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.
Sometimes you’ll hear someone say that as long as a good mid-sized city has most of the amenities of a big city there’s no reason to choose a big city with the negatives that come with that (crime, traffic, pollution, expense, overcrowding, unfriendliness, etc).
As far as expense goes, usually salaries are higher in a big city to compensate for expense, so that’s often a wash, right? There are big cities with no/low pollution. There are big cities that are generally friendly. There are big cities with low crime, especially the nice suburbs.
The main thing I’ve been thinking about is this - in a way a big city provides what could be considered “job insurance”, right? Take two cities I’m considering for settling down with a family, Richmond and Philadelphia. They have some similar attributes, but Philly is like the (MUCH) bigger brother to Richmond. I’m an IT professional. One job site lists 300 IT jobs in Richmond, 2400 in Philadelphia. Philly has many more high profile places to work, including more tech companies. I’ve heard people say Richmond’s job market is kind of cliquish, that you need to know someone. If you end up unemployed in Richmond, you could end up with long-term unemployment and no income. Many say that layoffs, unemployment and having to frequently switch jobs is going to become more and more commonplace due to technological disruption, job obsolescence, and other factors. If that’s true, wouldn’t a bigger city be a better/safer bet?
There is a huge gap between somewhere like Philadelphia and Richmond. I recently posted a similar thread about this subject. I agree with you, but the difference isn't so big if you were talking about mid-size cities in the 300K to 400K range.
Hi PDF, I saw somebody recently say that Philly nice burbs and Raleigh/Charlotte housing costs were about the same. Guess all the people from the NE moving there has driven the COL up. So, if that's the case, the main determining factor would be deciding whether the extra big city amenities, quick drives to NYC/DC are worth the extra risk of crime when hanging out downtown.
Hi PDF, I saw somebody recently say that Philly nice burbs and Raleigh/Charlotte housing costs were about the same. Guess all the people from the NE moving there has driven the COL up. So, if that's the case, the main determining factor would be deciding whether the extra big city amenities, quick drives to NYC/DC are worth the extra risk of crime when hanging out downtown.
Yeah I just moved to Raleigh a few months ago. Many places in the South is where lots of people are moving to, and thus prices going are up. But there are plenty of cold weather places where it's still affordable, but nobody wants cold weather these days.
But I was saying that there's an extremely huge gap between Philly and Richmond. Richmond is barely a mid-size city. When I think mid-size...Minneapolis, Cleveland, St. Louis, etc. Of course there's going to be a huge employment gap between a city of 220K and one of 1.5 million. But if you are in a true mid-size city, I don't think your worries would make a difference.
Yea. Id rather live in a big city or a midsize city in the suburb of a big city.
Yea there's more crime bc there's more numbers. But most of the crime is property crime or crime of opportunity. The victims have low situational awareness.
The news will have more negative violent crime stories to broadcast simply bc there's more people.
And unfriendliness is subjective. People in the city are more direct and self absorbed. It's not necessarily a bad thing. Some people call it overcrowdiness. Some ppl call it vibrant and lively.
I have no rebuttal for the pollution argument. But as far as traffic, thats subjective too. There's traffic everywhere but rural small towns. Alot of city traffic are ppl commuting to and from the suburbs. I'd rather be in a city that I'm 10mins away from pretty much everything plus I can walk or bike to lots of places.
Dont forget about the competition factor. In Richmond you might be able to walk right into your job of choice. In Philly you could be up against any number of equally/better qualified candidates. For me personally I'm quite confident my rise up the corporate ladder would be a much slower process in NYC than it is in Cincinnati. Also consider competion outside the job market. Think about real estate. Forget the cost just think about the competion. Lets assume you're a renter. In Philly you might have to put your name on a mile long waiting list and hope that sometime between now and the time you retire (extreme exaggeration) you finally get to move into the apartment of your dreams. In Richmond you will be more likely to have your pick of places to live with little to no trouble. Want to go out on a Saturday night? Prepare to stand in line in a big city. A city the size of Richmond? You're walking right in most of the time. I'm not saying you should definitely choose Philly just throwing out some things to weigh into your decision. Personally I like cities the size of Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, St Louis, Minneapolis etc I have friends who love Greenville South Carolina and others who love DC so its really a subjective issue. You may weigh every imaginable pro/con and decide to move to Richmond only to find a year from now you would be happier in Philadelphia.
Hi PDF, I saw somebody recently say that Philly nice burbs and Raleigh/Charlotte housing costs were about the same. Guess all the people from the NE moving there has driven the COL up. So, if that's the case, the main determining factor would be deciding whether the extra big city amenities, quick drives to NYC/DC are worth the extra risk of crime when hanging out downtown.
Downtown NYC and DC are in affluent areas with very low crime. It's not something anybody thinks about that much.
Well, first of all there are people who prefer "traditional suburban living" (I use quotes because there are suburbs that are quickly urbanizing) and people who prefer small town or rural living. I'm not one of them but they exist...in large numbers. Ok, so for people who do prefer big city living, I think it boils down to a few main factors (at least for me) for why a mid-sized city has advantages:
1) cheaper COL. Sure salaries tend to be lower but on average it does not offset the real COL adjustment.
2) ability to make a difference. You can be a leader, trailblazer, creator, change maker, etc much more easily in a smaller city. If you're a run of the mill tech entrepreneur in San Fran or Boston you can come to Jax and be a hero almost immediately (assuming youre legit and also not a dick). Doors are opened for you so much easier.
3) big fish in a small pond. This is similar to #2 but while I meant that one more in a doing good for the community and making an impact on the landscape, here I mean it for a professional career. It's easier to be the best at your trade or talent. This is somewhat offset by having more opportunities in a bigger city even if youre more average there, but it just depends on someone's talent level and personality/disposition. For some folks, they can make it in a smaller pond when they wouldn't really cut it in a bigger city with better competition.
Bigger is better. Yes there will be more competition, but there will be more opportunities(higher pay, promotions, networking) as well.
I mean let's say you were choosing to be a cop in LA vs Omaha. If you get laid off in Omaha, how easy is it going to be to find another gig? Versus the same thing happening in southern California?
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.