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.
Both places of lots of jobs and opportunities. Both have quite a bit of things to do as well. SF had milder winters and cooler summers.
SF can have major each quakes so it evens out with the weather. Both places are super expensive. It is really a toss up.
In terms of COL, economy, things to do, weather, people etc.
Which would be a better place to settle down in long term?
D.C. is a town for achievers and those who want to change the world. There is also a TON of cash flowing through the District so your lifestyle will be superior than that of other metros. If one is lazy or unfocused then that is a recipe for failure in Washington. You are gonna want to know how to play the game and the game is played to win.
The Bay Area is more of a family and leisure focused metro. The pace is more relaxed and unfocused. Social ties and personal enrichment are a higher priority over careerism and power.
Neither metro is better or worse than the other; it just depends on what kind of person you are and what you think life should be about.
Ultimately, as others have said, it depends on your tastes and your industry. I have a job that would relocate me to SF, and so I spent a while there this year. All I could conclude is that people are people: they'll complain about anything, even in a place that gives you precious little to complain about. People complain about the weather all the time, for instance, and they're surprisingly parochial and small-c conservative with regard to their own region.
That said, yes, it's beautiful, and it's prosperous, and if I or my spouse could earn a lot of money in software it might be worth considering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gomason
COL is higher in the Bay Area, but not that much higher.
Uh, well, in helping to write something recently about inter-city affordability comparisons, I chanced across a weird bit in the data: the "average rents" reported by the Census to the various cost-of-living-calculator sites have no relationship to the market rents in some cities. In NYC and SF, in particular, rent stabilization means that the locals might indeed pay $1200 to rent in NYC or $1400 to rent in SF, but heaven help you find an apartment at those price points if you're new to town. In fact, average rentals in both ofthose cities are easily more than twice as expensive as the "average rent paid."
Uh, well, in helping to write something recently about inter-city affordability comparisons, I chanced across a weird bit in the data: the "average rents" reported by the Census to the various cost-of-living-calculator sites have no relationship to the market rents in some cities. In NYC and SF, in particular, rent stabilization means that the locals might indeed pay $1200 to rent in NYC or $1400 to rent in SF, but heaven help you find an apartment at those price points if you're new to town. In fact, average rentals in both ofthose cities are easily more than twice as expensive as the "average rent paid."
Well if the skewed rent is slightly higher in SF than the skewed rent in DC, then it's still slightly higher.
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.
