Are cities with higher cost of living better than citys with lower costs of living? (best, state)

[Sharp Point]

Are cities such as New York Boston and San Francisco better than Philadelphia Chicago Miami ect?

Does having a high cost a living make it a good city? Do cities with low costs of living have lesser things than cities with higher cost of living?

Why do cities like Chicago and Philadelphia have world class qualities but the cost of living is so low? Does that mean the economy is better than the cities with the higher cost of living?

Why is Boston more expensive than Philly when Philly is a better overall city?

[Lizz0rd]

Not exactly, SF used to be much more affordable before real estate/tech booms... and arguably better. High cost of living usually means there are a lot of yuppies though. Either organically grown (NYC/DC) or they invaded over time (SF/Seattle)

[PGKangrui]

Not necessarily. For example, Salinas has a high cost of living, especially with respect to wages in the area, but it is not particularly desirable.

[75 South]

I don't have a quantifiable answer but I do like the question that you posed.

Originally Posted by Sharp Point

Are cities such as New York Boston and San Francisco better than Philadelphia Chicago Miami ect?

Does having a high cost a living make it a good city? Do cities with low costs of living have lesser things than cities with higher cost of living?

Why do cities like Chicago and Philadelphia have world class qualities but the cost of living is so low? Does that mean the economy is better than the cities with the higher cost of living?

Why is Boston more expensive than Philly when Philly is a better overall city?

[robertpolyglot]

To the OP, not necessarily. The cost of living "tax" associated with NY, Boston, LA and SF are for the WOW factor. NY and Boston are REALLY maxed out and a lot of people really want to live there for the cultural and intellectual "cutting edge" and LA and SF are fairly maxed out and are the major metro areas in America's best climatic zone.

[MDAllstar]

Life lesson.....

"Something is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. The market is driven by the consumer."

[Drewcifer]

It should be a no brainer but sometimes people forget that there are two components to supply and demand. Many of the most expensive cities are that way partly because they are out of easily developable land. For example geography alone dictates that the Bay Area will always be expensive - so much of it is water or hillside.

[BLAXTOR]

The best cities are NYC, SF, BOSTON, and CHICAGO and everything else after that is debatable jmo

[jtom605]

There are a number of reasons why SF and Boston are more expensive than Philly and Chicago. Philly and Chicago are bigger cities, so there are more places to live. Usually, when a good or service is scarcer, the value is higher.

As a Philadelphian, I know that a lot of other cities gentrified before Philly. In fact, some would say that Philly is decades behind in this process (not that I neccessarily want it to occur). Even now, Center City is nice, but if you take a wrong turn, you can end up in a warzone pretty quickly.

I'm not sure about Chicago's gentrification, so maybe another poster can chime in on this topic.

Unfortunately, Philly and Chicago also have reputations as high-crime cities. Boston and SF are also located next to the ocean, while Philly and Chicago are not.

So, SF and Boston are more desriable cities for wealthy people, but obviously that does not make them better than Philly and Chicago overall because there are other factors to take into consideration.