Has anyone relocated or thought of relocating due to COL/traffic/overall crowdedness? (Denver: spring break, 2013)

[N610DL]

Originally Posted by MN_Ski

What exactly does LA or NYC offer that the other cities do not?

I travel to both places for work all the time (throw in Chicago too). Personally I think you can experience the same, or better, nightlife, food, culture, outdoors, people, etc in the other top 20 metros than those two. There is just a premium charge, and headache, due to crowds and traffic.

It's also all subjective. In my opinion, larger cities just have more of something, and not always better.

If people just want to spend their life mountain biking, camping, etc...I mean, who cares? They can surround themselves with people who are like minded, and in the end just mind their own business. Would you really want people who are going to complain about a big city, IN the big city? I never understood people who put so much emphasis on how large a city is...and act as if those places should be the template for how other cities, and their populations, should be.

If a city exists as is. The people are happy, there is a good quality of life, and everyone is kind of like minded...when someone moves in from somewhere else, and that city doesn't make them happy, who/what is at fault? Does EVERY city need to accommodate EVERY type of person? If this leads to a cities decline, i don't know, just move away and just let those people deal with it.

Just for perspective. I just found it interesting that people have never cared to visit the 2 largest metros in America.

[Left-handed]

Originally Posted by Count David

Yep! We went to Detroit "on a whim" for my birthday last year. Pics/TR: http://www.city-data.com/forum/50091050-post350.html.

If there is any city that can shake its brutal past, Detroit is it. I completely agree, and have no doubt.

Hah, nice picture tour of the crumbling neighborhoods!

15 years ago or so, I remember going downtown for the Pistons championship parade. Most of Woodward Avenue was boarded up. A year or two later, they brought in the Super Bowl. And that is when I remember the dominoes starting to fall for downtown's revitalization. When I flew back earlier this year, my parents picked me up from the airport late at night. They drove me down the same strip of Woodward, and I almost didn't recognize the city. It was all lit up with ornamental lighting, new buildings had popped up, old buildings were renovated. I don't have my finger completely and always on Detroit's RE pulse, but from what I gather, vacancies are at historic lows and rents are creeping up. That said, you can drive 1/4 mile east of downtown and find yourself in the land of vacant lots and dilapidated housing stock that looks like the aftermath of a US bombing raid. What I'd hope they'd do with some of that land is set it aside for urban green spaces and start building a vast network of pedestrian and bicycle trails.

[oping00]

Originally Posted by MN_Ski

What exactly does LA or NYC offer that the other cities do not?

I travel to both places for work all the time (throw in Chicago too). Personally I think you can experience the same, or better, nightlife, food, culture, outdoors, people, etc in the other top 20 metros than those two. There is just a premium charge, and headache, due to crowds and traffic.

It's also all subjective. In my opinion, larger cities just have more of something, and not always better.

If people just want to spend their life mountain biking, camping, etc...I mean, who cares? They can surround themselves with people who are like minded, and in the end just mind their own business. Would you really want people who are going to complain about a big city, IN the big city? I never understood people who put so much emphasis on how large a city is...and act as if those places should be the template for how other cities, and their populations, should be.

If a city exists as is. The people are happy, there is a good quality of life, and everyone is kind of like minded...when someone moves in from somewhere else, and that city doesn't make them happy, who/what is at fault? Does EVERY city need to accommodate EVERY type of person? If this leads to a cities decline, i don't know, just move away and just let those people deal with it.

I like denver, originally from the midwest, but southern cal and NY have better food and entertainment options. More culture and diversity, both have water and beaches and abundant of opportunities, not to put denver down because personally I think its a good city, but its still trying to get there.

Side Note : If are you in film, fashion, advertising NY and California is where you want to be at. Maybe Chicago too.

[Count David]

Originally Posted by Left-handed

Hah, nice picture tour of the crumbling neighborhoods!

15 years ago or so, I remember going downtown for the Pistons championship parade. Most of Woodward Avenue was boarded up. A year or two later, they brought in the Super Bowl. And that is when I remember the dominoes starting to fall for downtown's revitalization. When I flew back earlier this year, my parents picked me up from the airport late at night. They drove me down the same strip of Woodward, and I almost didn't recognize the city. It was all lit up with ornamental lighting, new buildings had popped up, old buildings were renovated. I don't have my finger completely and always on Detroit's RE pulse, but from what I gather, vacancies are at historic lows and rents are creeping up. That said, you can drive 1/4 mile east of downtown and find yourself in the land of vacant lots and dilapidated housing stock that looks like the aftermath of a US bombing raid. What I'd hope they'd do with some of that land is set it aside for urban green spaces and start building a vast network of pedestrian and bicycle trails.

Indeed, this is their best chance to completely change the structure and flow of their city. My hope is that the attitudes of yesteryear don't hold it back.

[illinoisphotographer]

Originally Posted by N610DL

Just for perspective. I just found it interesting that people have never cared to visit the 2 largest metros in America.

I'm on that list. Never been to California and haven't been to NYC since 2001 when I was in elementary school and have no interest.

Grew up in the Chicago suburbs. Visited: Paris, Madrid, Dublin, Amsterdam, Berlin, Zurich, Vienna, Rome, Istanbul, Beijing, Hong Kong, Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok (along with a number of smaller cities). LA and NYC don't have anything that interest me. Just a mass of skyscrapers and museums. When I travel now, I'm more interested in culture and doing things. Not taking a selfie in Times Square.

Then there's the cost. Hotels are more expensive, dining out is often more expensive, etc.

For US cities, I'd love to go back to Boston (not during the marathon weekend) for historical tours and exploring the surrounding areas, Seattle for the culture and hiking in the Cascades, and wouldn't mind spending more time in Nashville, exploring some of the smaller bars with live music.

[N610DL]

Originally Posted by illinoisphotographer

I'm on that list. Never been to California and haven't been to NYC since 2001 when I was in elementary school and have no interest.

Grew up in the Chicago suburbs. Visited: Paris, Madrid, Dublin, Amsterdam, Berlin, Zurich, Vienna, Rome, Istanbul, Beijing, Hong Kong, Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok (along with a number of smaller cities). LA and NYC don't have anything that interest me. Just a mass of skyscrapers and museums. When I travel now, I'm more interested in culture and doing things. Not taking a selfie in Times Square.

Then there's the cost. Hotels are more expensive, dining out is often more expensive, etc.

For US cities, I'd love to go back to Boston (not during the marathon weekend) for historical tours and exploring the surrounding areas, Seattle for the culture and hiking in the Cascades, and wouldn't mind spending more time in Nashville, exploring some of the smaller bars with live music.

Boston is great but it's up there with San Francisco and NYC as being one of the most expensive hotel cities in the US.

[DougStark]

Originally Posted by illinoisphotographer

I'm on that list. Never been to California and haven't been to NYC since 2001 when I was in elementary school and have no interest.

Grew up in the Chicago suburbs. Visited: Paris, Madrid, Dublin, Amsterdam, Berlin, Zurich, Vienna, Rome, Istanbul, Beijing, Hong Kong, Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok (along with a number of smaller cities). LA and NYC don't have anything that interest me. Just a mass of skyscrapers and museums. When I travel now, I'm more interested in culture and doing things. Not taking a selfie in Times Square.

Then there's the cost. Hotels are more expensive, dining out is often more expensive, etc.

For US cities, I'd love to go back to Boston (not during the marathon weekend) for historical tours and exploring the surrounding areas, Seattle for the culture and hiking in the Cascades, and wouldn't mind spending more time in Nashville, exploring some of the smaller bars with live music.

Wow, never visited CA once? as well traveled as you are? You must not appreciate natural beauty (CA would likely win as America's most beautiful state, and certainly the 50 states' best climate.)

[MN_Ski]

Originally Posted by DougStark

Wow, never visited CA once? as well traveled as you are? You must not appreciate natural beauty (CA would likely win as America's most beautiful state, and certainly the 50 states' best climate.)

Is it? I don't know...

I've been all over the state. Visited every National Park and almost every worthy natural area. Yes, it is beautiful, but the urban areas really drag down some of that beauty in my eyes. For a coastal/mountain state, I find Washington a lot more beautiful overall. My vote for the US overall goes to Montana.

You can get anything that you would find in CA in any other state...and with far less crowds.

And for the record, I'm not a CA basher. This year has certainly opened my eyes to the state, and it really has grown on me. I just don't find it to the be THE BEST at anything.

[xeric]

I have no desire to live in the mega-cities of California either but I much I prefer most of the rest of CA for (climate and nature) to any part of WA. And the megalopolis of Seattle/Tacoma (lived there for 3 years) gives the crowded parts of California a run for their money.

[Left-handed]

Originally Posted by MN_Ski

Is it? I don't know...

I've been all over the state. Visited every National Park and almost every worthy natural area. Yes, it is beautiful, but the urban areas really drag down some of that beauty in my eyes. For a coastal/mountain state, I find Washington a lot more beautiful overall. My vote for the US overall goes to Montana.

You can get anything that you would find in CA in any other state...and with far less crowds.

And for the record, I'm not a CA basher. This year has certainly opened my eyes to the state, and it really has grown on me. I just don't find it to the be THE BEST at anything.

I personally do not agree with the bolded. The climate, vast coastal region, mountains, and desert make the state of CA one of the most diverse regions in the US. And as far as the oceanic atmosphere, I think that's something you either love or you don't. I personally love the smell (yes, there is a distinct smell) and feel of coastal California. Washington and Oregon are a close 2nd on my list, mostly because of how lush and green they are.