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 also agree with the poster who said QOL can't be measured strictly in dollar terms. It's not like you can tell a gay Asian man living in the Castro who prefers Latino men that his life would be sooooooo much better if he lived in a far cheaper place like Kansas City.
I also think anyone considering a move to "Middle America" needs to be prepared for the possible provincialism that may come along with it. I presume most people moving to larger metros do so because they want to get away from that.
I can agree to an extent. But again this is what I am talking about. There are things that people quantify on the coasts that would be alien to most other people. The need for vibe or a cool neighborhood or such amenities seem to be overstated for the people that choose to live in places like LA or SF.
And it's not so much that QOL can't be factored into the equation but that it comes secondary to COL for me. For instance I'd choose a city that offers a higher standard of living, better job opportunities, purchasing power and low COL relative to wages. Then once I've found that city, I'd choose to live in the hip part of that town.
I get that everything can't be measured strictly in dollars and cents, I don't even do that. But to put up with more negatives than positives (strictly speaking in dollars and cents) just to gain some intangible things that can't be measured is too much. There are too many trade offs with cities on the coasts to where it just doesn't seem worth it anymore to justify the decision based on the fact that it's not middle America.
I know people from CA and NYC tend to equate the two different value systems as equal and it's just down to personal preferences. This is a very PC way of saying different strokes for different folks but the math is more on the side of those who choose higher standard of living COL vs QOL.
If you want to call that "bringing race into it" then okay. I don't mind people "bringing race into it." I do mind racism, however. The people who constantly whine about "race being brought into it" are usually the same ones complaining about a litany of other stuff.
Anyway, that's all I'm going to say about that. The point is that most of "Middle America" is not particularly diverse and it can be very provincial. If you grew up in a place like Kansas City or Cleveland, you might find it easier to integrate into social and professional networks if you were to move back to those places. But that might be difficult for an outsider moving to a place where there are few other outsiders. Even in a large metro like Philadelphia, prospective employers tend to ask a lot of questions about your ties to the area and cast somewhat of a suspicious eye towards interviewees coming from outside of the region. So I can only imagine what it may be like trying to move to a place that's only a fraction of the size.
I have a friend who moved back to her hometown, which was a medium-sized metro in the South. She lasted there for one year, and while she enjoyed being close to family, she felt that career advancement opportunities were too limited. If you didn't go to the right high school and weren't part of the Good Ole Boy network, she said it was basically a waste of time living there if you have any type of ambition.
Was this small town South? I couldn't see the Good ole Boy network having any ground in major southern cities. Even smaller Southern cities like Mobile.
But the stuff you described is the stuff that I just don't get. Who thinks like that? That things are so "provincial" and that you cant get ahead and the area isn't right because of some perceived thing? It's not just the race issue but overall I've noticed a pattern of thinking that somehow cities on the coasts are free from the trappings of conformity. As though there is a need for people to escape these middle of the road cities for something greater. This thinking is something that I also think disconnects me from the cultures of the coasts.
I can agree to an extent. But again this is what I am talking about. There are things that people quantify on the coasts that would be alien to most other people. The need for vibe or a cool neighborhood or such amenities seem to be overstated for the people that choose to live in places like LA or SF.
It's not simply about a "cool vibe." Some places have a social and political climate that can't be easily replicated elsewhere. There are some people who would never leave San Francisco for Tupelo, Mississippi no matter what you pay them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiolibre99
And it's not so much that QOL can't be factored into the equation but that it comes secondary to COL for me. For instance I'd choose a city that offers a higher standard of living, better job opportunities, purchasing power and low COL relative to wages. Then once I've found that city, I'd choose to live in the hip part of that town.
Doesn't this sort of miss the fact, ya know, that big cities generally have better job opportunities? I mean, that's a big part of why people move to these big cities and they keep growing and growing, right? And it's a big part of why Rust Belt cities have largely stagnated over the last few decades.
It's not simply about a "cool vibe." Some places have a social and political climate that can't be easily replicated elsewhere. There are some people who would never leave San Francisco for Tupelo, Mississippi no matter what you pay them.
Doesn't this sort of miss the fact, ya know, that big cities generally have better job opportunities? I mean, that's a big part of why people move to these big cities and they keep growing and growing, right? And it's a big part of why Rust Belt cities have largely stagnated over the last few decades.
I am confused. Forgive me but I was under the impression we were comparing city vs city not huge metropolitan area with ample amenities and cultural clout for small town middle america. I mean we are talking coastal cities like LA, NYC, DC, SF, Boston for cities such as Houston, Austin, Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago, Minneapolis, Nashville, Columbus.
I'm saying you can live for cheaper in the latter cities and still get comparable amenities albeit on a smaller scale. You improve your standard of living because all three cities have good economies and robust job markets with good comparable pay.
Was this small town South? I couldn't see the Good ole Boy network having any ground in major southern cities. Even smaller Southern cities like Mobile.
It wasn't a "small" town. And yes, she says there's a Good Ole Boy network alive and well there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiolibre99
But the stuff you described is the stuff that I just don't get. Who thinks like that? That things are so "provincial" and that you cant get ahead and the area isn't right because of some perceived thing? It's not just the race issue but overall I've noticed a pattern of thinking that somehow cities on the coasts are free from the trappings of conformity. As though there is a need for people to escape these middle of the road cities for something greater. This thinking is something that I also think disconnects me from the cultures of the coasts.
They are more provincial. That's a fact. When 75-80% of the people in the MSA are born and raised there, then that makes it provincial (the opposite of cosmopolitanism). And economically, cities like that do not tend to be as dynamic as places like Atlanta, Houston, San Francisco, NYC, etc. where people come from everywhere. For all of the things people say are bad about the big coastal cities, I find them to be very meritocratic.
It wasn't a "small" town. And yes, she says there's a Good Ole Boy network alive and well there.
They are more provincial. That's a fact. When 75-80% of the people in the MSA are born and raised there, then that makes it provincial (the opposite of cosmopolitanism). And economically, cities like that do not tend to be as dynamic as places like Atlanta, Houston, San Francisco, NYC, etc. where people come from everywhere. For all of the things people say are bad about the big coastal cities, I find them to be very meritocratic.
Now we are putting Houston and Atlanta with SF and NYC? I was actually trying to argue that the former cities were a better deal than the latter. I am not trying to take up the mantle for all midwestern cities since I am unfamiliar with them but my main point is that people have more choices.
I am confused. Forgive me but I was under the impression we were comparing city vs city not huge metropolitan area with ample amenities and cultural clout for small town middle america. I mean we are talking coastal cities like LA, NYC, DC, SF, Boston for cities such as Houston, Austin, Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago, Minneapolis, Nashville, Columbus.
Atlanta and Chicago are not "Middle America" in my book.
Quote:
The idea of Middle America may exclude locations such as Chicago (the third largest city in the United States and one of the world's ten alpha cities) and very wealthy cities like Aspen, Colorado.
I wouldn't characterize cities like Chicago or Atlanta as "Middle American" because they are progressive and chock full of minorities. Atlanta is one of the top Creative Class cities in the country so it's automatically disqualified in my mind.
Now Nashville, Columbus, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Memphis, etc. are a different story.
Not like Austin. Austin hosts the largest music festival in the world and its music scene has become nationally if not world-renowned. It's also starting to be seen as a tech hub, which of course is viewed as a very millennial/creative industry. The perception, I think, is similar to that of the Research Triangle, but with more of an artistic/cultural flair.
I specifically said that Columbus wasn't on Austin's level just yet. It is popular and cool though, so give some time. Its time under the national radar will end soon enough.
Quote:
Yeah, but if you're moving to Ann Arbor, I doubt you're going to say you're moving to metro Detroit. It would be sort of like moving to Princeton and saying you're moving to Philadelphia. Ann Arbor is sort of its own self-contained entity as much as Princeton is.
Yes and no. I've been to both, and they certainly have a connection with one another. I agree though that Ann Arbor likes maintaining its own image, but who can blame them. It's not because Detroit sucks, just like how it's not like Philadelphia sucks, but neither should sell their own strong points short.
Quote:
I don't think so. DC, for example, has the White House, the monuments, the Smithsonian, etc. Boston and Philadelphia are rich in colonial history. So while those cities are certainly overshadowed by NYC, they are still big draws for national and international tourists nonetheless.
You're ever so slightly missing my point. Let me rephrase.
First, let me say that DC is obviously a special case, and I should have pointed that out. Its position as the nation's capital assures that, and it's one of the top museum cities in the country period.
What I was trying to get out though is that there is a similar dynamic between NYC's offerings and the rest of the Northeast's offerings as there is between Chicago's offerings and the rest of the Midwest's. I'm not saying the Minneapolis Museum of Art is better than a museum in Boston or Philadelphia, I'm just pointing out the dynamic. Although I will say that a substantial number of cultural institutions across the Midwest are highly regarded on the national level.
When it comes to Art Museums, the Minneapolis Institute of Art gets about 750,000 visitors annually, the Detroit Institute of Arts gets around 630,000, and the Cleveland Museum of Art gets about 600,000. While not on Northeastern levels or Art Institute of Chicago levels, they're certainly impressive, and that doesn't even take into account the quality of their collections. Indianapolis' Art Museum also brings in more than 400,000 visitors, and the St. Louis Art Museum is on track to hit 500,000 by 2019 after recently adding on a new wing.
When it comes to zoos, St. Louis is tied with the Lincoln Park Zoo in Chicago for the second most visited zoo in the country behind San Diego. Columbus and St. Paul are both in the top 10 in the country for visitors when it comes to zoos, and Omaha, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, and another Minnesota zoo are also in the top 20. Minneapolis has the most theatre seats per capita in the country behind NYC, and St. Louis has the largest and oldest outdoor musical theatre. Forest Park in St. Louis is the 2nd most visited urban park in the Midwest behind Lincoln Park, and the 7th most visited in the country. Cleveland, Minneapolis, and Milwaukee all have urban parks in the top 20 most visited in the country as well. Cleveland's symphony is one of the Big 5 in the country, Kansas City is home to the national World War I Museum, and St. Louis is also home to Cahokia Mounds, the Missouri Botanical Gardens, and the unique experience that is the City Museum. Cahokia Mounds is the largest archeological site in North America, and the City Museum, well, look at their website: Home - city museum. The Botanical Gardens are the oldest gardens in the United States, and make travel list after travel list. The Arch also remains the 11th most visited national monument in the country, even though it lost nearly a million visitors last year due to the closing of the attached museum and Arch grounds for the renovations for the CityArchRiver Project. Before that it was well within the top 10.
Again, this isn't to say that the aforementioned places are necessarily all on par with institutions in the Northeast, but I highly recommend visiting many of them, as they are no slouches. The vast majority are superb, and well worth the visits. Some are even better than what you can find in Chicago (ex: the St. Louis Zoo).
PS: I apologize for the St. Louis heavy examples. I've lived there, so it's easier to know about those places rather than ones in cities I've merely visited.
Quote:
Outside of Chicago, which Midwestern city has the 2nd largest tourism industry in the Midwest? Cleveland? Maybe St. Louis because of the Arch?
Lol wasn't South By Southwest sponsored by McDonald's this year? Seems a little corporate for a city who prides itself on being weird and hipster. Also I'm waiting for you tell me why the five major events I showed you in Columbus are not legitimate. I'm not comparing Columbus to Austin but you asked what events would make anyone visit our city besides a football game. Oh and Vice President Biden did an event downtown here today and will be in Cleveland tonight, Ohio seems to be good enough for him.
Well, it is pretty hipster to openly like McDonalds :P
Also, of course middle America is going to be less progressive and less diverse if that is exactly how you define "middle America." It is obvious here that many others here are defining middle America purely geographically, including its cities. Heck, even a lot of the suburban areas of middle America are much more diverse than some parts of coastal America.
I wouldn't characterize cities like Chicago or Atlanta as "Middle American" because they are progressive and chock full of minorities. Atlanta is one of the top Creative Class cities in the country so it's automatically disqualified in my mind.
Now Nashville, Columbus, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Memphis, etc. are a different story.
A city being progressive discounts it from being a part of the middle of the country? I am not talking about culture in that sense. But in the sense of valuing QOL over COL. Plenty of people move from CA and NYC to cities such as the ones I listed because of COL.
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.
