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.
The OP had it absolutely correct. SF without question. On a ten point scale, SF scores either an 8, 9, or 10 in each criteria the OP has designated.
NYC, for me, comes a distant second due the low scores in climate and outdoor activities (in the 2-3 range IMO). Otherwise it scores well for the rest of the criteria.
Then I'd choose LA for most of the same reasons as SF, except if fails in public transportation and certainly isn't as walkable as the top 2.
Please follow the criteria. It will be interesting how this turns out.
Happy 2012, C-Ders!
Other than moderate climate think there are many places that fit. Though moderate can be subjective. Also not sure I agree on outdoor activities per se as for most including SF these lie outside the cities.
Just am curious as to what makes outdoor activities so much better in SF relative to say NYC. I have lived in both and while there will be some specific differences I am not a huge disparity unless one takes into account weather; of which it is a redundant category so to speak.
Though would probably agree that SF best fits these criteria; the difficulty for me personally is all the criteria would not be equal to me in determining a residence and placing different weights to certain aspects could provide different results. For example a 7 hour drive, are you kidding me, I can fly to Europe in that amount of time or anywhere in the US and most of the Carribean and parts of S America; 7 hours kills a whole day, Hell I dont even drive to Boston which is a little over 4 hours.
While SF does excel at these aspects, the same can be said for other places and the criteria reads a tad suspicious and directed at the desired outcome.
Seattle also comes to mind with the basis of moderate temps and 7 hour drives
Regardless choosing a place to live becomes subjective. I eventually moved back to Philly (After time in DC, NYC, and SF) because it met a lot of the most important criteria for me (again not all is weighted as high as the others for me personally) and also is where the majority of my family is which also played a role though for the OP that was removed and can understand that.
Make no mistake about it, Philly, Boston, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta and of course LA and Chicago are elite cities. But for a year, I won't choose those places as must lives. I would have a hard time choosing over NyC but I've lived there and I've seen enough as a tax payer.
To be honest, I was inspired by my NYE trip to Paris last week. I found myself wondering around that city marveling at the architecture, diversity, vibe, fashion, iconic structures and culture. My French sucks so I know I won't be moving anytime soon. However, I did wonder what I would do if I had a US city of choice under the original criteria.
In the past 2 years I've been to Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, DC, Houston, Jacksonville, LA, Miami, NO, NYC, Philadelphia, San Diego, San Francisco and Tampa in the US.
In the past 4 years, Paris, Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland, Wellington, Berlin, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Cologne, Hamburg and Dusseldorf abroad.
The only US cities that give me a wow factor in the US are NYC and SF. The only US cities that have an ooh factor are Bos, Chi, LA, Phi and Mia. I went to LSU so NO doesn't count.
Phi, Chi and Bos has better train systems - no argument. LA and Mia are more glitzy - again, no argument. The weather is subjective to what you are willing to give up. I'm from the deep south so I'm good on humidity and summers. I spent a decade between Ny and Chi, I'm also good on wind chills. I happen to not fit into this category, but ppl that don't fly for work, really don't want to fly for 7 hrs and wld prefer to drive. So geography, like climate, like preference of transportation, are all subjective.
I choose, SF because unlike most us city powerhouses, along with NO, it's identity is undeniably, is unique to this country on many levels; architecture not being the primary denominator.
PS - The cool thing about this thread, it has nothing to do with where you live now, what city you rep to the death, it's a chance for some of us to dream of a 365 day escape to a desired location. If you all want to see some pics from any of these places just hit me up.
Last edited by 75 South; 01-06-2012 at 12:32 AM..
Reason: Misspelling
SF. there are several others I could easily live in too.
You can have that dense vibrant city experience and still be within 2-3 hours of THE best outdoor beauty in the entire nation. Redwoods, Napa Valley, Lake Tahoe, Yosemite, Monterey Bay, Sequoias, world class skiing, Big Sur, north Coast, central coast.
I agree 7 is a stretch for close proximity activity, you can get anywhere in the country by plane in that amount of time.
Make no mistake about it, Philly, Boston, Seattle, Denver, Atlanta and of course LA and Chicago are elite cities. But for a year, I won't choose those places as must lives. I would have a hard time choosing over NyC but I've lived there and I've seen enough as a tax payer.
To be honest, I was inspired by my NYE trip to Paris last week. I found myself wondering around that city marveling at the architecture, diversity, vibe, fashion, iconic structures and culture. My French sucks so I know I won't be moving anytime soon. However, I did wonder what I would do if I had a US city of choice under the original criteria.
In the past 2 years I've been to Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Dallas, Denver, DC, Houston, Jacksonville, LA, Miami, NO, NYC, Philadelphia, San Diego, San Francisco and Tampa in the US.
In the past 4 years, Paris, Sydney, Melbourne, Auckland, Wellington, Berlin, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Cologne, Hamburg and Dusseldorf abroad.
The only US cities that give me a wow factor in the US are NYC and SF. The only US cities that have an ooh factor are Bos, Chi, LA, Phi and Mia. I went to LSU so NO doesn't count.
Phi, Chi and Bos has better train systems - no argument. LA and Mia are more glitzy - again, no argument. The weather is subjective to what you are willing to give up. I'm from the deep south so I'm good on humidity and summers. I spent a decade between Ny and Chi, I'm also good on wind chills. I happen to not fit into this category, but ppl that don't fly for work, really don't want to fly for 7 hrs and wld prefer to drive. So geography, like climate, like preference of transportation, are all subjective.
I choose, SF because unlike most us city powerhouses, along with NO, it's identity is undeniably, is unique to this country on many levels; architecture not being the primary denominator.
PS - The cool thing about this thread, it has nothing to do with where you live now, what city you rep to the death, it's a chance for some of us to dream of a 365 day escape to a desired location. If you all want to see some pics from any of these places just hit me up.
Very fair points. Though will still disagree on the 7 hour drive (though I have been traveling by air for work and pleasure for years now so I would prefer to fly over drive that far).
I can understand why people like/love SF though. Is one of my favorite places and I lived there for a little while and visit fairly often.
Based on a wish and previous living experience (DC, NYC, SF, and Philly) personally I would probably either choose Chicago (Just love the place and would love to spend a year living there) or SD (more specifically LaJolla) as a dream year or place to experience I have not.
I would also choose a few Euopean destinations (actually many having never lived abroad though visited many times) over any US city as a change up. (Also Australia is on my short list and maybe some time in one of those over water huts in the S Pacific)
We have an entire calendar year to vote on our dream US city to live in 2012. We will choose out of the most often debated cities on C-D in 2011.
The following is your current situation:
No children
Single
Six figure income
35 years of age
no geographical family commitment
Where do you go for 'at least' one year and why?
I choose my city based on where I've lived - NYC, Chicago, Atlanta and Denver. I choose my city based on where I've visited - Boston, Philly, LA, Dallas, DC, Houston, Miami, SD, NO, Detroit, Phoenix and Vegas. I'm choosing my city because I can do the following:
- mix use of public transportation
- moderate climate
- ethnic diversity
- big city feel
- accessible to other big cities (within 7 hour drive)
- liberal
- iconic
- multiple outdoor activities
- walkable
- dense cbd
- urban
- cultural options
- notable skyline/structures
- global importance
It's going to be San Francisco. New York is New York (and trust me, I'm not comparing the two). I have a great deal of respect for the NE megalopolis. And when we look at this thread on 12/31/12, I would bet that given the criteria listed it will be a close fight between the traditional big 3 powerhouses and some off shoot places that people have fallen in love with in the Pacific NW or the US SE.
I choose SF because it gives me things that I couldn't get in Manhattan or Chicago. A slower pace, a little more laid back and liberal vibe. A chance to make a life vs. the hustle of making a living. I choose SF because of the climate averages 65 and 50 for the year. I can do all of my activities under those conditions. I choose SF because of the natural setting (although SEA and DEN will surely get some votes because of this).
I will say that if I had a 2-5 it would be: NYC, DC, SEA, DEN.
In terms of the people, SF does have a more liberal culture and California vibe, but I disagree that it's more slow paced or relaxing than Chicago in terms of how the city is laid out. The housing in SF is really crammed together, the streets are packed and narrow, there are dirty, gritty sections sprinkled throughout. Don't get me wrong, density is great, but I find Chicago to actually be a more comfortable city, in that it's easier to find quieter residential neighborhoods next to vibrant strips and there is generally more breathing room. In other words, the hustle is easier to escape in Chicago (within city limits).
My choice is San Diego. I'm home again and have no reason to move away ever again. My 2nd choice would be Nawlins. When I lived on the Mississippi Gulf Coast I ventured there regularly and love that city.
If I was say 25, I would pick NYC easily. But at 35, I'd go with DC and that's a hard one. But I like the combination of weather (except Summertime), urbanity, diversity, location, and more. Great thread. I'm interested to see how this turns out.
Also, I also agree with BigCityDreamer. If Chicago was on the East Coast, I'd pick that EASILY.
My God you drive slow.
If Chicago was on the East Coast...it wouldn't be Chicago.
35 still single and making 6 figures. I'd probably go with Miami. Also I would never choose a city I haven't visited. I'm not into nature that much...more so culture/lifestyle. There are plenty of good cities on paper that the vibe/culture/lifestyle I just don't jive with. I like massive big urban cities like NYC and Chicago, and places like Las Vegas and Miami for fun. I have considered moving out of the country though to a large English speaking city and US ex pat friendly cities such as Sydney, Dublin or London, so I would look at those also and could see myself living there.
philadelphia blows the other cities away, by a knockout. especially san francisco, the washed up has-been champ
-1 for Philly
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.
