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 agree with those who have said that Chicago or Philadelphia probably gets you the closest feeling to NYC for less money.
I think you will find San Fran, DC, Boston and Seattle to have very urban experiences as well, but be more expensive than Chicago or Philly.
To slide further down the scale towards less urban (but still more urban than most places) and significantly less expensive, look at Baltimore or New Orleans. Those are obviously a lot smaller than NYC, but have some very dense historic urban cores.
I would stay right where I am - Washington, D.C. It's the next closest thing to the kind of "power" city that NYC is. I also like the top-notch museums and monuments. However, Philly and Boston may be better for "urban living" if that's what you want more.
I don't recommend living in DC on $60K though, especially if you want or have a family. It's very tight on that income.
Yeah I love DC and all but I wouldn't dare call it affordable. I remember I met a guy who had just moved to the DC area from NYC. He went on and on about how "cheap" it was here. So annoying. I almost kicked him out of bed.
I agree with Chicago. The other cities you named are very expensive places to live.
Really, Philly is that expensive?
I've visited but never lived so I wouldn't really know too much on the cost of living.
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.