San Francisco or Seattle
Dec 17th 2007, 2:46 am
#46
Septicity
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 23,762
Re: San Francisco or Seattle
What difference does it make? The essence of his question was, which of the two places would we recommend; he said he had a 'visa', which was enough to convey, 'I have the right to work'. To me, a green card is a form of visa, in that, it's a right to work. I don't see why it's relevant to the question at hand.
Dec 17th 2007, 3:31 am
#47
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 13,111
Re: San Francisco or Seattle
I've had both. With either a green card or an appropriate visa he has just as much right to work in Seattle as he does to work in SF, so I don't see how the distinction matters. I suppose we could get technical and say, "a 'green card' is a card that signifies you have the status of a Permanent Resident" ... but it's not relevant. Would our answers differ based on him having a visa vs. a green card? He said he had a 'visa', and later clarified that he had a green card. (He probably started out with a visa and later got a green card; I did). They both suggest he's ok to work here, using a casual interpretation of the two terms, so why does it warrant further attention?
My real point was, why can't people stay 'on topic' in these threads? We're 3 or 4 pages into a discussion of Seattle vs SF, when someone starts implying there was a 'deception' going on about having a 'visa' ('So the statement you had a visa ..was just a story ..')! These posts just serve to detract from the flow of the thread. Trying to read these threads from the beginning is painful when you have to wade through lots of 'noise'.
I guess I'm used to more disciplined forums where people who have something to contribute do so, and the rest stay out. Oh well, it's the internet!
My real point was, why can't people stay 'on topic' in these threads? We're 3 or 4 pages into a discussion of Seattle vs SF, when someone starts implying there was a 'deception' going on about having a 'visa' ('So the statement you had a visa ..was just a story ..')! These posts just serve to detract from the flow of the thread. Trying to read these threads from the beginning is painful when you have to wade through lots of 'noise'.
I guess I'm used to more disciplined forums where people who have something to contribute do so, and the rest stay out. Oh well, it's the internet!
Last edited by Steerpike; Dec 17th 2007 at 3:36 am.
Dec 17th 2007, 4:19 am
#48
Septicity
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 23,762
Re: San Francisco or Seattle
I've had both. With either a green card or an appropriate visa he has just as much right to work in Seattle as he does to work in SF, so I don't see how the distinction matters. I suppose we could get technical and say, "a 'green card' is a card that signifies you have the status of a Permanent Resident" ... but it's not relevant. Would our answers differ based on him having a visa vs. a green card? He said he had a 'visa', and later clarified that he had a green card. (He probably started out with a visa and later got a green card; I did). They both suggest he's ok to work here, using a casual interpretation of the two terms, so why does it warrant further attention?
My real point was, why can't people stay 'on topic' in these threads? We're 3 or 4 pages into a discussion of Seattle vs SF, when someone starts implying there was a 'deception' going on about having a 'visa' ('So the statement you had a visa ..was just a story ..')! These posts just serve to detract from the flow of the thread. Trying to read these threads from the beginning is painful when you have to wade through lots of 'noise'.
I guess I'm used to more disciplined forums where people who have something to contribute do so, and the rest stay out. Oh well, it's the internet!
My real point was, why can't people stay 'on topic' in these threads? We're 3 or 4 pages into a discussion of Seattle vs SF, when someone starts implying there was a 'deception' going on about having a 'visa' ('So the statement you had a visa ..was just a story ..')! These posts just serve to detract from the flow of the thread. Trying to read these threads from the beginning is painful when you have to wade through lots of 'noise'.
I guess I'm used to more disciplined forums where people who have something to contribute do so, and the rest stay out. Oh well, it's the internet!
The reason someone questions it is that is not unknown for threads to go on for many posts and then for us to discover that the OP has not a hope in hell of ever actually getting here. It's therefore common to verify someone's status first.
If you like discipline, there's nothing wrong with that. Several of our contributors are, I believe aficionados of this very pleasant pastime. However, we also live amiably with the more vanilla ones.
Dec 17th 2007, 4:28 am
#49
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 68,280
Re: San Francisco or Seattle
I suppose we could get technical and say, "a 'green card' is a card that signifies you have the status of a Permanent Resident" ... but it's not relevant. Would our answers differ based on him having a visa vs. a green card?
Dec 17th 2007, 4:59 am
#50
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Nevada b4 California b4 Colorado b4 Valley of plastic and sand, b4 London
Posts: 2,025
Re: San Francisco or Seattle
Hello. Been reading through various informative threads on both San Francisco and Seattle but haven't found one that does a comparison.
I intend to move to one of these cities (or surrounding area) early next year. I am single, early 40’s, visa holder and looking for a place with a buzz. I intend to work in IT and safety is big issue i.e. would prefer to live in a safe community and commute to the cultural stuff. Spent years in New York city and would like a change.
So here is my question:
If you have experienced both cities, which one would you prefer and why?
Thanks.
I intend to move to one of these cities (or surrounding area) early next year. I am single, early 40’s, visa holder and looking for a place with a buzz. I intend to work in IT and safety is big issue i.e. would prefer to live in a safe community and commute to the cultural stuff. Spent years in New York city and would like a change.
So here is my question:
If you have experienced both cities, which one would you prefer and why?
Thanks.
Last edited by veryfunny; Dec 17th 2007 at 5:07 am.
Dec 17th 2007, 5:08 am
#51
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Aug 2003
Location: Nevada b4 California b4 Colorado b4 Valley of plastic and sand, b4 London
Posts: 2,025
Dec 17th 2007, 5:09 am
#52
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
Posts: 13,111
Re: San Francisco or Seattle
To Ray and Fatbrit - ok, a visa is typically tied to a specific job, or is otherwise more restrictive, while a green card (permanent resident) indicates the right to work in most jobs (other than those requiring security clearance, etc). They are not the same; my bad. But once he clarified he had a green card, it seems the issue was moot. Never mind, moving on ...
============================================
First off, MrP's post refers to Pacifica, while he was quoted as saying 'Pacific Heights' (maybe he edited his post after being quoted?). Anyway, Pacific Heights is the 'Mayfair' of SF, while Pacifica is a fog-drenched coastal town south of the city - don't decide to live there on just one visit, it looks good in winter but you may not see the sun for months in summer!
Regarding Berkeley - short answer, "just don't do it". Longer answer ... it's got good weather (warmer than SF, cooler than inland), it's got UC-Berkeley (top rated school in UC system, top rated state school in the country), it's got some restaurants that are even higher rated than SF. So what's not to like? Well, it's so far left as to have fallen off the edge. Its very aggressive rent control and tenants rights laws have killed all property development, and landlords spend the bare minimum to repair properties so everything looks dilapidated. If you think SF has a homeless problem, Berkeley is off the scale. I've stopped dining there because you will be accosted by the hordes going from car to restaurant. The Berkeley hills are nice, and Rockridge (actually in Oakland) is a good spot, but the 'core' of Berkeley (telegraph avenue, Shattuck, etc) are just not good (imo).
Palo Alto - my favorite city in the bay area. Just 32 miles south of SF (http://maps.google.com/maps?daddr=Pa...0879&z=10&om=1, I made that commute for 5 years), it has Stanford University (top rated private school on west coast, and up there with the best in the country), it has fabulous weather (again, warmer than SF, cooler than Walnut Creek where I live), and it has "University Avenue" - with about 10 blocks of wall-to-wall restaurants and a fantastic pedestrian ambience every night - crowded sidwalks, bustling businesses ... just great to stroll around. The commercial section extends a few blocks either side of University Ave, then it blends into some of the nicest residential areas you could hope to find - walking distance to everything. It has Stanford Shopping Center (best open air shopping place I've ever seen).
You mention maybe not considering 'silicon valley', but Palo Alto is the very heart of SV - it's where Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard got together to form HP, and it's where xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) came up with the mouse, the graphical user interface, and 'ethernet'; ideas later commercialized by Apple and 3-Com.
Walnut Creek is a great place, but it's only good to live there if you work in the East Bay (not a great number of IT jobs) or in downtown SF - due to good BART service into the city. Living in the North Bay is similarly restrictive; not much local IT stuff, and limited options getting into SF (bus, car, or infrequent ferries). The South Bay (which is almost synonymous with Silicon Valley) is a place you can live and commute into SF, OR, find thousands of jobs nearby. Burlingame is a gem - quality downtown with foot traffic, etc.
I moved to Walnut Creek when I had a job in downtown SF - great. Then I found a job in Walnut Creek itself - even better. But I could not find another job in Walnut Creek, nor in SF, and I ended up having to take a job in San Mateo - so now I commute through major corridors and across the San Mateo bridge. The only thing that makes this tolerable is, I go in after 10am and leave after 7pm (50 minute drive).
While property prices in Palo Alto are astronomical (MEDIAN price is $1.3M), rents across the bay area don't vary to the same degree. Rents still have not risen since their drop over the past few years (due to everyone buying any property they could get their hands on), and the difference between the varous regions are relatively moderate. Under $2k/month will get you something nice, I think (will there be one of you or more? Are you hoping to rent an apartment or a house?).
Seattle is probably a better deal if you are heavy into the outdoors - mountain climbing, skiing, etc. You can hike in the Bay Area, and you can drive to Tahoe or Yosemite for skiing/mountain climbing, but I think Seattle has closer stuff (not sure; not my gig). Seattle also has more of a 'marine' culture. While both SF and Seattle are surrounded by water, Seattle has more inlets, islands, bays, etc, and I think the idea of owning a home on the water is more practical there. Again, not my gig.
SF is more diverse; 40% white, 27% asian (mainly Chinese); large hispanic population. Great for Asian food, Mexican food - the authentic stuff. But Seattle is not far behind; 67% white; 17% Asian. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle for more.
Weather - while it rains in Seattle a lot more than SF, it doesn't rain as much as many other places. From Wikipedia: "Seattle's worldwide reputation for rain derives from the fact that it is cloudy an average of 201 days per year (cf. 132 in New York City). Most of the precipitation falls as drizzle or light rain, with only occasional downpours. Spring, late fall, and winter are filled with days when it does not rain but looks as if it might because of cloudy, overcast skies". Remind you of anywhere?!
============================================
First off, MrP's post refers to Pacifica, while he was quoted as saying 'Pacific Heights' (maybe he edited his post after being quoted?). Anyway, Pacific Heights is the 'Mayfair' of SF, while Pacifica is a fog-drenched coastal town south of the city - don't decide to live there on just one visit, it looks good in winter but you may not see the sun for months in summer!
Regarding Berkeley - short answer, "just don't do it". Longer answer ... it's got good weather (warmer than SF, cooler than inland), it's got UC-Berkeley (top rated school in UC system, top rated state school in the country), it's got some restaurants that are even higher rated than SF. So what's not to like? Well, it's so far left as to have fallen off the edge. Its very aggressive rent control and tenants rights laws have killed all property development, and landlords spend the bare minimum to repair properties so everything looks dilapidated. If you think SF has a homeless problem, Berkeley is off the scale. I've stopped dining there because you will be accosted by the hordes going from car to restaurant. The Berkeley hills are nice, and Rockridge (actually in Oakland) is a good spot, but the 'core' of Berkeley (telegraph avenue, Shattuck, etc) are just not good (imo).
Palo Alto - my favorite city in the bay area. Just 32 miles south of SF (http://maps.google.com/maps?daddr=Pa...0879&z=10&om=1, I made that commute for 5 years), it has Stanford University (top rated private school on west coast, and up there with the best in the country), it has fabulous weather (again, warmer than SF, cooler than Walnut Creek where I live), and it has "University Avenue" - with about 10 blocks of wall-to-wall restaurants and a fantastic pedestrian ambience every night - crowded sidwalks, bustling businesses ... just great to stroll around. The commercial section extends a few blocks either side of University Ave, then it blends into some of the nicest residential areas you could hope to find - walking distance to everything. It has Stanford Shopping Center (best open air shopping place I've ever seen).
You mention maybe not considering 'silicon valley', but Palo Alto is the very heart of SV - it's where Mr. Hewlett and Mr. Packard got together to form HP, and it's where xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center) came up with the mouse, the graphical user interface, and 'ethernet'; ideas later commercialized by Apple and 3-Com.
Walnut Creek is a great place, but it's only good to live there if you work in the East Bay (not a great number of IT jobs) or in downtown SF - due to good BART service into the city. Living in the North Bay is similarly restrictive; not much local IT stuff, and limited options getting into SF (bus, car, or infrequent ferries). The South Bay (which is almost synonymous with Silicon Valley) is a place you can live and commute into SF, OR, find thousands of jobs nearby. Burlingame is a gem - quality downtown with foot traffic, etc.
I moved to Walnut Creek when I had a job in downtown SF - great. Then I found a job in Walnut Creek itself - even better. But I could not find another job in Walnut Creek, nor in SF, and I ended up having to take a job in San Mateo - so now I commute through major corridors and across the San Mateo bridge. The only thing that makes this tolerable is, I go in after 10am and leave after 7pm (50 minute drive).
While property prices in Palo Alto are astronomical (MEDIAN price is $1.3M), rents across the bay area don't vary to the same degree. Rents still have not risen since their drop over the past few years (due to everyone buying any property they could get their hands on), and the difference between the varous regions are relatively moderate. Under $2k/month will get you something nice, I think (will there be one of you or more? Are you hoping to rent an apartment or a house?).
Seattle is probably a better deal if you are heavy into the outdoors - mountain climbing, skiing, etc. You can hike in the Bay Area, and you can drive to Tahoe or Yosemite for skiing/mountain climbing, but I think Seattle has closer stuff (not sure; not my gig). Seattle also has more of a 'marine' culture. While both SF and Seattle are surrounded by water, Seattle has more inlets, islands, bays, etc, and I think the idea of owning a home on the water is more practical there. Again, not my gig.
SF is more diverse; 40% white, 27% asian (mainly Chinese); large hispanic population. Great for Asian food, Mexican food - the authentic stuff. But Seattle is not far behind; 67% white; 17% Asian. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle for more.
Weather - while it rains in Seattle a lot more than SF, it doesn't rain as much as many other places. From Wikipedia: "Seattle's worldwide reputation for rain derives from the fact that it is cloudy an average of 201 days per year (cf. 132 in New York City). Most of the precipitation falls as drizzle or light rain, with only occasional downpours. Spring, late fall, and winter are filled with days when it does not rain but looks as if it might because of cloudy, overcast skies". Remind you of anywhere?!
Dec 17th 2007, 6:23 am
#53
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,583
Re: San Francisco or Seattle
Don't let's talk up the SF Bay Area too much. I'd discourage anyone from moving here. 
Let them all go to Florida.
Let them all go to Florida.
Dec 17th 2007, 1:27 pm
#54
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7
Re: San Francisco or Seattle
I am legally entitled to work in the States. My professional work experience and graduate degree leads me to believe that I will not have a problem finding a job in either city. My prior salary history would also indicate that I can afford the areas that I am researching.
Dec 17th 2007, 1:51 pm
#55
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 68,280
Re: San Francisco or Seattle
If you left the US for a time ..you got your re-entry permit
filed your AR11 ..continued to file your taxes.. etc ..your good to go ...
Dec 17th 2007, 1:52 pm
#56
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 7
Re: San Francisco or Seattle
Regarding your comment on the "noise" on this thread:
Unfortunately, it does detract from the topic on hand. When Google indexes this thread for posterity, it will include the good with the bad. And that's a shame.
Dec 17th 2007, 2:02 pm
#58
Riding on silver wings
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 10,543
Re: San Francisco or Seattle