Definitely still cheaper than CA (Seattle, Spokane: homes, buy, salaries)

[BeauCharles]

Originally Posted by Seacove

People need to look at the density of San Francisco and ask if that's what we want. It's mostly concrete there now.

San Francisco has been very high density for a very long time. While there weren't the high rise condos and apartments in SOMA like there are now there the population density has been second to NYC for decades. In 1950 there were 775,000 people (compared to over 800K now). Seattle/Tacoma has always struck me as feeling very similar to the Bay Area... just a bit wetter with more pines.

[Returning2USA]

Originally Posted by mossandpinelove

I’ve noticed a few threads of people inquiring abt COL in Seattle and area vs CA and I want to say it’s comparatively still less expensive here than most parts of CA. We moved here abt three years ago from southern CA and you can still easily find affordable places in the city, and MANY more options in the suburbs outside the city. The other bonus is traffic isn’t nearly as bad here as in CA.

In case you dont believe me: For example, we bought our house last year for 272K (3 bedroom, craftsman style) 25 miles outside of Seattle. Commute time for my husband to SLU is 30 min via train or roughly 40 min in the car. COMPARE to 2011 we bought our similarly sized house for similar cost (sold it for 375k in 2016, is now worth close to 500K) in the Inland Emplre (aka where NOBODY wants to live). Our commute to OC was at LEAST an hour, on bad days two hours. So please don’t spread lies telling people not to move here from CA, because it’s only gotten worse down there. Much of Seattle is still much, much more feasible economically and ergonomically than most of the “desirable” locations in CA. I can’t personally speak for the SD or SF areas, but I only can assume they are even more expensive than my example: the IE and OC.

I think this is a case of SoCal being beyond the point of return, and Seattle is bad and getting worse.

[Stonepa]

Originally Posted by Returning2USA

I think this is a case of SoCal being beyond the point of return, and Seattle is bad and getting worse.

I have homes and work in the Bay area and Seattle. I wouldn't call either 'bad', but I would call them 'changed'. Population growth and the steady concentration of jobs means we are no longer living in the 1990's from a COL, traffic, and stress standpoint. This is typical all over the world. I'm frequently in Toronto, London, Paris, Beijing, etc for work. It's the same there as well. It's the price you pay for living there.

That being said, you could always live somewhere else. Contrary to popular opinion, the US South and the Midwest have just as high of salaries for the same work as does the coasts. COL, primarily driven by real estate, transportation, and food costs, is maybe 25% of what SoCal or Seattle cost. Sure, the weather may not be as good as SoCal for 4 months a year but the other 8 months are pretty spectacular. So, you make the choice. Don't complain about it as you can move any time you want.

[MtnSurfer]

Originally Posted by Stonepa

I have homes and work in the Bay area and Seattle. I wouldn't call either 'bad', but I would call them 'changed'. Population growth and the steady concentration of jobs means we are no longer living in the 1990's from a COL, traffic, and stress standpoint. This is typical all over the world. I'm frequently in Toronto, London, Paris, Beijing, etc for work. It's the same there as well. It's the price you pay for living there.

That being said, you could always live somewhere else. Contrary to popular opinion, the US South and the Midwest have just as high of salaries for the same work as does the coasts. COL, primarily driven by real estate, transportation, and food costs, is maybe 25% of what SoCal or Seattle cost. Sure, the weather may not be as good as SoCal for 4 months a year but the other 8 months are pretty spectacular. So, you make the choice. Don't complain about it as you can move any time you want.

Great post and perspective. Good or bad, there is nothing unique or special going on in Seattle that isn't happening all over the planet. Large city populations grow, bottom line. Thus its a waste of time to wish it was like the 'good ole days' or attempt to somehow stem the tide. It's like crying over spilled milk and the inevitable. Best alternatives are to move to less crowded regions as you mention or accept it for what it is - simply a big city bursting at the seams.

I prefer smaller to medium sized cities now after growing up in LA. But some love all that larger cities offer such as better job opportunities, activities, etc... For those folks I say have it! I knew when it was my time to move on to enjoy other things.

Derek

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by MrJester

This is very true. Like I've said, over in Irvine, houses built on a superfund site sell for $500/sq foot. And Irvine is an hour from Downtown Los Angeles, not a central location at all.

Oh well, I guess Californians are going to flock to Texas, anyways. Including me. Born and raised in Southern California, but I'll take the hot, humid summers of the Gulf Coast over the overcast, chilly, drizzly summers of Puget Sound. I say that having experienced both.

Sounds as though you are not a skier.

Having to jump on a plane (from Houston) in order to go skiing (after living my life in the SF Bay Area, LA/OC, and two ski towns) is wearing a bit thin after 11 years. Las Vegas, Seattle, and Vancouver WA/suburban Portland are all closer to skiing.

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by Stonepa

I have homes and work in the Bay area and Seattle. I wouldn't call either 'bad', but I would call them 'changed'. Population growth and the steady concentration of jobs means we are no longer living in the 1990's from a COL, traffic, and stress standpoint. This is typical all over the world. I'm frequently in Toronto, London, Paris, Beijing, etc for work. It's the same there as well. It's the price you pay for living there.

That being said, you could always live somewhere else. Contrary to popular opinion, the US South and the Midwest have just as high of salaries for the same work as does the coasts. COL, primarily driven by real estate, transportation, and food costs, is maybe 25% of what SoCal or Seattle cost. Sure, the weather may not be as good as SoCal for 4 months a year but the other 8 months are pretty spectacular. So, you make the choice. Don't complain about it as you can move any time you want.

I'm a baseball fan, and I like to ski....but I'm at an age where I no longer require the single and double diamond runs at Squaw, Alpine, Heavenly, etc. After the Hall Tax goes away in Tennessee in 2021, Chattanooga is on my radar. Pretty, fun for mild hiking, can easily day trip to Atlanta for a baseball game, the 'bunny slope' Cloudmont is right there, and only 155 miles to Ober Gatlinberg (better skiing).

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by BeauCharles

San Francisco has been very high density for a very long time. While there weren't the high rise condos and apartments in SOMA like there are now there the population density has been second to NYC for decades. In 1950 there were 775,000 people (compared to over 800K now). Seattle/Tacoma has always struck me as feeling very similar to the Bay Area... just a bit wetter with more pines.

Which makes a difference, IMO.

Of the metros that encompass the 40 largest cities in the U.S., IMO, the only one that exceeds the Bay Area visually is Seattle (and I'm a Bay Area native).

[RMESMH]

Originally Posted by StealthRabbit

Broken concrete after the next quake (either place). Been awhile since we had a real shaker

Specific to "commute times" / housing costs... Bay and Seattle have some similarities, WA and CA have a few more similarities. (costs)

When WA has an income tax... there will be a closer comparison, (And SD or AK will become my domicile)

but parts of CA will likely always exceed WA for costs (just because CA is NOT WA!!!and that is very good!).

WA and OR governors would like to be CA and I wish they were there! Just not enough states to ruin, so they should split up CA for every aspiring 'kingdom holder' (politician seeking to ruin another location).

CARB, voted down by WA, yet now we have it (By will of the WA Gov)
Just one of MANY examples.

These are the types of things that will always make CA more expensive (Nanny state)
Protected / worthless jobs for Gov workers and extra EXPENSE / taxes / trouble / restrictions for tax paying businesses and residents. CARB objectives could have been met TOMORROW (for free) with conservation measures vs, thousands of additional worthless jobs, regulations, infrastructure to meet objectives (maybe) in 20 yrs.

Bad politics.
Bad for the economic health of the state. (Imagine the increased state income and productivity if CA state workers were actually producing revenue rather than overhead!) = $1,985,732,068 / month! wages ONLY. Consider 3x that rate for Gov employee overhead (benefits and retirement). Not to mention 'sleeping on the job'...
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018...it-california/

The investigation determined the employee slept at her desk at least three hours every workday. The sleep was documented in her performance evaluations, which state she has been sleeping daily at her desk since February 2014. The employee’s supervisor was aware the employee was sleeping, but thought the employee “only missed 20 to 30 minutes of work time daily” even though she woke the employee up 3 to 4 times a day.

https://www.sco.ca.gov/ppsd_empinfo_demo.html

Don't 'say' the bolded too loudly on any of the California forums .

[Returning2USA]

Originally Posted by Stonepa

I have homes and work in the Bay area and Seattle. I wouldn't call either 'bad', but I would call them 'changed'. Population growth and the steady concentration of jobs means we are no longer living in the 1990's from a COL, traffic, and stress standpoint. This is typical all over the world. I'm frequently in Toronto, London, Paris, Beijing, etc for work. It's the same there as well. It's the price you pay for living there.

That being said, you could always live somewhere else. Contrary to popular opinion, the US South and the Midwest have just as high of salaries for the same work as does the coasts. COL, primarily driven by real estate, transportation, and food costs, is maybe 25% of what SoCal or Seattle cost. Sure, the weather may not be as good as SoCal for 4 months a year but the other 8 months are pretty spectacular. So, you make the choice. Don't complain about it as you can move any time you want.

Wise words, Stonepa.

I did vote with my feet and left.

I'm very happy where I live now.

[MrJester]

Originally Posted by RMESMH

Sounds as though you are not a skier.

Having to jump on a plane (from Houston) in order to go skiing (after living my life in the SF Bay Area, LA/OC, and two ski towns) is wearing a bit thin after 11 years. Las Vegas, Seattle, and Vancouver WA/suburban Portland are all closer to skiing.

I have skied several times before, including Big Bear, near LA, and Park City, Utah. Highly enjoy it, but if I ski, it would more be like a once a year, weeklong vacation in the Colorado Rockies. That's the most hassle free way. One plane trip to ski for seven days in a row vs. driving every weekend for three hours to the nearest ski resort that is nowhere as good as the Colorado Rockies.

Last time I checked, Seattle is not within a days drive within any Rocky Mountain Ski resort. Snoqualmie Pass is not on the level of any resort in the Rockies.

And no, I would not go to Big Bear again were I a serious skier. I'd save my vacation days to buy a plane ticket from Los Angeles to fly to Salt Lake City and do some world class skiing there than ski on some lame man-made hardpack snow in a puny Big Bear resort. Plane tickets to SLC from LA are very cheap.