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.
Would you rather live in a city like New York City or Los Angeles and spend most of your income just to live there or live somewhere like Detroit or Cleveland where it may not be as glamorous, but you can save money much easier and just travel to the bigger cities like NYC when you want?
I'd rather live in a low cost metro where I can do most of the same stuff and let my money go farther. It'll be easier to build wealth. Besides, there's more allure to me of a place that is underloved and underappreciated.
Would you rather live in a city like New York City or Los Angeles and spend most of your income just to live there or live somewhere like Detroit or Cleveland where it may not be as glamorous, but you can save money much easier and just travel to the bigger cities like NYC when you want?
This may sound strange living in Pittsburgh, a city I love, but given the choice I would have taken the former.
I grew up relatively close to NYC, visited it frequently, and loved it. I don't live that far away now in the grand scheme of things. But the last time I went to the city was back in 2015. Before that, it was 2011.
Why is that the case? First off, although I get four weeks of paid vacation now, I didn't always. When I first started my job out here, twelve years ago, I only had two. Later on I got married and had kids. My wife has never had as much vacation as I get, so I've always ended up with extra days at the end of the year I just use to kick around the house. And once you have children you're expected to take vacation time to visit family members.
More fundamentally, living somewhere is a totally different experience from visiting it. When I used to go to the City, it was sometimes to see bands or go to museums, but it was often to just chill with friends of mine. You can't do that sort of thing if you live far away from a city - not enough anyway. I'd never go on vacation with the family, for example, and just poke around the back streets of Bay Ridge. That's something you only do as a local, or if you have friends who are local.
Bottom line is being a tourist isn't the same as being a resident. And unless you have disposable income and a job where you have a lot of time off (like teaching) you're just not going to spend a lot of time traveling in the grand scheme of things once you have an "adult job."
Would you rather live in a city like New York City or Los Angeles and spend most of your income just to live there or live somewhere like Detroit or Cleveland where it may not be as glamorous, but you can save money much easier and just travel to the bigger cities like NYC when you want?
The middle ground: Chicago or Philly. Barring that, the bigger city. To be clear, I would have to live IN the bigger city. I'd rather live in the heart of the smaller city than 45min-1hr outside of the big city.
The middle ground: Chicago or Philly. Barring that, the bigger city. To be clear, I would have to live IN the bigger city. I'd rather live in the heart of the smaller city than 45min-1hr outside of the big city.
What about just a few minutes outside of the bigger city, i.e. Jersey City or Santa Monica?
What about just a few minutes outside of the bigger city, i.e. Jersey City or Santa Monica?
Jersey City may be a bad example. If you can afford Jersey City, you can afford Brooklyn...certainly Queens. I suspect Santa Monica/LA may be the same.
Jersey City may be a bad example. If you can afford Jersey City, you can afford Brooklyn...certainly Queens. I suspect Santa Monica/LA may be the same.
I wasn't speaking in terms of affordability, but proximity. Choose any other places just outside of the city proper.
I wasn't speaking in terms of affordability, but proximity. Choose any other places just outside of the city proper.
That's the thing; with the really expensive cities; NY, SF, DC, first ring suburbs aren't really that much cheaper than the city itself. By the time you're far enough outside the city that the difference in COL becomes really noticeable, you start looking at long commutes, and going into the city at night or on the weekends becomes a chore.
That's the thing; with the really expensive cities; NY, SF, DC, first ring suburbs aren't really that much cheaper than the city itself. By the time you're far enough outside the city that the difference in COL becomes really noticeable, you start looking at long commutes, and going into the city at night or on the weekends becomes a chore.
LOL, ok. It was a simple question that you've made somewhat complicated. There are plenty of reasons why one might choose to live in a close-in suburb as opposed to the city proper despite a similar COL.
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.
