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.
No no no no to Atlanta.... especially if your coming from SF and youre in your 20s! Not that Atl is a bad city its just not a good next step and I think it would be a hard transition.
What about DC, you can still afford to live off of your salary. Its not a cheap city but the cost is living especially housing is much cheaper.
No no no no to Atlanta.... especially if your coming from SF and youre in your 20s! Not that Atl is a bad city its just not a good next step and I think it would be a hard transition.
What about DC, you can still afford to live off of your salary. Its not a cheap city but the cost is living especially housing is much cheaper.
DC is extremely expensive. I don't think the OP wants that. Yes, it's significantly cheaper than SF Bay area, but it's not affordable by any means. However, IF the OP doesn't mind the extremely high cost of living in DC, then I would say it would be another good choice for sure!
I think Atlanta and Dallas would work if you're comfortable being around southern culture. You'd probably want to live in east Atlanta or Decatur for the Atlanta region.
I generally agree with the 4 million metro area being a minimum size threshold for decent gay dating with a few caveats. I am gay and the same age as you and when I moved from Raleigh Durham to greater Boston the dating scene was immensely better. I think Denver is worth considering even though it's not over 4 million. There's so many young professionals there that the gay dating scene is still strong.
Philly is another contender given its walkable, good transit and more affordable. The climate isn't that bad in my opinion. I'm not sure how gay dating is in Phoenix but that may be another affordable option.
I think Atlanta and Dallas would work if you're comfortable being around southern culture. You'd probably want to live in east Atlanta or Decatur for the Atlanta region.
I generally agree with the 4 million metro area being a minimum size threshold for decent gay dating with a few caveats. I am gay and the same age as you and when I moved from Raleigh Durham to greater Boston the dating scene was immensely better. I think Denver is worth considering even though it's not over 4 million. There's so many young professionals there that the gay dating scene is still strong.
Philly is another contender given its walkable, good transit and more affordable. The climate isn't that bad in my opinion. I'm not sure how gay dating is in Phoenix but that may be another affordable option.
Funny you say that though. I'm 32, gay and have found that metro area size doesn't really affect dating prospects that much. I lived in NYC for a couple years and although I met many guys, I thought that it was very competitive and everyone was just waiting for a better guy to come along. NYC is an extra large metro. Then, I also lived in Columbus, OH (a medium sized metro) and met approximately just as many guys and dating prospects as I did in NYC. And of course, I've lived in different parts of CT over the years, which has a small gay community, and although it can be challenging, I wouldn't say that my "gay life" was any less satisfying than it was in the bigger cities like NYC or even Columbus. Dating is really a crapshoot, from my experience. The perfect match could be living in a small city. In fact, there are some advantages to being gay in a small metro, in terms of dating prospects. I know many gay guys living in big cities who are chronically single and complain about the gay community in those big cities. So, that's why I completely quit caring about city/metro size for gay life. I'm not saying to live out in the middle of nowhere, obviously.
Surprised New Orleans hasn't been mentioned. I'm not gay but NO is known for it's Decadence Parade and being very gay friendly. Could live in a walkable neighborhood on that salary and everything.
Surprised New Orleans hasn't been mentioned. I'm not gay but NO is known for it's Decadence Parade and being very gay friendly. Could live in a walkable neighborhood on that salary and everything.
New Orleans has a small gay population though, compared to what the OP is looking for. Remember, the OP is coming from the SF bay area, which has over 4 million people. I can't imagine he'd want a much smaller gay community than that.
Well, hopefully the op returns and gives us clarity on his interpretation of what a large city is.
By "large LGBT population" I meant more "visible" (or as someone else here put it, "significant") vs. a particular size or scope. I'm not much into the bar and club scene, but I'd like there to be other LGBT-specific social outlets available (i.e. book clubs, social groups, etc.). The overall size of the city does not matter as much to me vs. the LGBT population. That said, I think I'd feel happiest in a mid-size or larger city (300K-400K and up, I guess?). But I'm open to smaller cities too.
By "large LGBT population" I meant more "visible" (or as someone else here put it, "significant") vs. a particular size or scope. I'm not much into the bar and club scene, but I'd like there to be other LGBT-specific social outlets available (i.e. book clubs, social groups, etc.). The overall size of the city does not matter as much to me vs. the LGBT population. That said, I think I'd feel happiest in a mid-size or larger city (300K-400K and up, I guess?). But I'm open to smaller cities too.
It's easier to think about it on a metropolitan area basis rather than just the core city. For example, Columbus, Ohio has a city population of 800,000, but the metro area is only 2 million. But Boston has a city population of around 600,000 in a metro area of around 4.5 million. So even though Boston is a smaller city than Columbus, the metro area is much bigger, more bustling and urban like.
It's easier to think about it on a metropolitan area basis rather than just the core city. For example, Columbus, Ohio has a city population of 800,000, but the metro area is only 2 million. But Boston has a city population of around 600,000 in a metro area of around 4.5 million. So even though Boston is a smaller city than Columbus, the metro area is much bigger, more bustling and urban like.
Ah, that's a good point. I hadn't really thought about it in those terms previously. I think I would want to go no smaller than about 2 million people, though 3-4 million+ would probably be ideal.
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.
