Seattle vs San Francisco
#61
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,518
Re: Seattle vs San Francisco
Gun ownership is a fact of life for many people, yes. Gun crime, no. Unless you live in a neighbourhood that is infested with gangs and drug dealers, your chances of being a victim of gun crime are tiny. Odds of being maimed or killed in a car accident are much greater.
If by "fact of life" you mean, you will see it in news reports often, then yes.
If by "fact of life" you mean, you will see it in news reports often, then yes.
There will be lockdown practices at school.
We live in a posh area and yes, less likely to have constant gun crime, although a close neighbour's son shot another schoolboy dead about 25 years ago (he's out of prison now). At the time, the police shot up the whole house thinking he was in there. But you can't really stay in your suburb at all times.
#62
Re: Seattle vs San Francisco
You will know people who own guns and therefore have to be OK with your own kids being around them.
There will be lockdown practices at school.
We live in a posh area and yes, less likely to have constant gun crime, although a close neighbour's son shot another schoolboy dead about 25 years ago (he's out of prison now). At the time, the police shot up the whole house thinking he was in there. But you can't really stay in your suburb at all times.
There will be lockdown practices at school.
We live in a posh area and yes, less likely to have constant gun crime, although a close neighbour's son shot another schoolboy dead about 25 years ago (he's out of prison now). At the time, the police shot up the whole house thinking he was in there. But you can't really stay in your suburb at all times.
I was living in LA when this one happened - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covina_massacre - after a couple of days it had dropped off the news cycle.
#63
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,518
Re: Seattle vs San Francisco
I find that it's only the big multi-person shootings that get any headline traction - not sure if this one from today will http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/2-...chool-shooting
I was living in LA when this one happened - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covina_massacre - after a couple of days it had dropped off the news cycle.
I was living in LA when this one happened - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covina_massacre - after a couple of days it had dropped off the news cycle.
#66
Re: Seattle vs San Francisco
There are incidents in the news, and a few not far away, nearest gas station held up and a few incidents involving youth and guns at the nearest park. But I am still to see a gun in anger or not.
#67
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 41,518
Re: Seattle vs San Francisco
A bit like health insurance, I didn't think about it much for us coming over. But as your kids grow up, you realize it could be an issue unless you're sure they will be rich.
#68
N99sea
Joined: Aug 2007
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 248
Re: Seattle vs San Francisco
In the Seattle School District, a child's school assignment is based completely on address. If you don't want your kid to attend your neighborhood school, we do have option schools (sometimes more arts based), but they are very popular, and typically have big wait lists. My kid's school seems to have a good balance of academic time and PE, music, the arts etc. Most of the elementary schools in the north end of Seattle are pretty decent.
Naomi.
Naomi.
#69
Forum Regular
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 59
Re: Seattle vs San Francisco
Thanks everyone, once again for all your invaluable insights and tips. I really appreciate it. Can't want to come have a nose around in January :-)
#70
Re: Seattle vs San Francisco
I just stumbled across this thread; look forward to hearing what you find in January.
On the gun front, I'm passionately anti-gun, and can say that in 25 years in the Bay Area, I never saw a gun, nor heard any friends talk about owning them - it's a non-topic. The area is strongly liberal and generally anti-gun, so you wouldn't be moving into a 'gun nut' area. I would think Seattle is not much different.
The Bay Area has a lot less rain (*), and should therefore give you more opportunities to enjoy the outdoors. San Francisco itself has a thick blanket of fog through quite a bit of the summer, which I grew to hate - but you don't have to travel far to escape it (27 miles to the east, it can be 30 degrees (F) warmer; 10 miles south or north, you can be in pleasant sunshine).
(*) - it rains about 1" more per month in Seattle, compared to SF (14" difference per year), but the bigger issue is, Seattle has more of the 'UK' rain style - drizzle, grey skies, etc. In the Bay Area, you tend to get a good downpour then clear blue skies. Seattle has, according to this govt. site, 58-71 clear/sunny days a year, while SF airport has 160. This govt. page says Seattle has over 200 cloudy days, while San Francisco airport has only 105 (subtract 'clear' and 'cloudy' from 365 and you get the info for 'partly cloudy'). Note that SF airport is not in SF, and does not suffer from the classic SF fog.
Due to the nature of the bay area, travel/commute can be a challenge; bridges and tunnels form significant bottlenecks (I imagine Seattle is similar but can't say for sure). So 'getting out of town' to enjoy the natural surroundings can be tough during commute times. If you live on the peninsula, anywhere from Burlingame down to Mountain View, you will have easy access to the foothills that separate the corridor from the ocean, but - these are expensive areas and traffic is tough. The north bay is even better from a 'nature' perspective - Marin County (Sausalito, Tiburon, etc) but is extremely expensive, and you have to contend with limited commute options (if you work in SF) - either you cross the overcrowded Golden Gate Bridge, or, you take a ferry - awesome alternative but with only limited schedules.
For the Bay Area, at least, it's vital to know the exact city he'll be working in; armed with that info, we can make better suggestions.
I think SF (area) is going to be significantly more expensive than Seattle (area) when you combine housing and taxes, but I do think salaries are higher in SF, so it should be possible to negotiate a higher income. If for some reason salaries are the same for hubby, then you are likely going to have more disposable income in Seattle.
Personally I couldn't take the rain/gray skies of Seattle, but if that's not a factor for you, I'd say Seattle is a good choice.
On the gun front, I'm passionately anti-gun, and can say that in 25 years in the Bay Area, I never saw a gun, nor heard any friends talk about owning them - it's a non-topic. The area is strongly liberal and generally anti-gun, so you wouldn't be moving into a 'gun nut' area. I would think Seattle is not much different.
The Bay Area has a lot less rain (*), and should therefore give you more opportunities to enjoy the outdoors. San Francisco itself has a thick blanket of fog through quite a bit of the summer, which I grew to hate - but you don't have to travel far to escape it (27 miles to the east, it can be 30 degrees (F) warmer; 10 miles south or north, you can be in pleasant sunshine).
(*) - it rains about 1" more per month in Seattle, compared to SF (14" difference per year), but the bigger issue is, Seattle has more of the 'UK' rain style - drizzle, grey skies, etc. In the Bay Area, you tend to get a good downpour then clear blue skies. Seattle has, according to this govt. site, 58-71 clear/sunny days a year, while SF airport has 160. This govt. page says Seattle has over 200 cloudy days, while San Francisco airport has only 105 (subtract 'clear' and 'cloudy' from 365 and you get the info for 'partly cloudy'). Note that SF airport is not in SF, and does not suffer from the classic SF fog.
Due to the nature of the bay area, travel/commute can be a challenge; bridges and tunnels form significant bottlenecks (I imagine Seattle is similar but can't say for sure). So 'getting out of town' to enjoy the natural surroundings can be tough during commute times. If you live on the peninsula, anywhere from Burlingame down to Mountain View, you will have easy access to the foothills that separate the corridor from the ocean, but - these are expensive areas and traffic is tough. The north bay is even better from a 'nature' perspective - Marin County (Sausalito, Tiburon, etc) but is extremely expensive, and you have to contend with limited commute options (if you work in SF) - either you cross the overcrowded Golden Gate Bridge, or, you take a ferry - awesome alternative but with only limited schedules.
For the Bay Area, at least, it's vital to know the exact city he'll be working in; armed with that info, we can make better suggestions.
I think SF (area) is going to be significantly more expensive than Seattle (area) when you combine housing and taxes, but I do think salaries are higher in SF, so it should be possible to negotiate a higher income. If for some reason salaries are the same for hubby, then you are likely going to have more disposable income in Seattle.
Personally I couldn't take the rain/gray skies of Seattle, but if that's not a factor for you, I'd say Seattle is a good choice.