or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Seattle

post #1 of 8
Thread Starter 
Quote:
 I remember a few years ago when Seattle set a record for something like 115 days of receiving rain. Ugh.

Not quite. From November to March of 1998-1999, we had 90 days, not consecutive, with some precipitation. For skiers, it was a bonanza. That was the winter Mt Baker set the world record (stealing it from Mt Rainier) with 95 feet of snow. Everywhere in the Cascades got a ton. Nonskiers were booking trips to Mexico and Hawaii like crazy, but I don't think anyone here was complaining.

 

http://www.komonews.com/news/archive/4174591.html

 

One thing I will say to caution a person moving to Seattle right now--the housing crunch is no joke. It's gotten expensive here, and extremely competitive, if you want to live close-in. It sounds like they'll be making the $$ to deal with it, but they'll still have a lot of competition--tech salaries are high, and people have money to spend. Amazon's hiring 20,000 more people here in the next 3 years, and I don't know where they are going to fit. People that don't mind living in quieter corners of the city have more options.

post #2 of 8

Average annual rainfall:

 

Vancouver, B.C.: 48"

Seattle: 36"

Victoria, B.C.: 24"

post #3 of 8

North Bend, Wa. 58". Add 20% if you live by the river. But it means 120+ inches of snow is 20 min. away.

post #4 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by wooley12 View Post

North Bend, Wa. 58". Add 20% if you live by the river. But it means 120+ inches of snow is 20 min. away.

You're talking base depth, I assume? Even for base depth as opposed to snowfall, that sounds low for Baker?
post #5 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post


You're talking base depth, I assume? Even for base depth as opposed to snowfall, that sounds low for Baker?

 

North Bend is a couple hours from Baker... it's the closest town to Snoqualmie/Alpental.

post #6 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christy319 View Post
 

Not quite. From November to March of 1998-1999, we had 90 days, not consecutive, with some precipitation.

That year I figured it was 120 days without stop, though I'm sure your statistics are more correct than my irrational memories.  It was unreal.  Even I, a slug at heart, was beginning to get antsy for some sun.  The snow level hovered at 1500' to 2500' all winter and it seemed to never stop snowing.  While it was amazing to see, it was too much snow for the best skiing.  There was never any visibility, just white out conditions all winter.

 

2007-08 was the banner year.  The best ski year I can remember.  I had so many big powder days I lost track.  Too bad it was my last year of working for the man.  I scrambled my ass off but only got 38 days in.

 

Seattle is in a really good position for fine skiing, but it's a pain as far as traffic and cost of living.  I'm glad to be up the road a piece.  I can go there when I want to take part in the urban thing, but it takes only an hour or so to get back to sanity.

post #7 of 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post


You're talking base depth, I assume? Even for base depth as opposed to snowfall, that sounds low for Baker?

 

North Bend is the west end of Snoqualmie Pass on I-90. It would be the place I would want to live if I were to live in the Seattle metro. Small town, 20 minutes or so to Alpental and not a horrible commute, comparatively, to downtown Seattle but it rains a lot (58"). It's low so doesn't really get snow to speak of.

post #8 of 8
Thread Starter 

Whoa, THAT'S where this post went! It was supposed to go in the "ski cities to move to" thread. Mods, can it be moved?

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion