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.
So aside from SF, Is Seattle the next best city where people on the west coast could live a car-free lifestyle?
I'm a college student (about to graduate in June from a university in SoCal). I was born and raised in SoCal and I hate the darn place with immense fury.
Our weather down here is too hot, and our urban environment is gross. I hate sprawl tremendously - possibly the most destructive urban typology there is.
I want to see if it's possible to live my entire professional career without a car. And eventually raise a family without a car too. I think it is important not to raise kids in an insulated suburb.
Would seattle be a good city where I could achieve this?
Btw I'm an architecture student - Seattle seems to have a decent sized architecture community and the economy is doing well. I haven't applied to places yet and more importantly I have not even visited the city yet. But I'm just trying to see how well the city gages based on my criteria for where I might want to live and work after school is finished.
You're probably asking the wrong person. I grew up in LA a long time ago and don't find it nearly as objectionable as many people seem to. I've lived and worked in various cities and countries, and I still get a kick out of visiting LA; it reminds me of the famous quote from Samuel Johnson, "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." So too with LA.
Personally, I see a real renaissance of urbanism in LA. When I was your age one didn't even think twice about shooting across the LA basin to go to the movies in Hollywood, or a ballgame at Dodger Stadium, or surfing at Huntington Beach. As a result, there was no identity to most of the cities that comprise the LA area - you could go anywhere for anything, no need to stay local.
Now, you can't do that without sitting on a freeway for hours, with the result that towns that didn't have any identity, no real reason for being besides a bunch of subdivisions and strip malls, now have growing "downtowns" and a full range of services, because it's too big a hassle for the town's residents to drive somewhere else. Look at downtown Pasadena, for example, or Belmont Shore in Long Beach, or Claremont. And (to me) it's increasingly evident in places like central Orange County, or even parts of the valley that used to be nothing but tracts of builderburger houses. Fifty years later, they're turning into real places with real identities.
I'm sure you can live without a car in Seattle, but at a price - we're surrounded by some of the most glorious country in the world, but most of it is inaccessible by bus. It rains a lot here, so how do you get your furniture home from Ikea? What if you find a companion who lives in Tacoma and wants to have dinner in Bellevue?
I guess my advice would be to shy away from doctrinaire positions on such things. Would a second hand Prius be all that terrible a thing? But of course it's your decision.
I have managed A/E firms in Seattle and owned one in Alaska years ago. I wish you luck, but you need to understand that it's an extremely competitive industry around here, with an increasing number of developers and major institutional employers having in-house design teams, or relying extensively on design-build firms. Doing your homework is imperative.
Seattle neighborhoods where you can live without a car: Capitol Hill, First Hill, Central District, International District, North Beacon Hill, Columbia City, Eastlake, South Lake Union, Belltown, Lower Queen Anne (Uptown), Queen Anne Hill, University District, Wallingford, Fremont, Ballard, Green Lake, Phinney Ridge.
I live in west Ballard, without a car. Groceries, pharmacy, library, restaurants, shops, movie theater, parks, beaches, etc., are all within easy walking distance, much more within a bus ride. I can catch the #44 trolleybus (runs about every ten minutes weekdays) about a block away to go to Wallingford and the U District. The #40, #28, and D-Line run Downtown, and express buses run morning and afternoon (#15x, #17x, #18x).
Last edited by CrazyDonkey; 03-17-2015 at 07:12 PM..
At the end of this light rail expansion, only 2-3 (maybe 3 if Roosevelt increases density) of these 5 future rail stations will be walkable and "urban." Seattle's approach to light rail isn't to make dense, walkable neighborhoods, but to create park-and-rides for Seattle's largely suburban population. So no, light rail is not a "subway" in that sense.
Sounder stations have parking, light rail doesn't. The idea is for light-rail to encourage dense multi-use development (housing and jobs) within walking distance of light-rail stations. Riders are expected to walk or bike, or catch feeder buses, to light rail stations. That's working at Columbia City, Beacon Hill, and to some degree at Othello and Tukwilla. It's not working at Rainier Beach, yet anyway.
When the current expansion is finished (2016), light rail will run completely in tunnels from the International District/Pioneer Square to Westlake to Capitol Hill to UW Stadium to the U District to Roosevelt. That's basically a subway. The expansion to Bellevue/Redmond will have a tunnel under downtown Bellevue. Any expansion in the future to Fremont and Ballard will be via a tunnel under Belltown and Queen Anne Hill. The idea of light rail is to provide mobility to "urban villages", and not to enable further suburban sprawl.
Suburban voters used to hold sway at the polls in King County, which is why we don't already have a fully developed rapid transit system. That is no longer the case, however, with Bellevue having become an urban metropolis in its own right (and voting for the expansion of light rail, instead of against it).
Sounder stations have parking, light rail doesn't. The idea is for light-rail to encourage dense multi-use development (housing and jobs) within walking distance of light-rail stations. Riders are expected to walk or bike, or catch feeder buses, to light rail stations. That's working at Columbia City, Beacon Hill, and to some degree at Othello and Tukwilla. It's not working at Rainier Beach, yet anyway.
When the current expansion is finished (2016), light rail will run completely in tunnels from the International District/Pioneer Square to Westlake to Capitol Hill to UW Stadium to the U District to Roosevelt. That's basically a subway. The expansion to Bellevue/Redmond will have a tunnel under downtown Bellevue. Any expansion in the future to Fremont and Ballard will be via a tunnel under Belltown and Queen Anne Hill. The idea of light rail is to provide mobility to "urban villages", and not to enable further suburban sprawl.
Suburban voters used to hold sway at the polls in King County, which is why we don't already have a fully developed rapid transit system. That is no longer the case, however, with Bellevue having become an urban metropolis in its own right (and voting for the expansion of light rail, instead of against it).
A further nod to the Eastside is definitely needed. Mercer Island is getting a light rail station, and Bellevue will be getting four light rail stations (South Bellevue, Downtown Bellevue, Hospital District, and the future high-density Spring District). Going beyond Bellevue, Redmond will also be becoming a lot more dense in the next decade, with four light rail stations as well (two stations in Overlake Village which will be redeveloped for high density TOD, and two stations near Downtown Redmond).
I believe that my previous comment about the light rail stations was rather cynical. Seattle's light rail stations will amount to subway stations that will definitely encourage a much denser build for the city. And while future stations in Ballard and Fremont are exciting, I actually think that in the next 10-15 years, the Eastside will experience a huge population boom and rival Seattle for vibrant urban experiences. As it stands, Bellevue and Redmond are looking to become mini-Vancouvers in their own right--offering urban environments like Seattle, except being a lot newer and sleeker.
You're probably asking the wrong person. I grew up in LA a long time ago and don't find it nearly as objectionable as many people seem to. I've lived and worked in various cities and countries, and I still get a kick out of visiting LA; it reminds me of the famous quote from Samuel Johnson, "When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life." So too with LA.
Personally, I see a real renaissance of urbanism in LA. When I was your age one didn't even think twice about shooting across the LA basin to go to the movies in Hollywood, or a ballgame at Dodger Stadium, or surfing at Huntington Beach. As a result, there was no identity to most of the cities that comprise the LA area - you could go anywhere for anything, no need to stay local.
Now, you can't do that without sitting on a freeway for hours, with the result that towns that didn't have any identity, no real reason for being besides a bunch of subdivisions and strip malls, now have growing "downtowns" and a full range of services, because it's too big a hassle for the town's residents to drive somewhere else. Look at downtown Pasadena, for example, or Belmont Shore in Long Beach, or Claremont. And (to me) it's increasingly evident in places like central Orange County, or even parts of the valley that used to be nothing but tracts of builderburger houses. Fifty years later, they're turning into real places with real identities.
I'm sure you can live without a car in Seattle, but at a price - we're surrounded by some of the most glorious country in the world, but most of it is inaccessible by bus. It rains a lot here, so how do you get your furniture home from Ikea? What if you find a companion who lives in Tacoma and wants to have dinner in Bellevue?
I guess my advice would be to shy away from doctrinaire positions on such things. Would a second hand Prius be all that terrible a thing? But of course it's your decision.
I have managed A/E firms in Seattle and owned one in Alaska years ago. I wish you luck, but you need to understand that it's an extremely competitive industry around here, with an increasing number of developers and major institutional employers having in-house design teams, or relying extensively on design-build firms. Doing your homework is imperative.
EXCELLENT post. I will second your thought about the car free idea. One may be able to simply take care of the most basic need of getting to and from work in Seattle without a car, but one would be really denying him/herself of many of the wonderful things about Seattle without a car. As you said, some of the most glorious aspects of living in Seattle are the amazing wilderness that surrounds the city on all sides, and LOTS of people go out to enjoy those areas on weekends- all places that buses and trains do not go. I bus to/from work but could never, ever imagine not having a car here because it is just too important- and I would spend far more per month on car sharing programs if I had to use them instead of simply owning my own car.
I'm sure you can live without a car in Seattle, but at a price - we're surrounded by some of the most glorious country in the world, but most of it is inaccessible by bus. It rains a lot here, so how do you get your furniture home from Ikea? What if you find a companion who lives in Tacoma and wants to have dinner in Bellevue
Not owning a car doesn't mean your life is confined to wherever the buses go. We have things like taxis, car2go, Uber, zipcar, Hertz Rent-a-Car, etc. the average American spends $8,000 per year on owning a car, probably more in a place like Seattle with higher than average parking, insurance, and gas costs. I don't have a car yet I still go to IKEA from time to time, still going snowboarding 2-3 times per month (well, when we have snow), still have dinner with friends on the eastside, even went to Vancouver, BC a few weeks ago.
And I drove a brand new prius (zipcar) to IKEA and bought a couch, which wouldn't fit in any car anyway, but they have delivery for that
Granted I might go to the eastside or IKEA more often if I had a car, or do more unplanned, spur of the moment type outings, but I honestly do not feel confined by not having a car, and I save a lot of money.
Of course if you need to make these kinds of trips often, or if you live or work in an area badly served by public transit then you probably need a car. I live in Uptown and work downtown, so most days I have absolutely no need for a car.
A further nod to the Eastside is definitely needed. Mercer Island is getting a light rail station, and Bellevue will be getting four light rail stations (South Bellevue, Downtown Bellevue, Hospital District, and the future high-density Spring District). Going beyond Bellevue, Redmond will also be becoming a lot more dense in the next decade, with four light rail stations as well (two stations in Overlake Village which will be redeveloped for high density TOD, and two stations near Downtown Redmond).
I believe that my previous comment about the light rail stations was rather cynical. Seattle's light rail stations will amount to subway stations that will definitely encourage a much denser build for the city. And while future stations in Ballard and Fremont are exciting, I actually think that in the next 10-15 years, the Eastside will experience a huge population boom and rival Seattle for vibrant urban experiences. As it stands, Bellevue and Redmond are looking to become mini-Vancouvers in their own right--offering urban environments like Seattle, except being a lot newer and sleeker.
That kind of development certainly has a broad appeal, but it's going on all over the world. It's not unique to this area or the west coast. It's kind of like any suburb is every suburb. Even in Playa Del Carmen I had a "whoa, am I in Mexico or Bellevue?" moment. It's familiar but boring.
It's also the reason that NE and NW Seattle are unique from one another. I really hope that type of stuff doesn't start popping up over here. If an Olive Garden or Cheesecake Factory opens up in Ballard and doesn't go out of business in a year I'm out of here. That would be a sign of the apocalypse as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, I was just in Las Vegas for five weeks (visiting my sister) and there were freeways everywhere and, outside of the Strip, everything looked EXACTLY the same (stripmall-ville). Walled developments with meanders and cul-de-sacs, discouraging pass-through traffic, are the norm, but which also make accessing transit very difficult.
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.
