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.
Getting back the the OP, if he ever returns, I settled on Seattle myself because it combined enough of what I like about Boston (sadly not the snow ) with the mountain vistas I'd desired to see since I was a little kid. I'm a big fan of volcanoes, snowy peaks and pine trees, and Seattle has those in spades.
The architecture is a little rough, the mass transit needs some work, the sports teams stink (Mariners are having an above-average year so far -- they're playing .500 ball; pity they're in the same division as the Rangers/Angels) and the weather can be very oppressive at times. But I'm a big believer in the idea that the best places are generally those that have a few outstanding quirks that drive away folks that can't handle a city with character -- IE, the people who run with their tails between their legs because they can't deal with a little snow in Denver/Boston, or rain in Seattle help to purify the places they left behind, and make them all the better in their absence. Nobody from Boston or Seattle or Denver wants some screw-up who thinks Phoenix or Mesa is ideal living mucking up the joint. We're better off without those types.
Seattle's light rail (in its current form; the rest should be similar) has about the average speed of Boston's rapid transit, maybe a little faster. Most of the Seattle's light rail stops aren't that close and its almost entirely grade separated.
Boston's rapid transit works well because its mostly an alternative to local driving, which is generally very slow and parking is a pain. Not sure about Seattle but I get the impression highways clog but local short distance driving isn't bad. Boston is much denser in its core (the first 3/4 to 1 million in and around the center), at least twice as dense and much more in the very center, so it's easier to build a rail system where most people live within walking distance of a stop, with the remainder a short bus ride and quick transfer. This will be harder to do for Seattle; and the proposed light rail is not going to produce the stop density that Boston has anyway the light rail is going off to more distant regions.
No, local short distance driving in Seattle (within the City especially) can be really bad, especially going East-West. That's why people are calling for an East-West subway line between Ballard and the U-District. That stretch is a nightmare by car or bus. Similarly, Queen Anne to Capitol Hill, a relativley short distance as the crow flies, can take forever. Generally, Seattle traffic is just bad all around.
There are some sections of the light rail in-city (both Seattle and Bellevue) that have/will have decent spacing. For instance, the UW, Brooklyn, Roosevelt, and Northgate stations will all be around 1-1.5 miles apart. And downtown/Capitol Hill will have a lot of close together underground stations, as will Bellevue. It's kind of a hybrid regional/in-city system, although I know many Seattlites wish there was more of a focus in-city.
Still, with the 2021 build out there will be about 24 light rail stops in Seattle proper (with many of them underground and almost all at least grade-separated). Hopefully later lines will increase that number.
She has returned . I really appreciate all of the responses. I'm not too worried about either city's traffic/transit system, though it's nice to hear that Boston is pretty walkable. I was hoping to get around without a car --I can always get one if needed, though-- and I was worried that might not be the best idea in Boston.
One detail I forgot to mention - I have awful social skills. This is why I'm so worried. It really is a relief, though, to see what's being said about the people in each city. Maybe I'm just listening to the wrong people, but I've heard much worse things. I'm always told how impossible it is to make friends in Boston, and how I'll really need to move there with friends if anything. And I haven't heard great things about Seattle, either.
She has returned . I really appreciate all of the responses. I'm not too worried about either city's traffic/transit system, though it's nice to hear that Boston is pretty walkable. I was hoping to get around without a car --I can always get one if needed, though-- and I was worried that might not be the best idea in Boston.
One detail I forgot to mention - I have awful social skills. This is why I'm so worried. It really is a relief, though, to see what's being said about the people in each city. Maybe I'm just listening to the wrong people, but I've heard much worse things. I'm always told how impossible it is to make friends in Boston, and how I'll really need to move there with friends if anything. And I haven't heard great things about Seattle, either.
I don't think it's much easier or more difficult to make friends anywhere. It really depends on you. New England has its pseudo-puritan-throwback 'coldshoulderism,' but that doesn't make everyone there like that, or even the majority of people. Same for Seattle and the freeze. Some people claim they're both just a myth -- I don't believe that. But I also don't believe that either is so widespread that it should deter anyone from moving.
I think you'd enjoy either place. They are both on a very short list of the best world-class cities in the country. If you're a big walker, I think you'd probably find Boston just slightly preferable simply because the footprint is miniscule. When you're talking about the size of the physical center of the city, it's absolutely tiny, especially compared to places like Manhattan in NYC. That's not to say that Seattle isn't relatively compact -- it's locked between Puget Sound and Lake Washington, so it's similarly limited in size. This makes both very, very walkable places (and also prohibitively expensive to live in, especially compared to Denver). Have you given any thought to cost of living? It's just slightly higher in Boston than Seattle, but both are a bigtime jump from the mountain west. Also, it bears pointing out that WA has no income tax. That is certainly not the case with MA!
However, when all is said and done, I think Boston has the edge based on your criteria. I think you'll find the climate more comparible to Denver's than you'd find Seattle's to be, and I think that you might even have an easier time making friends. Just buy a bunch of Sox gear and learn the names of a few players -- people will embrace you like a religious convert.
Last edited by ShrikeArghast; 05-04-2012 at 09:16 PM..
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,871,642 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Loney
Perhaps you need a shot of some of that great Seattle coffee. Seriously, sounds like you were sleeping.
Some of those pics actually DO make me sleepy -- especially the sunset pics!
One of my favorite posts in forums anywhere is the, "oh yeah, well check THIS out" response, followed by pictures that often are comically underwhelming! Not in this case, per se, but in general I find that response to be pretty hillarious!
I don't think it's much easier or more difficult to make friends anywhere. It really depends on you. New England has its pseudo-puritan-throwback 'coldshoulderism,' but that doesn't make everyone there like that, or even the majority of people. Same for Seattle and the freeze. Some people claim they're both just a myth -- I don't believe that. But I also don't believe that either is so widespread that it should deter anyone from moving.
I think you'd enjoy either place. They are both on a very short list of the best world-class cities in the country. If you're a big walker, I think you'd probably find Boston just slightly preferable simply because the footprint is miniscule. When you're talking about the size of the physical center of the city, it's absolutely tiny, especially compared to places like Manhattan in NYC. That's not to say that Seattle isn't relatively compact -- it's locked between Puget Sound and Lake Washington, so it's similarly limited in size. This makes both very, very walkable places (and also prohibitively expensive to live in, especially compared to Denver). Have you given any thought to cost of living? It's just slightly higher in Boston than Seattle, but both are a bigtime jump from the mountain west. Also, it bears pointing out that WA has no income tax. That is certainly not the case with MA!
However, when all is said and done, I think Boston has the edge based on your criteria. I think you'll find the climate more comparible to Denver's than you'd find Seattle's to be, and I think that you might even have an easier time making friends. Just buy a bunch of Sox gear and learn the names of a few players -- people will embrace you like a religious convert.
I'm not that worried about cost of living. I realize both cities can be very expensive, especially when compared to Denver.
As I said in my original post, I'm leaning a bit more toward Boston, and these responses are honestly helping me with that decision, but there's something about Seattle that just makes choosing between the two so difficult. Seattle is just so beautiful and seems so comforting, yet in Boston I'd feel like I have everything within reach, and based off of these replies it'd be easier to make friends which is a biggie for me. So confusing!
Seattle is just so beautiful and seems so comforting, yet in Boston I'd feel like I have everything within reach, and based off of these replies it'd be easier to make friends which is a biggie for me. So confusing!
It is confusing, and in this day in age, it's difficult to move willy-nilly in the same way it was even 10 years ago. Work is hard to come by, gas is expensive, etc. Unless you're really, really financially secure, the first choice better be the right one.
My wife really wishes we could go back to Boston. She's from Texas originally, and once I took her to New England, she never wanted to leave. But she got hired by an MLB player as a nanny, and the family lived in Phoenix during the offseason. When the player's wife decided she didn't want to go back to Massachusetts during the regular season, that meant we were stuck here. However, when my wife's contract expires in November, the family is paying for us to move wherever we want -- it's a one shot deal, though, and I am terrified I'll make the wrong call.
I love Seattle, love Denver, and love Boston, but I appreciate different things about all three. I do not love Phoenix, however... hate, hate, HATE it, in fact. It's a city and a region that's simply devoid of any soul; a place where people who are afraid of a few drops of rain or temperatures below 60 run to screaming.
But I can definitely understand you being torn. New England has charm; cute towns, lots of old history, lots of very interesting things to see if you've never lived there (think of all the old buildings, all the revolutionary war battlefields, etc.). And it's really, really close to a lot of other places. Day trips to NYC aren't out of the question (it's a few hours away via an Amtrak Acela); Philly is close, and Washington D.C. isn't even that far. A lot of people who have lived in large states for much of their lives are just shocked by how small the northeast is -- how you can drive for 25 minutes and go from Mass to NH to Maine (absolutely no exageration there along I-95).
But, it's not the pacific northwest, which is a much more raw, pristine, 'untouched' environment. I'm not saying that Seattle is some primordeal garden of eden or anything, but you can go places in the Cascades or the Olympics where it feels like you're the only living person in a hundred miles. Everything about the PNW is extreme -- huge, jagged mountains, beautiful but perilous volcanoes, and real, extreme wildlife (wolves [if they aren't all wiped out thanks to being delisted on the endangered species list] are making a comeback, there can be grizzlies in the Cascades, cougars, etc.). You aren't going to find anything like that in New England. Occasionally some poor wolf will wander into Maine from out of Canada and promptly get shot, but I feel the the presence of the real 'old, big game' in WA is just indicitive of how quinessentially natural it is.
So, yeah. New England is small, it's 'close,' towns are all piled on top of each other, houses are beautiful, everything is convenient, and people are EVERYWHERE. The PNW is (comparitively) far less well settled, and more closer in appearance to what it looked like before the nineteenth century.
They're as different from each other as they are from Denver, though similarities do exist.
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.
) with the mountain vistas I'd desired to see since I was a little kid. I'm a big fan of volcanoes, snowy peaks and pine trees, and Seattle has those in spades. 
. I really appreciate all of the responses. I'm not too worried about either city's traffic/transit system, though it's nice to hear that Boston is pretty walkable. I was hoping to get around without a car --I can always get one if needed, though-- and I was worried that might not be the best idea in Boston. 
