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've stated my opinion on this a lot here, and I'm not going to give another 2 cents, but I'm interested in what City-Data in general thinks. My perception is that the western states, and California, Oregon and Washington in particular, are viewed both by the nation's populace in general and by City-Data posters as being a sort of Shangri-La of easy living, educated and tolerant people, and good weather and economic opportunities.
Why or why not does the West Coast have a better quality of life compared to the Midwest, South and Northeastern states?
Getting too crowded in the cities due to lack of rural areas. (The California/Nevada deserts are mostly U.S. government lands.)
Los Angeles has become more crowded since my last visit 3 1/2 years ago. Las Vegas is growing but is running out of land.
I would live on the West Coast in a heartbeat but the cities are way too crowded for my liking. Good scenery, weather, and cultural/epicurean amenities but way too many people in an abnormal, geographically large sprawl.
No. The West Coast is far, far too expensive for a person of average means to comfortably live, with no real gains in economic opportunity or overall quality of life, at least from an Upper Midwestern standpoint.
Mild climate is really the only advantage the West Coast has, but the astronomical expense isn't really worth it in my opinion.
I would live on the West Coast in a heartbeat but the cities are way too crowded for my liking. Good scenery, weather, and cultural/epicurean amenities but way too many people in an abnormal, geographically large sprawl.
if the west coast is way too crowded, then what are Texas and the Northeast? Your post doesn't make any sense.
if the west coast is way too crowded, then what are Texas and the Northeast? Your post doesn't make any sense.
From a sustainability standpoint, absolutely.
There are areas running out of land to build and keep up with the in-migration of newcomers, as well as resource issues.
I love the West, been all over it and have family in Hawaii, California and Washington, but the only one that really appeals to me is Washington/Oregon because its more sustainable and green. It doesn't cost as ridiculous as Hawaii and California but still not cheap.
California is way too expensive, and the cities are a ***** to get around without public transit, save for SF, but still. I need green areas and character. They're some of my favorite places anywhere, but from a quality of life standpoint, its tough to say. If you can't afford, then there's no quality of life period. Its that simple. Owning a home is all but impossible for the average person.
The Southwest is also way too ****ing dry and brown for me.
I think the west coast is very aesthetically appealing in general, but it can appear quite brown and dry a lot of the time. But the real killer is the COST OF LIVING. I thought Fairfield County, CT was extremely expensive, but most of coastal California is about 50% MORE expensive than the NYC tristate area even. And here I am now in central Ohio and think it's starting to get expensive. A basic house goes for like $200K here now. Ugh.
I think the west coast is very aesthetically appealing in general, but it can appear quite brown and dry a lot of the time. But the real killer is the COST OF LIVING. I thought Fairfield County, CT was extremely expensive, but most of coastal California is about 50% MORE expensive than the NYC tristate area even. And here I am now in central Ohio and think it's starting to get expensive. A basic house goes for like $200K here now. Ugh.
nep321, so you did relocate to Ohio?! How do you like it so far?
nep321, so you did relocate to Ohio?! How do you like it so far?
Yes, I did. So far, I like it overall. Much better than Fairfield County, CT. I plan to stay here for the long term. Maybe not forever, but long term. But yeah, I like it!
Depends on personal preferences of course, but I'd say definitely not. Housing costs, lack of open spaces and water availability are major liabilities for the large California cities in particular, not to mention the poor air quality and threat of earthquakes. While there are many unique opportunities and relatively pleasant weather the majority of the time, Los Angeles and the San Joaquin Valley have among the nation's highest poverty and high school dropout rates - so there isn't a consistently educated populace either.
As far as "easy living" is concerned, from my experience that's far more achievable in an area of the South like suburban Atlanta compared to Orange County - an area that is extremely crowded but lacks a significant urban core. Living isn't easy when such a huge percentage of one's income goes toward paying for rent or a mortgage on real estate that is valued drastically higher than similar properties in most of the nation.
Ohio is a bit cold for me personally but Columbus is a very well rounded and attractive city from my visits to the area. I don't think you will find too many equally prosperous areas that are much more affordable - housing prices are rising almost everywhere these days.
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.
