 daily ZipCar rate. Only by taking full advantage (or near full-advantage) of the 180 mi/day maximum is the total cost comparable; otherwise, renting is still less expensive.

I don't find renting much of a hassle either: You just reserve the car, sign a couple forms (which takes about 10 min), and you're on your way.

[SitoUK]

yeah, but unless you happen to live right nest to a rental place you have to get there first and in summer the rates go up significantly, at least when I checked last :-)

But anyway, yes, sometimes rentals are cheaper, if I don't know what to do one day I'll sit down and create an excel-sheet to calculate which is better in a given situation

[Apathizer]

Originally Posted by SitoUK

But anyway, yes, sometimes rentals are cheaper, if I don't know what to do one day I'll sit down and create an excel-sheet to calculate which is better in a given situation

Yeah, I think it depends. With carrentals.com you can find decent rates just about anytime of year, but, yeah, you might have to go to Tukwila or Bellevue to get the car. What can I say? I guess I'm just a cheap bastard

But, hey, I'm in favor or anything that encourages people not to own a car, so I'm glad Zip is there. I'm baffled why so many persons insist on owing one. I probably spend about $900/year on rental cars: Most people who own spend about $100/mo for insurance alone! And of course that doesn't include maintenance, parking, registration, etc.

I think some people just own cars out of habit.

[SitoUK]

Yes, for some reason rentals seem to be much cheaper at the airport. Is that always the case? I just reserved a car for a 5 days road trip and it was so much cheaper at SEATAC than in downtown Seattle that I decided to take the light rail there and pick it up...definitely worth doing for a 5 days rental.

And yes, agree on the car owning thing, I probably pay closer to 2K a year on rentals and Zipcars but it's still way cheaper than owning, I live in Cap Hill and I'd pay close to that for a parking space alone...

[Apathizer]

Originally Posted by SitoUK

Yes, for some reason rentals seem to be much cheaper at the airport. Is that always the case? I just reserved a car for a 5 days road trip and it was so much cheaper at SEATAC than in downtown Seattle that I decided to take the light rail there and pick it up...definitely worth doing for a 5 days rental.

Make sure you double check the total cost. A few years ago I made what I thought was a really cheap airport rental, and got seriously dinged with a schiznit-load of 'airport' fees. In the end, I probably paid more than renting locally.

I'm not sure if that's still the case, but you should check just in case. I'd hate to see you get shafted