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.
If you were considering Pittsburgh I would definitely go with that. It does have that smaller feel like someone else mentioned because of the hills that break up the Area a bit. The great lakes are an hour and a half away. It once had about 700,000 people so it definitely feels bigger than you might expect. The populations starting to level out I think and it's been known as millennial hotspot for over 5 years now.
I think it will pick up.
Just ran my numbers last week for my 2019 Purchasing Power Index (average household incomes vs. average overall cost of living/housing costs) for metro areas. 100 is the national average. The lower the number, the better. Once a metro area goes above a 130, it's is no longer considered affordable for the average American. it's pretty much mathematically and economically impossible to become affordable again:
Better than the national average:
Greensboro/Winston Salem (51.83)
Oklahoma City (60.65)
Cleveland/Akron (61.35)
Rochester (62.88)
Cincinnati (64.25)
St. Louis (65.94)
Detroit (67.89)
Louisville (71.00)
Indianapolis (71.35)
Grand Rapids (73.77)
Buffalo (73.89)
Kansas City (76.23)
Columbus (76.30)
Pittsburgh (79.03)
Houston (81.03)
San Antonio (81.30)
Philadelphia (83.78)
Charlotte (87.59)
Atlanta (94.68)
Dallas/Ft. Worth (96.70)
Norfolk/Virginia Beach (96.72)
Chicago (97.29)
Milwaukee (98.63)
Around the national average:
Tampa/St. Petersburg (101.16)
Raleigh/Durham (101.36)
Minneapolis/St. Paul (104.69)
Still "affordable", but rising:
Nashville (112.24)
Orlando (114.93. Orlando has a low COL, but really low average household income. They need to diversify their economy more to bring this score up)
Phoenix (121.10)
Austin (127.99)
Unaffordable: Las Vegas (133.80)
Miami/Ft. Lauderdale (137.62)
Salt Lake City (146.88)
Washington DC (172.50. DC offsets its very high COL with having the highest average household income in the U.S. at the moment at about $93k)
Denver (179.97)
Riverside/San Bernardino (184.62)
Portland OR (186.45)
Sacramento (201.26)
Boston (230.37)
Seattle/Tacoma (240.16)
New York City (281.88)
San Diego (295.94)
Los Angeles (332.02)
Bay Area (504.30)
Just ran my numbers last week for my 2019 Purchasing Power Index (average household incomes vs. average overall cost of living/housing costs) for metro areas. 100 is the national average. The lower the number, the better. Once a metro area goes above a 130, it's is no longer considered affordable for the average American. it's pretty much mathematically and economically impossible to become affordable again:
Better than the national average:
Greensboro/Winston Salem (51.83)
Oklahoma City (60.65)
Cleveland/Akron (61.35)
Rochester (62.88)
Cincinnati (64.25)
St. Louis (65.94)
Detroit (67.89)
Louisville (71.00)
Indianapolis (71.35)
Grand Rapids (73.77)
Buffalo (73.89)
Kansas City (76.23)
Columbus (76.30)
Pittsburgh (79.03)
Houston (81.03)
San Antonio (81.30)
Philadelphia (83.78)
Charlotte (87.59)
Atlanta (94.68)
Dallas/Ft. Worth (96.70)
Norfolk/Virginia Beach (96.72)
Chicago (97.29)
Milwaukee (98.63)
Around the national average:
Tampa/St. Petersburg (101.16)
Raleigh/Durham (101.36)
Minneapolis/St. Paul (104.69)
Still "affordable", but rising:
Nashville (112.24)
Orlando (114.93. Orlando has a low COL, but really low average household income. They need to diversify their economy more to bring this score up)
Phoenix (121.10)
Austin (127.99)
Unaffordable: Las Vegas (133.80)
Miami/Ft. Lauderdale (137.62)
Salt Lake City (146.88)
Washington DC (172.50. DC offsets its very high COL with having the highest average household income in the U.S. at the moment at about $93k)
Denver (179.97)
Riverside/San Bernardino (184.62)
Portland OR (186.45)
Sacramento (201.26)
Boston (230.37)
Seattle/Tacoma (240.16)
New York City (281.88)
San Diego (295.94)
Los Angeles (332.02)
Bay Area (504.30)
True, but there's certainly still cities with arguably better value. When I visit friends in Indianapolis or Columbus they're spending MUCH less than I am in Chicago (in Wicker Park) and still loving it. I'd consider one of them but I want to get away from cold winters for a few years.
You are also living in one of the most expensive neighborhoods in Chicago. you could easily go 4 stops northwest on the Blue Line in a neighborhood like Avondale and Irving Park and see how greatly reduced your rent will be.
Agree completely. I'd seriously consider just staying in Chicago.
So true. Places like Seattle, Denver, Miami are just as expensive as Chicago, in some cases even more, yet Chicago offers a whole ton more than those cities in regards to culture and urban lifestyle. DC, Boston, SF are more expensive than Chicago and they offer less (not saying they don't offer anything as they do offer plenty in their own right).
Hard to get a better value per dollar than Chicago. I'd just look for another less trendy neighborhood.
I agree with this as well. Though places like Atlanta, Charlotte and Columbus do have good costs of living and purchasing power, Chicago (and Philly for that matter) have great purchasing power that's better than the national average. They're a great value for what you get.
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.
