Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-01-2017, 12:55 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
20,500 posts, read 33,299,328 times
Reputation: 12099

Advertisements

The density is increasing. There is no denying that. But the urbanity still needs work in Texas cities. I absolutely do not care for the amount of above ground parking garages going up with every development in Houston. It takes up way to much valuable space.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-01-2017, 01:06 PM
 
Location: Aurora, CO
8,590 posts, read 14,744,667 times
Reputation: 15333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thoreau424 View Post
Dallas has air conditioning and more jobs and job growth. Portland's slightly prettier, but higher cost, worse job marker, higher COL, and all those homeless/transients. The PNW has those long winter bluesy months of low sunshine that affects many people with depression. People in Dallas are more direct in communication, while PDX has a weird passive vibe to it. Seems like there's more mental illness and 'withdrawn'-ness (can't find the right word at the moment) there. Those from Dallas tend to cut loose and party more.
That's like saying "The Black Plague killed a few people during The Dark Ages, but other than that it was no big deal." DFW is bigger, more diverse, cheaper, and has a better economy than Portland, but when it comes to scenery and outdoorsiness Portland is immeasurably better than DFW.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2017, 02:42 PM
 
8,730 posts, read 6,657,018 times
Reputation: 8449
"Cheaper" depends on what you're buying. Living without a car is much easier in Portland, and that can save a huge amount of money.

Most things have similar pricing from one city to the next. But I'd put housing+transportation as the big variable. Collectively they're often 50% of what people spend. If transportation is nearly free, you can spend more on housing.

I don't live in Portland, but would consider it if Seattle didn't exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2017, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Willowbend/Houston
13,384 posts, read 25,583,506 times
Reputation: 10580
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25 View Post
"Cheaper" depends on what you're buying. Living without a car is much easier in Portland, and that can save a huge amount of money.

I don't live in Portland, but would consider it if Seattle didn't exist.
Take a car out of the picture and a place like Seattle is still more expensive than a place like Dallas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2017, 02:50 PM
 
8,730 posts, read 6,657,018 times
Reputation: 8449
Probably, but Portland is cheaper than Seattle.

Also, the no-car lifestyle generally means living in a walkable area, which can translate to not needing as much square footage. I don't need a dining room because many restaurants are outside my door. I don't need a spare bedroom due to numerous hotels. Hotels and restaurants cost money, but unless you use them frequently the savings can be substantial vs. buying extra rooms in an expensive city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2017, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Willowbend/Houston
13,384 posts, read 25,583,506 times
Reputation: 10580
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25 View Post
Probably, but Portland is cheaper than Seattle.

Also, the no-car lifestyle generally means living in a walkable area, which can translate to not needing as much square footage. I don't need a dining room because many restaurants are outside my door. I don't need a spare bedroom due to numerous hotels. Hotels and restaurants cost money, but unless you use them frequently the savings can be substantial vs. buying extra rooms in an expensive city.
That's not a great claim. I have hundreds of restaurants within 5 minutes drive of my house, but I still need a dining room. In fact the argument you are making is that Seattle and Portland should be more expensive. You don't need a dining room because youre eating out all the time. That food bill will cost far more than having a dining room.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2017, 03:12 PM
 
8,730 posts, read 6,657,018 times
Reputation: 8449
I'm not talking about most days. One or two people can eat without a dining room, for example at the "bar" that most L-shaped apartment kitchens come with, or at a small table. For a single person or couple, a dining room might be more about special occasions and groups.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2017, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Willowbend/Houston
13,384 posts, read 25,583,506 times
Reputation: 10580
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25 View Post
I'm not talking about most days. One or two people can eat without a dining room, for example at the "bar" that most L-shaped apartment kitchens come with, or at a small table. For a single person or couple, a dining room might be more about special occasions and groups.
It really depends on who you are. For my wife, it was absolutely mandatory to have a dining room because she loves to entertain and shes an excellent cook. A dining room was always a must even when we were in our mid 20's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2017, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Texas
1,982 posts, read 2,066,217 times
Reputation: 2185
I mean you still can live in Dallas without a car. I live in a "generic boring" suburb of Dallas and get around easily without a car, mostly by walking and the DART. I imagine it is a lot easier within Dallas itself and if you use things like Lyft and Uber if you have to use a car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-01-2017, 11:43 PM
 
7,132 posts, read 9,070,822 times
Reputation: 6333
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25 View Post
Probably, but Portland is cheaper than Seattle.

Also, the no-car lifestyle generally means living in a walkable area, which can translate to not needing as much square footage. I don't need a dining room because many restaurants are outside my door. I don't need a spare bedroom due to numerous hotels. Hotels and restaurants cost money, but unless you use them frequently the savings can be substantial vs. buying extra rooms in an expensive city.
You say this until you have a family. It's easy to live in a dense apartment block when you don't have a family to take care of.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top