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.
1. Good rail transportation. I will ride a bus if necessary occasionally, but I want to be able to get everywhere in a normal day by train. This can be light rail, commuter rail, or rapid transit rail.
2. A cold, snowy climate. I want a place with 4 seasons which is cold enough to have snow cover for an extended period of time. The colder and snowier the better. A relatively cool and short summer would also be nice.
3. I would also like to be in as large of a city as possible, although I could handle a smaller city if it had the other things I want.
4. Other things that would be nice but are not required are: relatively low cost of living, hilly terrain/mountains, central location in US, and multiple universities (all cities listed have at least a few colleges).
I posted a similar topic a few months ago but wanted to add a poll and a couple more specifications.
1) One of the best heavy/light rail systems in the country, served by Amtrak (with individual routes radiating northeast, southwest and west), T commuter and T light rail services. The network has seen consistent, almost constant expansion over the past 2 decades, has big plans to grow in the future, and already runs through most major communities around the city.
2) This is a no-brainer. New England has a consistent 4 seasons, hot (but not intolerable) summers (and rarely too humid), thunderstorms, very colorful falls, harsh (but not as bad as people make it out to be) winters - sometimes it snows in feet, sometimes you get a few inches - and chilly, sudden springs.
3) While Boston itself actually has a rather small urban core (compare the city's physical dimensions to a place like San Francisco or Manhattan or Houston - the Shawmut Peninsula is puny), the metropolitan area boasts 4.8 million, making it the 10th largest in the country. Moreover, Boston in every way feels like the capital of New England itself - a hub for 6 (or 5 and a half - western Connecticut, you suck) states both culturally and physically. Even NYC in no way resembles the kind of cultural dominance over so many states in the same way Boston does. There really isn't any other city like this in the U.S. when viewed from this perspective.
4) Boston has hills, but they are far from dramatic - however, you are only a few hours from some serious alpine excitement in the White Mountains, and the terrain gets noticeably more hilly as you head northwest of the city almost immediately (FYI, Seattle, NYC, Washington, Pittsburgh and Portland are the only names on your list that are closer to serious mountains, and only Seattle and Portland are closer to ones exceeding 5,000 feet in elevation). Boston also boasts one of the highest concentrations of major universities in the United States, and the wider world. However, it is not centrally located, nor does it have a low cost-of-living (though many of the cities you listed suffer these same flaws).
Honestly, given your criteria, I don't think there's any other reasonable answer than the city upon a hill.
Last edited by PrincessoftheCape; 07-13-2016 at 07:23 PM..
Buffalo, Pittsburgh and Cleveland would be pretty good fits based upon the climate, rail transportation and hills in the immediate area or nearby. They aren't huge cities, but are big enough. They have a relatively low COL and are on the edge of two national regions.
No such place exists. Chicago comes closest but it certainly is not hilly. Boston is also a good candidate but it isn't centrally located, you can't go everywhere by rail, and the cost of living? Its far from low. (It's nice, though) If cost of living is actually one of the most important factors, maybe Pittsburgh. I think you need to look at which factors are musts and which are merely desires.
Don't move to Chicago if you want to live anywhere near mountains or the ocean - it's as simple as that. The Great Lakes can be scenic; there are areas around them that are somewhat hilly, but when you are talking about true wilderness, you have to go as far as northern Minnesota of the UP of Michigan to find it, and it's pretty darned flat there (well, the UP has some prominent hills, but I would blanch at calling them mountains). The closest real mountains to Chicago are 500+ miles away in central PA.
Also, I would rate the transit systems in Boston and Chicago as equally complete - and would actively dispute against someone who ranks the Windy City's rail system as being markedly superior to that of Boston. In fact, when you talk about "fleshed out" urban rail systems in the U.S., these two urban centers, along with NYC, probably easily rank as number one and two and three. There are others that have decent systems (Philly, Baltimore, D.C., San Francisco, Los Angeles have "good" rail networks), but they aren't as strong as that top trio.
1. Good rail transportation. I will ride a bus if necessary occasionally, but I want to be able to get everywhere in a normal day by train. This can be light rail, commuter rail, or rapid transit rail.
2. A cold, snowy climate. I want a place with 4 seasons which is cold enough to have snow cover for an extended period of time. The colder and snowier the better. A relatively cool and short summer would also be nice.
3. I would also like to be in as large of a city as possible, although I could handle a smaller city if it had the other things I want.
4. Other things that would be nice but are not required are: relatively low cost of living, hilly terrain/mountains, central location in US, and multiple universities (all cities listed have at least a few colleges).
I posted a similar topic a few months ago but wanted to add a poll and a couple more specifications.
Portland and Seattle do not meet most of these criteria. They do have mountains and a university though.
Cleveland does as does Chicago although they are not close to mountains.
Pittsburgh has a very limited rail system. You will need a car or bus ride.
Pittsburgh has Light Rail to the South, and 3 very efficient and really the only TRUE BRTs systems in the US that I would be comfortable putting up against any other Subway / Light Rail system.
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.
