I'm about to commit to a move taking me from Washington, DC to Seattle. I've visited the area once, but I'm a bit uncertain on traffic, lifestyle, neighborhoods, etc. I'm in my mid-twenties, will be working in Kirkland, want downtown to be accessible, but love the outdoors and will be spending a lot of time out of the city as well. What are my best options for a neighborhood feel that limits my commute, keeps me 'near' downtown, and lets me get outdoors often?

I've heard of the traffic problems on 520 and 405, but it looks like I'll have to use those roads to get to Kirkland if I live near downtown. Is the traffic terrible both ways during both rush hours? Forgot to mention, I'm renting.

I'm not a local - just a visiter so dont know for sure about the traffic flow-
but check out the town of Edmonds- its close to everything - but on the water/has a beach/ scuba diving/ the downtown area has many nice restaurants/ access to the Kingston ferry/ beautiful views of the snowcapped mountains - and it feels like you are in a little town - but have access to all the benefits of the big city-

Edmonds is a cute little town, but there is very little in the rental market there. We lived very close by and have family in that town. Lynnwood is adjacent and is chuck full of apartments. The traffic is not fun though.

If I were you, I would stick closer to Kirkland for living. I-405 which goes between Kirkland and the Edmonds/Lynnwood area is very slow going at peak times.

I've heard of the traffic problems on 520 and 405, but it looks like I'll have to use those roads to get to Kirkland if I live near downtown. Is the traffic terrible both ways during both rush hours? Forgot to mention, I'm renting.

Yes, that is the worst route in the region for traffic. The so-called "reverse" commute (big city to suburbs) long ago ceased to be the preferred route in this area. Some guy named Gates had a lot to do with it.

Your choices are either (a) suck it up and do the commute (the good news is that there are lots of van pools, express buses, etc. that can alleviate the aggro) or (b) live somewhere on the east side and come into the city as needed for social life. If you choose to live in the city, look at the University, Montlake, or North Capitol Hill areas so that you can limit your commute crunch just to the SR520 bridge. If you choose the east side, look at Kirkland itself, Bellevue or Redmond - anywhere where your commute can be on surface streets rather than freeways.

Kirkland has several faces - yup, yachty, suburban "builderburger" subdivisions, so there's a variety of micro-locales from which to choose. Plenty of young adults in all areas, so not a middle-aged ghetto by any means.

I'm a city boy too. I would prefer to be near downtown Seattle, like lower Queen Anne or the west edge of Capital Hill. BUT, you should really consider downtown Kirkland or downtown Bellevue. Why? Well, you go to work every weekday and that adds up to a lot of tripmaking. Downtown Kirkland is small, walkable and quite nice. Downtown Bellevue is pretty nearby and more dense than Kirkland. AND, living on the Eastside means you're only about 20 minutes from Downtown Seattle (30 by bus) and you're also 20 minutes closer to the Alpine Lakes Wilderness and Pacific Crest Trail. Rentals in any of the downtowns may cost a premium, but your lower travel costs will compensate. You should live in Kirkland, walk or bike to work and go where ever else you want in the region off-peak. Enjoy, sunny days are wonderful on the Kirkland lakefront. Although the masses of beautiful people jogging by can be a bit distracting.

Totally agree with other posters. Traffic over the 520 bridge is horrendous and I'm not even talking about rush hour. Kirkland is a great town, with an artsy, village atmosphere, not unlike some of the cooler neighborhoods in Seattle. I think it's a great choice for a single person.

As someone who has moved the other way, I'd also vouch for Kirkland, if you can afford it.

Edmonds, cute as it is, makes little sense. That's a rough commute too. It would be like driving from Springfield to Silver Spring on the Beltway daily.

As for 520, think of it was the West Coast equivalent of the Wilson Bridge. It just stacks up.

If Kirkland itself is too pricey, you'd be better off looking a little north than south, perhaps in the Juanita area, where you can still be close to the lake.

Others did a good job of pointing out the advantages of living in Kirkland. You might at least try it for 6 months or a year while getting to know the area.
Unless...
Unless, like me, you're a dyed in the wool city person. I grew up in Kirkland and while I think it's nice, for a suburb, I'd never live there again. If you know where in Kirkland your office will be, check out the Metro website-www.metrokc.gov-and figure out where in Seattle you could live while getting a direct bus to your job. This might mean downtown/Belltown, or maybe north Capitol Hill or Montlake, near the Montlake 520 bus stop. If the bus situation looks good, I wouldn't hesitate to live in Seattle and bus to work.