Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was talking with a Cali, Philly and DC booster in another thread which lead me to pose the question. We always pit every city/metro against NY and it loses. I know that NY isn't for everyone but most of us recognize its colossal strength. Is there another big metro that YOU think a person can get a little bit of the best of NY's offerings without actually living there ... Even if you could afford the NY lifestyle?
Top metros that come to mind that offer a large sample:
Atlanta - low COL, growth industries, skyline, economic strength, high QOL
Boston - dense, walkable, global, industry leader, high QOL, location
Chicago - massive area, skyline, dense pop, culture, architecture, high QOL
Dallas - strong job market, low COL, industry leader
DC - strong job market, global, high QOL, culture, architecture
Houston - global, diverse workforce, high QOL, massive area, low COL
LA - action, entertainment, culture, high QOL, massive area, diverse pop
Miami - action, entertainment, culture, low COL, high QOL
Philly- location, global, industry leader, massive, diverse pop, high QOL
SF - diverse workforce, culture, walkable, dense, high QOL, diverse pop, global
Seattle - strong job market, high QOL, architecure
Atlanta is sometimes called the NY of the south, but I really don't know why. It's nothing like the NYC metro. No city can really compare actually. But NYC is still a net loser in domestic migration, so the other metros must be doing something right.
If you are judging New York on its' citiness it is hard to beat, especially if you are young. Once you get into quality of life it is knocked down pretty far by its' high cost of living (as are SF and LA). New York tends to wear on people as they get older; it is hard to buy a house and the logistics of family life are harder than elsewhere. Also the hyper competitive nature of working and living there is hard to tolerate over the course of a lifetime, eventually most people want less of a rat race.
New York is great for most people if you don't feel owning your own property is the end all and be all of things. It is highly competitive, but in such an attractive city it makes sense (we're talking about people competing globally for employment). While I do wish there were other cities who would step up to the plate (really, any big city in the US aside from NYC lags behind in a lot of metrics), the fact is NYC is still the best of the bunch. LA, DC, the Bay Area, and Chicago offers something similar in various metrics but they're missing in a lot of ways (really, if LA had its infrastructure issue solved in some way, it'd be a real contender).
Atlanta is sometimes called the NY of the south, but I really don't know why. It's nothing like the NYC metro. No city can really compare actually. But NYC is still a net loser in domestic migration, so the other metros must be doing something right.
Being cheaper probably.
Or just people really not wanting the type of lifestyle NYC offers. I'm sure the commutes are crazy even if you don't live in Manhattan and sometimes people want a quieter, less hectic place to live.
Both in the many of the outer regions of the city and much of the suburbs the coummutes to Manhattan (which has a high percentage of the well paying jobs) the commutes are extremely long. At least they're normally by public transit so you can read a book or nap or something along the way. It's hard to make a metro 18 million quick to get around.
It's not just the city that's pricey; the suburbs are as well. If you find a good paying job or don't mind apartment mates in the city it doesn't matter much, but otherwise it's unpleasant. Metro has the highest income inequality in the country.
One thing NYC excels at is, unlike even many of the best American cities, the "the city center is missing some convenient services compared to elsewhere isn't true". It's also much better at having a high pedestrian volume throughout the city; it feels really vibrant. Because of the high centralization and pedestrian volume, obscure shops that couldn't exist elsewhere do well.
NYC is just iconic. Folks on CvC rarely apply liveability when it comes to comparing cities.
The fact is that the average NYCer rarely if never thinks about the skyline or NY pizza. Don't even get to the subway. There is a thread in the NYC forum that contains a list of subway pet peeves.
On top of the city itself, New York's location offers just about everything anyone could want. In very close proximity you have leafy suburbs, mountains, beaches, rivers, countryside, not to mention other great cities (Boston, Philly, Baltimore, DC). Aside from its sheer urban appeal, these other amenities are hard to beat.
It's weird because northeasterners have a lot of respect for their region, Chicago, Miami and the Bay Area. However, they haven't taken strongly to sunbelt cities or even LA. I often wonder why ...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
