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.
I discovered a few years ago that my "sweet spot", where I'm the most comfortable, is the class of cities currently between 2 and 3 million. Charlotte, Cleveland, Sacramento, Pittsburgh, etc. Perfectly sized, at that size cities typically have some form of rail transit, multiples of walkable areas and districts, and have good to great artistic communities...
Beneath that, I can tell you that you can't get me to a city with less than a million in its metro ever again. It's just too small. The 1-2 million range still feels a little too small for me, but there are exceptions to every rule--->I would live in Richmond again under the right circumstances; I've fallen in love with Virginia Beach; I love Buffalo, etc...
Above the 3 million bar, I don't think any city feels too large for me. I spent part of my adolescence in South Los Angeles, as well as suburban DC, so I think my nature is geared towards larger cities. They aren't uncomfortable or too big, and if I had the means to live anywhere, I'd live in LA. But these true major cities aren't really my style!
What's your style, ck?
I’d say for metro size no smaller than 500,000 and up to about 4 million(Detroit).
If the area is smaller, I’d go the major college town route, as they tend to have enough going on for their size.
If the metro is bigger, I’d perhaps live in a select community(say a place like Nyack in the NYC area).
Charleston, West Virginia was the perfect size city for me. Very close to rural areas but still enough conveniences like restaurants, shopping, even a casino. Charleston WV had a large enough selection of restaurants to keep me satisfied.
I now live in Baton Rouge which is a far larger metro area and the traffic and crime are far worse.
Whichever are the next biggest metros in the U.S. after NYC. I like big cities, but NYC is too dense for my tastes. Been out here 8 years and have grown weary of it. Miami, LA, Chicago are probably the best fits for mewith regards to size. Granted, I've never been to Chicago....just going based on stats and what I've heard...
I like a place that feels lively, but I also want to have breathing room.
Boston in cleanliness, ambiance and green space.
Manhattan in density
Seattle in Public Transportation Development Quality.
Cambridge MA in education attainment and professionalism.
San Francisco in Topography.
Mexico City in population.
Would be amazing.
Maybe a city on the ocean off the coast of Rhode Island at 300sq/miles with 25,000,000 people... the Metro having about 20,000,000 more in about 3,000sq miles. A few cities in the metro ith about 750,000 each would be great too.
I would say between an established 3 millionish up to 8 or 9 million.
Chicago was very cool and fun but at my age it's too big. St. Louis is the absolute smallest metro I would live in. I love the size of Boston, DC and San Francisco. I find Seattle, Minneapolis and Denver very attractive. All are urban and easily meet my ideal of walkability, useful transit and general sophistication. St. Louis isn't as sophisticated but makes up for it in easy living category.
Under 3 million cities start lacking. However, I find Louisville, Providence, Salt Lake City and Albuquerque very interesting.
An MSA--that's not part of a grander CSA--of no more than a million pop and hasn't grown in the double digits since the 2010 census works for me.
As far as residing within city limits? No more than 200K, and even at that amount square mileage better be at least 100. Had enough of density.
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.