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.
I see Atlanta is 2nd.
I don't understand why anyone would vote for Atlanta over San Diego.
Atlanta has all negatives of San Diego; high cost-of-living, insane traffic and high crime.
While Atlanta has none of the pluses that San Diego offers; low crime, perfect weather, beaches, mountains, sheer beauty.
That's not to say ATL is a bad or ugly place - but it doesn't even come close to San Diego by comparison. So why would anyone choose Atlanta over San Diego?
Diversity, Atlanta is a bigger city, Atlanta may not be near a beach but there is still a lot to do and there is always some type of event or festival going on, Nightlife, the world's busiest airport with nonstop flights to just about everywhere, lower cost-of-living than San Diego, more housing/apartments/condo/town home for the price, better higher education facilities, the food scene, the gay scene ans on and on and on.........
I see Atlanta is 2nd.
I don't understand why anyone would vote for Atlanta over San Diego.
Atlanta has all negatives of San Diego; high cost-of-living, insane traffic and high crime.
While Atlanta has none of the pluses that San Diego offers; low crime, perfect weather, beaches, mountains, sheer beauty.
That's not to say ATL is a bad or ugly place - but it doesn't even come close to San Diego by comparison. So why would anyone choose Atlanta over San Diego?
COL is increasing in Atlanta as in other places, but to say it has a high cost of living similar to San Diego is just not accurate.
I'd choose Atlanta over San Diego easily--more affordable, much more robust Black culture, closer to friends/family, etc.
Tier 2: Large urban life with enough amenities and urban character to keep an urban-lover happy for decades
LA (less urban, but tons of amenities)
Chicago (more urban with lots of amenities)
SF (more urban with lots of amenities)
Boston (more urban with lots of amenities)
Philly (more urban with lots of amenities)
DC (more urban, but with lots of amenities)
Tier 3: Either a smaller city with enough urban character to satisfy, or a big enough city/metro to offer a lot of amenities
Seattle (slightly less urban with slightly less amenities)
Miami (slightly less urban with slightly less amenities)
Houston (not urban, but with lots of amenities)
Dallas (not very urban, but with lots of amenities)
Atlanta (not urban, but with lots of amenities)
Phoenix (not urban, but with lots of amenities)
etc.
Again, this is based on the OP. This is not about GDP or other intangibles. My line of thought balancing between an urban lifestyle and how many amenities the metro offers overall.
For example, I had a friend who had lived in NYC, Chicago, New Orleans and then Atlanta. He was an urban lover, similar to how the OP framed up his/her criteria. He loved NYC and Chicago. He initially loved NO, but it was too small and while there was a good amount of urban character, he got bored with it eventually. He didn't care for Atlanta as much and moved back to Chicago quickly. It wasn't that Atlanta wasn't a good city or didn't have pockets of good urbanity, it was that he wanted more of a big city urban experience.
IMPORTANT: This is all subjective, including my list above.
Tier 2: Large urban life with enough amenities and urban character to keep an urban-lover happy for decades
LA (less urban, but tons of amenities)
Chicago (more urban with lots of amenities)
SF (more urban with lots of amenities)
Boston (more urban with lots of amenities)
Philly (more urban with lots of amenities)
DC (more urban, but with lots of amenities)
Tier 3: Either a smaller city with enough urban character to satisfy, or a big enough city/metro to offer a lot of amenities
Seattle (slightly less urban with slightly less amenities)
Miami (slightly less urban with slightly less amenities)
Houston (not urban, but with lots of amenities)
Dallas (not very urban, but with lots of amenities)
Atlanta (not urban, but with lots of amenities)
Phoenix (not urban, but with lots of amenities)
etc.
Again, this is based on the OP. This is not about GDP or other intangibles. My line of thought balancing between an urban lifestyle and how many amenities the metro offers overall.
For example, I had a friend who had lived in NYC, Chicago, New Orleans and then Atlanta. He was an urban lover, similar to how the OP framed up his/her criteria. He loved NYC and Chicago. He initially loved NO, but it was too small and while there was a good amount of urban character, he got bored with it eventually. He didn't care for Atlanta as much and moved back to Chicago quickly. It wasn't that Atlanta wasn't a good city or didn't have pockets of good urbanity, it was that he wanted more of a big city urban experience.
IMPORTANT: This is all subjective, including my list above.
Tier 2: Large urban life with enough amenities and urban character to keep an urban-lover happy for decades
LA (less urban, but tons of amenities)
Chicago (more urban with lots of amenities)
SF (more urban with lots of amenities)
Boston (more urban with lots of amenities)
Philly (more urban with lots of amenities)
DC (more urban, but with lots of amenities)
Tier 3: Either a smaller city with enough urban character to satisfy, or a big enough city/metro to offer a lot of amenities
Seattle (slightly less urban with slightly less amenities)
Miami (slightly less urban with slightly less amenities)
Houston (not urban, but with lots of amenities)
Dallas (not very urban, but with lots of amenities)
Atlanta (not urban, but with lots of amenities)
Phoenix (not urban, but with lots of amenities)
etc.
Again, this is based on the OP. This is not about GDP or other intangibles. My line of thought balancing between an urban lifestyle and how many amenities the metro offers overall.
For example, I had a friend who had lived in NYC, Chicago, New Orleans and then Atlanta. He was an urban lover, similar to how the OP framed up his/her criteria. He loved NYC and Chicago. He initially loved NO, but it was too small and while there was a good amount of urban character, he got bored with it eventually. He didn't care for Atlanta as much and moved back to Chicago quickly. It wasn't that Atlanta wasn't a good city or didn't have pockets of good urbanity, it was that he wanted more of a big city urban experience.
IMPORTANT: This is all subjective, including my list above.
Makes sense. I can relate to your friends experience.
Tier 2: Large urban life with enough amenities and urban character to keep an urban-lover happy for decades
LA (less urban, but tons of amenities)
Chicago (more urban with lots of amenities)
SF (more urban with lots of amenities)
Boston (more urban with lots of amenities)
Philly (more urban with lots of amenities)
DC (more urban, but with lots of amenities)
Tier 3: Either a smaller city with enough urban character to satisfy, or a big enough city/metro to offer a lot of amenities
Seattle (slightly less urban with slightly less amenities)
Miami (slightly less urban with slightly less amenities)
Houston (not urban, but with lots of amenities)
Dallas (not very urban, but with lots of amenities)
Atlanta (not urban, but with lots of amenities)
Phoenix (not urban, but with lots of amenities)
etc.
Again, this is based on the OP. This is not about GDP or other intangibles. My line of thought balancing between an urban lifestyle and how many amenities the metro offers overall.
For example, I had a friend who had lived in NYC, Chicago, New Orleans and then Atlanta. He was an urban lover, similar to how the OP framed up his/her criteria. He loved NYC and Chicago. He initially loved NO, but it was too small and while there was a good amount of urban character, he got bored with it eventually. He didn't care for Atlanta as much and moved back to Chicago quickly. It wasn't that Atlanta wasn't a good city or didn't have pockets of good urbanity, it was that he wanted more of a big city urban experience.
IMPORTANT: This is all subjective, including my list above.
I'd add a Tier 3b with Minneapolis, Denver, San Diego, Cleveland, and Phoenix (small disagreement there). Detroit would belong in Tier 3a.
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.
