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 am considering getting situated in a nearby town with an impressive amount of very well-regarded amenities and a very reasonable commute to the nearby (troubled) major metropolitan area. I generally feel pretty good about this notion. However, there is a part of me that is extremely concerned with maximizing my opportunity in a location. So, my question comes about: What am I really missing out on by not living in a major (world class) city?
An interesting sub-question that comes to mind is this: Is career opportunity really maximized for everyone in a major city? I feel this tends to be the assumption. However, if one is interested in potentially exploring various career options, then I imagine the high barrier-to-entry in a major (world class) city could be a significant set-back. Naturally, I can't help but wonder if this same principal—that is, individual opportunity in these areas being restricted by competition—applies to other facets of life as well. Would it be an accurate generalization that, while major (world class) cities offer the very best opportunities, they may actually offer less overall opportunities for an individual compared to less populated (ergo less competitive?) places with a comparable quality of amenities?
Thanks in advance to all who may take time to respond. I hope we can make an effort to remain objective for the sake of our shared knowledge, rather than defensive of our respective locations. (That said, I imagine some personal accounts could be helpful, if only to illustrate a point.)
I'm not totally sure I understand. Are you wondering what are the pros and cons of being in an outlying suburb/edge city of a world class metropolitan area vs in the core city of said world class metro? Or are you comparing pros and cons of a world class metro to a metro that is not?
If you can live in a decent mid-sized city, that may be better for you than one of the expensive cities like NYC or SF. Depends on the person. Some of these mid-sized cities can actually be a better deal.
Diversity. In terms of people, cuisine, arts, entertainment, economy, nightlife. I've lived in mid sized metros. SD briefly and a couple years in Sacramento. It was a huge downgrade from the LA area where I grew up or even the Bay Area where I live now.
SD and Sac in many ways are one-horse towns (more so in Sac) as are all mid sized metros.
LA is epic as is the bay. There is just so much you can't even see and do it all, even if you had a whole year. You can figure out everything about SD in a couple weeks. Sacramento in several days.
All things being equal, you might be happier in a world class city. Unfortunately, not all things are equal. Take NYC. It costs money to live there. Lots of it. And so, you have to weigh the pros and cons. I know that's not much help, but there's no single answer. Everyone is different. Everyone has their own set of circumstances.
If you want a dense community, good public transit, large availability of competing employers in your field, and urban type housing (townhouse, midrise, highrise), then you usually need to live in a major city to accomplish those goals. That stuff usually doesn't all exist simultaneously anywhere else.
I live in a metro of almost 1 million people, and we don't even have half of the things on that list. There's a world of difference between "a top 100 market" and an actual "major city'.
If you don't care about walkability that much, or don't care about transit, or are fine with a longer-ish car commute, or don't want/don't need employer flexibility, then the world is your oyster. You could live almost anywhere, and potentially save a lot of money over the city folks.
Unfortunately, not all things are equal. Take NYC. It costs money to live there. Lots of it.
No, it doesn't take more money to live in NYC than to live in other U.S. cities.
It takes different priorities. You will probably have a smaller living space, no car, and less "stuff". But it probably won't cost anymore than living somewhere like Kansas. It's redirected spending, not more or less spending.
I actually spent more living in a cheap city than in an expensive city, because in the cheap city I had a bigger house, two cars, and more stuff in the house. You adjust based on your environment.
No, it doesn't take more money to live in NYC than to live in other U.S. cities.
It takes different priorities. You will probably have a smaller living space, no car, and less "stuff". But it probably won't cost anymore than living somewhere like Kansas. It's redirected spending, not more or less spending.
I actually spent more living in a cheap city than in an expensive city, because in the cheap city I had a bigger house, two cars, and more stuff in the house. You adjust based on your environment.
What about the housing prices? I'd be fine with no car and a smaller living space, but many people are going to have to have a roommate. And I'm interested in buying a condo in the next year or so...that'd be impossible to do in NYC.
Minneapolis is one city I have my eye on these days. I have no problem being happy in cities like that. But the OP doesn't say which troubled mid-sized city they would be moving to. Regardless, I don't think they would be missing out on much.
To live with a comparable standard of living, it certainly does.
I don't see how. They're totally different environments.
Let's say I live in Manhattan and want the same standard of living in Kansas. I cannot find the equivalent in Kansas, even if I'm Bill Gates. It doesn't exist.
Let's say I'm in Kansas and want the same standard of living in Manhattan. Again, I cannot find the equivalent in Manhattan, even if I'm Bill Gates. Doesn't exist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
People with families don't usually prefer to spend their time living in a 500 square foot apartment.
Right, but that wouldn't be "equivalent living". If you're in a 500 square foot apartment in NYC, you're also in an environment that doesn't exist anywhere else in the U.S.
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.
