U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which city should I live in (please read post)
Boston, MA 3 17.65%
Buffalo, NY 1 5.88%
Chicago, IL 7 41.18%
Cleveland, OH 2 11.76%
Minneapolis, MN 1 5.88%
New York, NY 1 5.88%
Philadelphia, PA 1 5.88%
Pittsburgh, PA 1 5.88%
Portland, OR 0 0%
Seattle, WA 0 0%
Washington, DC 0 0%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 17. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-13-2016, 06:33 PM
 
Location: Chicago, IL
176 posts, read 89,374 times
Reputation: 130

Advertisements

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-13-2016, 07:01 PM
 
556 posts, read 698,219 times
Reputation: 960
Boston:

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..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 07:08 PM
 
56,648 posts, read 80,952,685 times
Reputation: 12521
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.

Here is an area about an hour south of Buffalo: Enchanted Mountains of Western New York AKA Cattaraugus County ... Naturally yours

Last edited by ckhthankgod; 07-13-2016 at 07:54 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 07:28 PM
 
2,512 posts, read 2,274,345 times
Reputation: 1835
Chicago has everything you listed except for hills/mountains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 07:33 PM
 
Location: Boston
101 posts, read 93,588 times
Reputation: 205
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 07:48 PM
 
556 posts, read 698,219 times
Reputation: 960
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 08:27 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh
3,145 posts, read 2,829,566 times
Reputation: 2858
Pittsburgh has a very limited rail system. You will need a car or bus ride.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-13-2016, 10:57 PM
 
Location: Lakewood OH
21,697 posts, read 23,672,920 times
Reputation: 35449
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianpmcdonnell17 View Post
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.

Last edited by Minervah; 07-13-2016 at 11:21 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 08:03 AM
 
5,805 posts, read 8,568,518 times
Reputation: 3051
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluecarebear View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top