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.
Seattle is a great place to live for people in certain circumstances, and absolutely terrible for others. For millions of Americans such as myself who have a living situation we're comfortable with in a lower cost environment and prefer a different sort of climate, it is a very bad fit. If I was to move out of Atlanta, I'd prefer going to a smaller metropolitan area in this region (e.g. Knoxville TN, Greenville SC) rather than another large metro far away. Some places that may not appear as obviously dynamic as Seattle on the surface can be very appealing for everyday living - and we can always vacation elsewhere.
I think she's truly raising a great point, one that people tend to ignore: While so many of us are mesmerized by living in some cosmopolitan hot spot, the quality of life isn't necessarily all that. From the cost of living to the stresses of so many people in a compact area to a host of other issues, the Seattles, New Yorks, and San Franciscos of the world aren't necessarily so fun for normal people. Hey, if you're making lots of scratch and don't have many encumbrances, it's a great life. For even nice, upper middle-class people trying to raise a family and get by? There are obstacles to overcome.
What I'm curious about is if there's an emerging trend: The mid-sized city actually offers a great deal more when it comes to livability than the big metropolises. Yeah, there's no major league baseball or NFL. But in the everyday mechanics of living, the mid-sized cities have got it going on in ways that the glitterati might have scoffed at twenty years ago. I mean, the beautiful natural surroundings don't mean all that much when you're working two jobs to pay the rent.
In our mid-sized Southern city, we have three different Beard Award-winning restaurants within a ten-minute stroll (Yeah, I know the Beard awards are, to some, a big so-what. Yet restaurants prize the designation so it must mean something). We have plenty to do, with any number of cultural attractions--none of which require getting lucky to score a ticket. My wife has a seven-minute commute to her office while I can pretty much drive to any one of my clients in the area within fifteen minutes.
I get the occasional visit from a client in San Francisco. She's an exec who's pretty high up there at a name-brand financial institution. She always stays an extra day or so specifically for the purpose of looking at real estate, because she can get a great deal more for her money here. She's seriously thinking of pulling the trigger when she retires in ten years--or telecommuting a lot sooner. As she put it, "It's getting to the point where I can work anywhere. Why not work where life is easier?"
By that, I'm not touting my city per se. But instead, I'm offering that the mid-sized cities kind of rock in unexpected ways in terms of a better overall quality of life. Thoughts?
I wouldn't live in Seattle if I weren't making over $100K/year. My son makes well beyond that and struggles to find a house he's comfortable buying to have enough room for his family of 3 young kids. A house on his block went up for sale 2 weeks ago and after a bidding war, sold for $700K and this is a tiny 2 story house and tiny yard. With $500K equity in his house, he could sell his house and buy a really nice house and have no note outside of the coastal areas....I kind of think he should.
City Data is biased towards larger cities by the people it attracts (it's not country-data ), so it tends to place more emphasis on amenities and institutions and things like that than the average American would.
This is an absolute fact...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubb Rubb
Not saying that's for everyone, but think about this - if you have a two income household and you have kids, would you rather pay a babysitter or an older relative to watch your kids?
Outside urban enthusiast forums, the vast majority of relocations in America aren't the sexy-long distance kind. They tend to be more short distance. Not everyone is out to be Lewis and Clark to explore the new world.
This is true. After well over a year of consideration we made the decision a while ago to head back to North Carolina (Raleigh), because of the family advantage. And the reality is that while it isn't an elite city, we can experience much of the same lifestyle in Raleigh that we can in larger cities, at lower cost. That we have family there is the icing on a cake that already looked appealing...
Not at all. IMO, you could save over 6 figures with a move from Seattle to say Houston. What would you honestly be missing? I know there are weather preferences, etc. I will fresh out of college, I would advise my kids to head to NYC or the west coast. Experience life. When you're ready for a family, move back.
I'm in the tech industry, so Seattle and SF make more sense. But once I get my fill, would I consider Texas? Maybe. Not sure how old people deal with heat.
Older people actually prefer the heat as a rule. Phoenix and Florida have long been havens for retirees. It's the cold that they run from.
Hate heat, plan on retiring to the Northwoods down the road, plan on building a small 1,200 square foot cabin with R-60 insulation on acreage with trails and lakes nearby. Most climates in the lower 48 have: too much sun, to much humidity, and too much heat for 7-8 months out of the year. I much prefer snow in the winter without the nasty rain, flooding, and mud found in many other areas of the US in winter.
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.