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 want most of that stuff in one place, why leave New York? It has pretty much everything you want except mountains (unless you don't mind driving to the Catskills).
The OP might just want to get different experience living in another city, there is nothing wrong with a change of scenery. Plus the Catskills are nothing compared to the mountains in California IMO. Overall, LA seems to be better when it comes to nature and outdoor activities (not counting Central Park), NYC has the distinct feel of a dense, concrete jungle. S
The OP might just want to get different experience living in another city, there is nothing wrong with a change of scenery. Plus the Catskills are nothing compared to the mountains in California IMO. Overall, LA seems to be better when it comes to nature and outdoor activities (not counting Central Park), NYC has the distinct feel of a dense, concrete jungle. S
Especially considering you can do a good deal of hiking within the city limits of LA.
The OP might just want to get different experience living in another city, there is nothing wrong with a change of scenery. Plus the Catskills are nothing compared to the mountains in California IMO. Overall, LA seems to be better when it comes to nature and outdoor activities (not counting Central Park), NYC has the distinct feel of a dense, concrete jungle. S
I understand that. It's just that she's not even going to come close to getting the combination of things she wants in either of those cities. DC has great public transit, but the "industry" scene down there is virtually non-existent. L.A. has the industry, but you're not going to get the walkability and accesibility to transit like you would in DC. If walkability, vibrant street life, the film industry, and public transit are all very high up on your list, you should just stay in NYC. There's no other American city that has that combo.
And you obviously aren't going to get much nature in the middle of Midtown. The same way you're not going to get much nature in the middle of South Central. Renting a zip car and driving Upstate is always an option.
I would only choose DC over New York if I wanted to buy a house and start a family. The only real advantage DC has over NYC, imo, is the fact that it's cheaper. That's about it. If you're used to tons of bar life, seeing celebrities and politicians casually stroll through Saks, or having cops hold you back from crossing the street so that the latest episode of 30 Rock can be completed, you will be gravely depressed if you move to DC. You will go through NYC withdrawal.
I understand that. It's just that she's not even going to come close to getting the combination of things she wants in either of those cities. DC has great public transit, but the "industry" scene down there is virtually non-existent. L.A. has the industry, but you're not going to get the walkability and accesibility to transit like you would in DC. If walkability, vibrant street life, the film industry, and public transit are all very high up on your list, you should just stay in NYC. There's no other American city that has that combo.
And you obviously aren't going to get much nature in the middle of Midtown. The same way you're not going to get much nature in the middle of South Central. Renting a zip car and driving Upstate is always an option.
Actually the first 2 things the OP mentioned was "lots to do outdoors" and "film production jos". So it does seem like Los Angeles fits like a glove. Regarding the outdoors thing, its not just that beaches and mountains are present within the city of Los Angeles, but most importantly that access to the outdoors stays useful all year round.
Now obviously, since she's leaving NYC, she wouldn't want to live in the boonies somewhere. You can always live in parts of LA that are very walkable and public transit access is decent. If her priority is to have very vibrant street life and exceptional public transit over the earlier mentioned criteria, then of course NYC is the right answer. But I don't think she would be posting here asking the question if that was the case.
It just sounds like she needs to go to LA. There are probably about 4 film production jobs in the DC region. And one person holds two of those jobs. When I lived in DC, I never met anyone working in the film industry. Lobbying? Yep. NGO Sector? Yep. Rhodes Scholar? Yep. Pulitzer Prize winner? Yep. Screenwriter? Hell no.
I understand that. It's just that she's not even going to come close to getting the combination of things she wants in either of those cities. DC has great public transit, but the "industry" scene down there is virtually non-existent. L.A. has the industry, but you're not going to get the walkability and accesibility to transit like you would in DC. If walkability, vibrant street life, the film industry, and public transit are all very high up on your list, you should just stay in NYC. There's no other American city that has that combo.
And you obviously aren't going to get much nature in the middle of Midtown. The same way you're not going to get much nature in the middle of South Central. Renting a zip car and driving Upstate is always an option.
Outdoor life and activities seem to be a high priority and LA far excels in that category compared to NY or DC. South Central certainly won't give you much nature but with their budget of 1600-1750 they don't have to be anywhere near south central. They could live comfortably almost anywhere with that budget. Their budget will go much further in LA or DC compared to NYC as well. Hollywood for example is a stones throw away from Griffith Park, Hollywood hills, Runyon Canyon etc which surely beats Central Park in terms of what they're looking for.
And in terms of other ammenities, both DC and LA can offer plenty of what they want. It's not like they're considering a move from NYC to Bozeman MT vs Cheyenne WY.
Outdoor life and activities seem to be a high priority and LA far excels in that category compared to NY or DC. South Central certainly won't give you much nature but with their budget of 1600-1750 they don't have to be anywhere near south central. They could live comfortably almost anywhere with that budget. Their budget will go much further in LA or DC compared to NYC as well. Hollywood for example is a stones throw away from Griffith Park, Hollywood hills, Runyon Canyon etc which surely beats Central Park in terms of what they're looking for.
I don't know why people always say this. It is considerably cheaper to buy in DC, but not to rent. That's why I said I would only move to DC if I were buying. A one-bedroom apartment in DC can easily get into the $2,000+ range. So if you're going to blow that kind of money, you might as well do it in a city that offers 763,994 times what Washington, DC has to offer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nightscape
And in terms of other ammenities, both DC and LA can offer plenty of what they want. It's not like they're considering a move from NYC to Bozeman MT vs Cheyenne WY.
Well, good luck finding any jobs in film production in DC. There are not too many cities in the world that can satisfy her wishlist of high quality public transit and active street life and film production jobs and oceans and mountains and a good bar scene and "tons to do!" NYC is the only city in America that even comes close to giving you all of that and that's why I asked the OP why she wanted to leave.
But if she just wants a change of scenery, then I would recommend LA because (1) it's way different from New York and (2) it has film production jobs. This is a no-brainer.
My boyfriend are considering a move from the NYC area to either Washington DC or Los Angeles late this summer. Below is a list of things we are looking for in a city. Which do you think is the better match for us?
We are both in our mid-20's and looking for our next adventure. We're looking for an active city. Lots to do outdoors (biking, hiking, walking) and big exercise culture (yoga, spinning, etc). Film production jobs for my boyfriend. We know LA is the obvious answer for that, but DC also seems quite busy as well for it too? Nice studios and 1-bedrooms for $1600-$1750-ish. Walkable neighborhood with access to public transport - we'd like to get by with either just one car or no cars between the two of us. Good music scene and bar scene. We like older buildings with lots of character, or bungalows/small single-family homes. Not so into the highrise luxury apartment thing or cookie-cutter box apartments. Ideally we'd like mountains/ocean to be within a 1-2 hour drive away.
What do you think?
outdoors - la
big exercise culture - both
film - la
price range - either one
walkable neighborhood - dc but la has plenty too
music/bars - either one (georgetown neighborhood in dc is popular)
older buildings - dc
single story homes - la
avoiding high-rise and cookie-cutter apartments - la
from what you listed, i'd go with la. you can find plenty of walkable neighborhoods in los angeles despite what people like to say about it, the film production jobs are in ny and la, the mountains and ocean are close to each other.
If you choose Los angeles(what i think you should choose)and you move their you will become act very L.A. ish after 1 year.
Anyway i think you should choose Los angeles just because its better in the criteria you listed!
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.