Is NYC the closest thing to a perfect metro? (compare, Atlanta, life)

[75 South]

git45, I don't know anyone in this country that looks down on Chicago. Heck, some ppl choose it over NY. The only thing people ever debate is the weather and Lake Michigan is not a real body of water. I don't know if its ever lost a city vs city battle other than to NY.

[FlyMIA]

Originally Posted by git45

I'd love to agree with you, but as Chicagoan, I can tell you from experience that the east coast looks down it's infamously parochial nose at Chicago. They sure do love Miami though...it's pretty much their LA.

There is a reason NYC-Miami is the largest air market I'm the country.

NYC is great but it's just "too much" IMO. Very expensive, very crowded, if you want a house and yard you have to live fairly far from the city and commute which driving is impossible to train rides it is etc..

If DC had a bit of a better downtown with some better nightlife and shopping in the city I think DC is a great place. Great transit, lots of things to do, lots of free things to do, great parks, suburbs near by that are affordable, homes inside the city that are somewhat affordable. At least compared to NYC. And you can get away very easily. There are certain spots inside DC it self that it feels like you are in the woods of Virginia.

[Jerry Sullivan]

I think Philadelphia is the perfect metro/csa. Mountains, cities, beaches, amusement parks, rivers, amish county, awesome suburbs and other cities not to far. Philly wins this.

[DinsdalePirahna]

Originally Posted by 75 South

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 ...

Tell that to all the East Coast transplants that live around me.

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by cope1989

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.

Tons of people still want a part of the NY lifestyle/dream, it's just not always realistic due to costs/employment.etc so they settle for somewhere like Atlanta, Houston, Charlotte, Phoenix.

[majicdonjuan]

I think for a large amount of people NYC is a perfect metro. I think for a much larger amount of people, its not. I think, even if COL was equal, some would choose a "sun belt" lifestyle.

Me? I like NYC but the weather does it for me. I need to be somewhere that's above 60 pretty much every day, so it's not perfect in my eyes.

[confusedasusual]

I am not a big fan of NYC. Sorry, all.

As one PP stated, it is probably the "citiest" of cities-- its what most Americans immediately visualize when they think of "city" but its a far damn cry from "perfect."

As stated by many, we, culturally, have an idea of NYC that isn't reality. People might migrate there only to be swallowed up by problems that come with exorbitant housing and daily living costs. And these aren't always just financial. Surviving in NYC, especially as a long term or lifestyle resident, is an actual achievement. Those who identify as New Yorkers are often very defensive of their choice and want lots of others to reinforce how great this city is.

While there is no denying its influential, archetypal and mythic stature, New York, in a real nitty gritty sense, gives very little return on investment for the average resident. Homeownership, kids, heck even pet ownership, is a pipe dream for many. For a lot of us, the fact that McDonald's deliver in Manhattan is no substitute for a city with a little more elbow room, a better climate, and a future that involves more satisfaction. The biggest example of this is evidenced by the mass exodus of retired New Yorkers to balmier climes.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by confusedasusual

I am not a big fan of NYC. Sorry, all.

As one PP stated, it is probably the "citiest" of cities-- its what most Americans immediately visualize when they think of "city" but its a far damn cry from "perfect."

As stated by many, we, culturally, have an idea of NYC that isn't reality. People might migrate there only to be swallowed up by problems that come with exorbitant housing and daily living costs. And these aren't always just financial. Surviving in NYC, especially as a long term or lifestyle resident, is an actual achievement. Those who identify as New Yorkers are often very defensive of their choice and want lots of others to reinforce how great this city is.

While there is no denying its influential, archetypal and mythic stature, New York, in a real nitty gritty sense, gives very little return on investment for the average resident. Homeownership, kids, heck even pet ownership, is a pipe dream for many. For a lot of us, the fact that McDonald's deliver in Manhattan is no substitute for a city with a little more elbow room, a better climate, and a future that involves more satisfaction. The biggest example of this is evidenced by the mass exodus of retired New Yorkers to balmier climes.

Well, the city went through some terrible times from the 70s up until the late 90s, so that's a lot of people moving out during those times. The net balance is now in-migration to NYC rather than out-migration.

It's true that NYC is expensive, but there are still a lot of old-timers here who have stuck with it even with how terrible the latter 20th century was for the city.

[orzo]

Originally Posted by 75 South

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

Did I miss a city? Should I take a place off?

This is a tangent, but having lived in both cities, SFs architecture is so, so much better than Seattle's, they aren't even in the same league. Seattle may have more distinctive skyscrapers (although SFs skyline is over twice as large), but in every other way SF blows Seattle out of the water in terms of architecture. The rowhouses, the Victorians, the numerous cathedrals, the landmarks (Civic Center, Legion of Honor, Coit Tower, etc.) - SF has amazing architectural delights at every turn (I'd put it in the top 4 along with Boston, NYC, and Chicago). Seattle is a relatively mundane city architecturally (although great in other ways).

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by Jerry Sullivan

I think Philadelphia is the perfect metro/csa. Mountains, cities, beaches, amusement parks, rivers, amish county, awesome suburbs and other cities not to far. Philly wins this.

Well said!