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.
Like Joe 11 dollars an hour wants to live in New York City or San Francisco but can't swing any of it... where does Joe 11 dollars an hour move for that cool, urban lifestyle he seeks? i.e. What's the broke-ass backup choice to New York City or San Francisco?
There's a few options though if you want to incorporate decent transit into the equation I'd say check out Cleveland, in particular the Cudell/Edgewater, Coventry Village, Detroit Shoreway, Ohio City or Tremont neighborhoods. Cleveland is quite hip, trendy and has a low cost of living.
That's a good question! I agree with Cleveland or Detroit (please don't judge but what you hear, come visit for yourself and give them a chance). I'd heard the same positive things about Louisville, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and KC. The "creme de la creme" in the Midwest would probably be Indianapolis, Columbus, Minneapolis and Chicago, but they get increasingly more expensive as they get bigger. Other, non-Midwestern, notables should also include: Baltimore, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Austin, SA, or New Orleans. Few of those are truly widely-regarded as urban though, except Baltimore and N.O.
My votes would be (in order), and assuming strongest needs are affordability, progressive people and feel, and at least semi-urbanism:
1. Chicago (might be over $200K, but super urban and progressive)
2. St. Louis (cheap and urban, fairly progressive)
3. Detroit (dirt cheap, urban, and becoming progressive)
4. Cleveland (dirt cheap, urban, and becoming progressive)
5. Minneapolis (Chicago-like costs, semi-urban, super progressive)
6. Columbus (cheap, semi-urban, very progressive)
7. Cincinnati (cheap, urban, fairly progressive)
8. New Orleans (cheap, semi-urban, fairly progressive)
9. Houston (semi-cheap, semi-urban, super progressive)
10. Milwaukee (Chicago-like costs, urban, and becoming progressive)
Chicago #1 after that followed by Philadelphia. After that maybe something like Milwaukee, Minneapolis, St. Louis, etc. Seattle may be not bad in some areas. Has about the same COL as Chicago.
That's a good question! I agree with Cleveland or Detroit (please don't judge but what you hear, come visit for yourself and give them a chance). I'd heard the same positive things about Louisville, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and KC. The "creme de la creme" in the Midwest would probably be Indianapolis, Columbus, Minneapolis and Chicago, but they get increasingly more expensive as they get bigger. Other, non-Midwestern, notables should also include: Baltimore, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Austin, SA, or New Orleans. Few of those are truly widely-regarded as urban though, except Baltimore and N.O.
My votes would be (in order), and assuming strongest needs are affordability, progressive people and feel, and at least semi-urbanism:
1. Chicago (might be over $200K, but super urban and progressive)
2. St. Louis (cheap and urban, fairly progressive)
3. Detroit (dirt cheap, urban, and becoming progressive)
4. Cleveland (dirt cheap, urban, and becoming progressive)
5. Minneapolis (Chicago-like costs, semi-urban, super progressive)
6. Columbus (cheap, semi-urban, very progressive)
7. Cincinnati (cheap, urban, fairly progressive)
8. New Orleans (cheap, semi-urban, fairly progressive)
9. Houston (semi-cheap, semi-urban, super progressive)
10. Milwaukee (Chicago-like costs, urban, and becoming progressive)
I do not see Indianapolis or Columbus as being in the "Creme de la Creme of the Midwest" category. Also, while St. Louis may have better bones, I'd argue Minneapolis is currently more urban than St. Louis, especially Downtown.
I'd probably throw in Louisville and Richmond also.
I gave Louisville a mention, but certainly not better than the 10 I had ranked. Richmond isn't super cheap, is it? And it's got urbanity but it's fairly sparse and SUPER sprawling (at least when I visited). I ranked them based on COL, urbanity, and how progressive they are (in terms of growing, trendy, hip, and/or liberal). Feel free to re-rank them.....it's far from objective.
I do not see Indianapolis or Columbus as being in the "Creme de la Creme of the Midwest" category. Also, while St. Louis may have better bones, I'd argue Minneapolis is currently more urban than St. Louis, especially Downtown.
STL (and Cleveland and Detroit) are so cheap that the fact that Minneapolis is (arguably) more urban than STL has to technically fall a few notches. Otherwise I'd have Minny at #2, but based on how I ranked them I couldn't put it there. It's also where I'd go to live regardless of my financial situation, so I'm TRYING to not be biased.
I forgot about Upstate NY (figured it was cost-prohibitive).
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.
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.
