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.
Idaho. Boise is meh, bland to me. Couer d'Alene is the real gem in that state. As an outdoorsman, I would live there in a heartbeat if I could make as much $$ as I do in KC. My second choice would be Montana, specifically the Kalispell area. But I'm sure all five states have nice areas I don't know about.
Idaho. Boise is meh, bland to me. Couer d'Alene is the real gem in that state. As an outdoorsman, I would live there in a heartbeat if I could make as much $$ as I do in KC. My second choice would be Montana, specifically the Kalispell area. But I'm sure all five states have nice areas I don't know about.
Coeur d'Alene is very dependent on real estate, construction, and retiree in-migration and the rest of its economy has not performed as well as anticipated due to the lackluster economic performance of nearby Spokane, WA IMO. With that being said, Idaho, which has some of the lowest per capita incomes of any state in the US- Boise metro has most of the economic opportunities.
Idaho. Boise is meh, bland to me. Couer d'Alene is the real gem in that state. As an outdoorsman, I would live there in a heartbeat if I could make as much $$ as I do in KC. My second choice would be Montana, specifically the Kalispell area. But I'm sure all five states have nice areas I don't know about.
I'm worried that saying that online will increase the chances of it becoming well known, which will make it more expensive to live in.
Coeur d'Alene is very dependent on real estate, construction, and retiree in-migration and the rest of its economy has not performed as well as anticipated due to the lackluster economic performance of nearby Spokane, WA IMO. With that being said, Idaho, which has some of the lowest per capita incomes of any state in the US- Boise metro has most of the economic opportunities.
Yeah that's why I said if I would live there only if I could make the same amount I do in KC which I couldn't. Economically speaking, I imagine ND would be the top choice of the five even with the current state of oil.
If I had to, I'd live in Montana (but only Missoula, Kalispell, or Bozeman), or the Idaho Panhandle (Coeur d'Alene and some of the smaller towns in the panhandle are beautiful).
The three main things *I'd* be considering about these are 1) the weather, 2) the political leanings, and 3) proximity to the Midwest, which I currently would prefer. I don't really know much about #2 in most of these places. I've been in Wyoming a few times - wasn't thrilled. Dry climate and the Rockies don't appeal to me much. I think if I had to pick, I'd go for South Dakota or, if I disregarded #3, maybe Idaho.
I'd pick Idaho first because of Boise, since it's an actual city. Then Montana because it's so beautiful in the western half, yet expensive (Idaho also has it for cheaper, the more you know). Then Wyoming because lack of cities and wind brings it down. Wyoming is way too rural for me, even though Denver is close to Cheyenne.
Our of the Dakotas, both of which would rank below Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, I'd probably pick South Dakota and then North Dakota. Only because Rapid City seems like a nice area and North Dakota doesn't interest me. To be honest the Dakotas don't really interest me at all, except the Rapid City area.
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.