Portland vs. Seattle vs. San Fran

summertimeinthe509 wrote:

Easy, Portland...Its San Fran without the cost of living and homeless people...Seattle with better weather and less congestion....granted Portland does have homeless people, congestion and gloomy winters, overall it is the best out of the three. Go Timbers!

You are forgetting one important thing. The three cities are in three different states, and OP clearly said that he would like to start his own business eventually. Of the three states, California is by far the least Business Friendly, while Washington and Oregon are both pretty close. Right now Washington has a higher rank for business friendliness, but also a higher cost of doing business than Oregon, but the two states are pretty close in every ranking on the overall buisness friendliness level. Except for one metric. Washington State ranks much higher in technology and innovation. If he wants to get into the tech business, Seattle. If he doesnt, Seattle or Portland would either work. If he wants to live in a stupidly expensive town in a state that is awful for businesses, San Francisco. California has the highest Cost of Doing Business rating in the nation, one of the worst rankings for education (45 out of 50), and one of the highest cost of living in the country (48 out of 50), and overall ranks 48 out of 50 for business friendliness (Washington and Oregon rank 21 and 25 respectively)

If your list is in order of importance, and if you are ambitious, then move to the Bay Area. The area from San Jose up to SF is currently one of the greatest hotbeds of wealth generation and innovation the planet has ever seen. It's the only place that approaches NYC in terms of economic opportunities.

I also love Seattle, but the economy and job market up there is pretty conventional. Fine, but not very inspiring. I also love Portland, but the economic opportunities there are by far the worst of the three. By far.

The cities all rank highly in areas 2, 3 and 4. Although, to be nitpicky, Portland is not diverse.

Please do not call it San Fran. You sound like an idiot.

It is called San Francisco or The City.

THIS. Especially for CA. Terrible place to start a business.

Taxes and regulations are only one part of the picture. Another is venture capital, depending upon the type of business. The Bay Area is by far the top and Portland is not even on the radar. Also, it may be important to be in an environment with people to collaborate with.

It is no accident that entrepreneurs like Zuckerberg had to to take their ideas to Silicon Valley to get them off the ground. Also, who is the target for the product and where are they concentrated? These considerations might outweigh cost of business.

I have lived in both Portland and San Francisco, and have spent some time up in Seattle. They are all really great cities, however, at your age, in your situation, I would probably prefer San Francisco or Seattle.

Particularly, in regards to starting a business, I found the people in both San Francisco and Seattle to be much more motivated than Portlanders. Additionally, both of those cities have larger pools of qualified candidates. From what I have heard from my boss who started her own small business, Seattle is a decent climate to start a business, whereas California can be nightmarish, due to a plethora of regulations and exorbitant fees, and Portland is tougher as well. However, as someone mentioned previously, the possibility for obtaining venture capital support etc. is good in the Bay Area.

I do not know much about the running scene in Seattle, but when I explored the possibility of moving there, it looked pretty good, with some good routes in the city, trails nearby and a decent club scene. I personally did find San Francisco to be far superior to Portland. There is a more diverse variety of areas to run, more races, a solid club scene:

http://www.pausatf.org/

, and better and more challenging trails within a short drive. I also prefer running in areas that are more open with changing views versus being tucked into trees, like Forest Park, for an entire run. However, many of my Portland friends are perfectly happy doing the bulk of their running buried among the Douglas Firs. It is a personal preference.

I also preferred the year-round weather in San Francisco. The summer's in Portland are, no doubt, fantastic, but the constant gloom and wet in the spring, winter and fall can get old. That is why when I relocated I picked San Francisco over Seattle. I was ready for a little more sun and less rain. Even with the foggy summer days, you still get a lot more sun in the city, versus the Pacific NW, and many of the outlying areas are constantly sunny.

With all of that said, at this point in my life, nearing 40, married and settled in a career, with some family and friends still in Portland, I would choose to go back there versus San Francisco and actually have thought about returning recently. That is mostly attributable to cost-of-living and no longer wanting to deal with how incredibly busy and dirty everything is in the Bay Area. However, I am very happy in Colorado for now.

They are all great cities and regardless of what you choose, you are likely to have a positive experience. Good luck!

Been There, Done That wrote:

intercity wrote:

San Francisco people are very friendly & more with it.

Friendly? Uh, yea ok. I've had more people in SF tell me to go fvck myself than I count on one hand just for asking a question.

So they all wanted you to get laid. That's nice.

The Animal Within wrote:

Please do not call it San Fran. You sound like an idiot.

It is called San Francisco or The City.

Always call it Frisco to fit in with the locals. You don't want to sound like a tourist.

Portland is San Francisco without the Homeless? WTF I am not sure where you get your info but Portland has more homeless Per Capita then any other city... Source...

http://www.portlandmercury.com/BlogtownPDX/archives/2009/07/14/oregon-1-in-homelessness

That being said Portland is a great City I prefer SF if you are in your 20's and make $ I lived in SF in my 20's and my wife and I loved it but I can tell you it is not a fun place to be if you do not have $... as far as WA I owned a restaurant in Spokane and spent time all over WA Seattle was my least favorite uneless you like Heroin if that is your gig go there for sure... WA is one of the most beautiful states I have ever lived...

How does San Francisco compare to New York in terms of cost of living? A lot of you used it to argue against SF, but I am already used to a high cost of living having been in New York for many years. Unless SF is more expensive than Manhattan, which I find hard to believe, it's doable. My annual income is roughly 90K to 100K. Single. No debt. Don't spend a lot money either. I don't plan on buying a car either. I have 3 bikes and plan to rent a car/take public transport/fly if I have longer trips.

It would be a huge plus if I can surround myself with people who are diverse, intelligent, and ambitious. This would have big implications for entrepreneurship down the road, which is why I initially favored SF of the three. Some of you guys have said the Bay area is bad for entrepreneurship, but I find this puzzling since Silicon Valley is there. Any real evidence for why Bay area is bad for entrepreneurship?

jamin wrote:

Do not move to Seattle. It's a cool city, but the people here are intolerable. Bunch of Prius-driving, pseudo-intellectual pricks. Dave Matthews lives here and even he drives a Prius. The sales tax is like 10% and the revenue apparently doesn't go into building roads, because the roads here suck. Nothing ever gets done because the politicians like to discuss things to death.

The roads do suck. The politicians talk too much. It doesn't rain nearly as much as is advertised (sun breaks happen, as opposed to Eugene).

The quality of living in Seattle is one of the best in the USA. Great food scene, close to lots of nature.

That said, it is hard to beat the Bay Area.

You have redwood mountains 1 hour in either direction.

SF itself will be hard to live in, and expensive, but you can live near BART and commute...you can also focus on the S. Bay, which, as SF gets priced out for companies, is experiencing a rebirth.

California is only good to tech companies, and maybe finance, a lot of major banks in the Bay Area. Everything else could get the hell out as far as the govt. is concerned. I can't speak for Portland or Washington, but starting a business here in California was one of the worst experiences I ever had. But if job, economic security, and affordability are not high on your list of preferences you'll be fine here. There's great running trails in the state, plenty of open land outside the cities. Traffic and smog are pretty bad, but I hear it's slightly better in Northern California compared to where I live in Socal.

Fellow, let me tell you first hand, $100K in SF will barely buy you a pot to piss in. You're going to be competing with high tech and high finance salaries that are at least double. You would be much better off in Port or SEA. Good luck.

Ok, SF has a high cost of living, but it's apparently better than NYC:

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&city1=New+York%2C+NY&country2=United+States&city2=San+Francisco%2C+CA

I have worked in finance for a little over a year after graduation. I expect the 90K to 100K figure to grow to roughly 100K to 120K in 2 to 3 years. Is this below what tech/finance people make in SF?

interested in this as well. bump.

San Francisco is definitely preferable to Seattle and Portland for weather reasons alone.

Yes, SF has extremely high cost of living. I'd advise not living in SF proper and instead finding a place in the East Bay that isn't too far from BART. That way it's easy to get into and out of SF proper, you don't have to worry about SF's gloomy summer fog/wind, and your cost of living is significantly lower without comprising quality of life whatsoever. If you need an urban environment, look into Oakland/Berkeley. If you need something more quiet, rural, and/or suburban, looking into Walnut Creek, Dublin, Fremont, etc. There are other good places too. Check out city-data.com forums for the best insights.

Easy to get to awesome trails from all of these places. Plenty of great national and state parks reasonable drives away. For example, Oakland to Yosemite is about 3 hours drive each way without traffic.

salazar's brother wrote:

Ok, SF has a high cost of living, but it's apparently better than NYC:

http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_cities.jsp?country1=United+States&city1=New+York%2C+NY&country2=United+States&city2=San+Francisco%2C+CA

I have worked in finance for a little over a year after graduation. I expect the 90K to 100K figure to grow to roughly 100K to 120K in 2 to 3 years. Is this below what tech/finance people make in SF?

SF is brutally expensive and a filthy city. Not sure why you would want to live there. 1BR rent is going to run $2500/month.

I too have been considering a move.

But I've also included San Diego ---- how does that fit in with these three choices?

colrdo-runner wrote:

I too have been considering a move.

But I've also included San Diego ---- how does that fit in with these three choices?

I prefer San Diego to all three. Some will argue that San Diego lacks culture compared to PDX/SEA/SF, but I disagree. Beaches, best weather in the country, best Mexican food in the country make up for that.