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.
We are in our early 50s, empty-nesters moving from Europe to the US.
I have quite a choice of locations to live including NYC (near LGA), Washington DC, Charlotte, Philadelphia, Bay Area or Seattle.
Each of those places will be looking to live in the suburbs rather than the city itself, not more than an hour, hour-and-a-half from the respective airport.
Looking for a safe, clean place with friendly people, walkable, close to nature which would not ruin the budget (which I think disqualifies Bay Area at a start). Planning on renting preferably modern, furnished apartment for the first few years.
1. Boston (specifically the North Shore like Revere or East Boston) on the beach, trains to mountains, best city for access to nature in the northeast. Without a doubt.
2. Hoboken/Jersey City area: trains directly to great beaches. Great hiking. Super walkable.
3. Nassau County NY/Queens near an LIRR Station: self explanatory.
Seattle, Denver and Portland OR come to mind too. But im way less familiar.
Some of the cities on here Im a little confused why they are even in the list of running.
I would discard Charlotte unless you like miserably hot, humid summers and having to drive a few hours to get to mountains or the ocean.
Out of all those choices and your wants, I'd probably take Philadelphia. It gives you what you want, and it doesn't break the bank like Seattle, the Bay Area, or NYC.
If you're willing to go a little further out, you could try Sacramento. It gets you close to the Bay Area and the Sierras without the ultra high cost of living.
I would discard Charlotte unless you like miserably hot, humid summers and having to drive a few hours to get to mountains or the ocean.
Out of all those choices and your wants, I'd probably take Philadelphia. It gives you what you want, and it doesn't break the bank like Seattle, the Bay Area, or NYC.
If you're willing to go a little further out, you could try Sacramento. It gets you close to the Bay Area and the Sierras without the ultra high cost of living.
You can absolutely live in/around places like NYC or Boston w/o breaking the bank.
What’s the appeal of the airport to you? For work? Recreational travel? I only ask because Seattle is quite a bit further away from the others. If you are positioning yourself for flights to Asia and the West Coast great. But ease of access to the East Coast and Europe would make me rethink it.
That said, I’d look at NYC area, Philadelphia, and Charlotte. That provides a good range. NYC suburbs gets you access to a great city, Philadelphia provides you a scaled-down version with cost savings, and then Charlotte is just completely different. More typical American suburbia.
What’s the appeal of the airport to you? For work? Recreational travel? I only ask because Seattle is quite a bit further away from the others. If you are positioning yourself for flights to Asia and the West Coast great. But ease of access to the East Coast and Europe would make me rethink it.
Seattle being very north means that it isn't really that bad to get to Europe. 9 hour flight to London vs 7 hour from NYC, not really that big of a difference.
Some of the cities on here Im a little confused why they are even in the list of running.
Why wouldn't DC, Philadelphia or Charlotte be in the running, pray tell?
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.