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.
All of these cities you list are pretty different from eachother, save for Boston and New York. Boston is like a much much smaller version of New York (so is Philadelphia). If you're gonna go to Boston, you might as well just go to New York, but with your specific criteria, Chicago fits the bill the best. Definitely more laid back and fun IMO, as well as cheaper than any Northeast city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AsYouWere
Boston over Chicago? Share some of that weed.
I've lived in Boston, New York and Philadelphia. I can only guess that you've never been to any of them?
If money isn't a factor, and you are concerned about harsh winters (I am familiar with Chicago, Boston and SF) I would pick SF- the Marina is a lovely safe, calm district and you will be lucky to be there- remember Posters, money isn't a factor.
SF is an international city with unlimited things to do, close to so many beautiful natural entertainment (sea to mountains) within a 2.5 hour drive, very welcoming to immigrants.
And SF has its many neighborhoods or districts, yet still small enough to bike across in a couple hours (or less, I am a slow biker) in that respect it still feels small.
You can easily find a niche.
And there are niches (I don't think people remember that Craig as of Craigslist lives there, and in his own neighborhood - I have been to an Xmas party with him)...
You may want to consider your political leanings too. Most big cities lean to the Left, but San Fran is about as far left as you can go. I could never live in San Fran due to that fact alone, but you may feel differently. Just another factor to consider.
You may want to consider your political leanings too. Most big cities lean to the Left, but San Fran is about as far left as you can go. I could never live in San Fran due to that fact alone, but you may feel differently. Just another factor to consider.
SF* would have to look left to see Cambridge. And they'd both need to look left to see Boulder.
* Berkeley is a different story but that's not the location in OP'slist.
Just moved from Chicago to Boston. Originally from the suburbs- AH, north shore- and also lived in Old Town/Lincoln Park for years. It's an incredible city. While downtown Chicago is tough to match, I'll take greater Boston for the long term without any hesitation. Chicago is the best city, outside of NYC, to be young and social in the cities core. Great nightlife, other like-minded folks everywhere, waterfront in the summer, etc. So for the sake of this conversation, I give downtown Chicago the upper hand over downtown Boston. When you consider Cambridge/Somerville/Brookline, greater Boston city living is very expansive, and offers just as many neighborhoods that the OP would consider living in (maybe more than Chicago honestly).
We love all of the neighborhoods in and around Boston, and the suburbs are just beautiful. North shore Chicago is very similar to a lot of the suburbs here, and i'm certain that's by design- brick roads, lit lamps, boutiques, train stops and high schools built right into the fabric of the town. When you add in the Cape and the islands, north shore/south shore towns, the white mountains, Vermont, Maine's coast.. It's just an incredible place to settle down.
Maybe just my road map, but I loved Chicago in my mid 20's, but wouldn't trade living in Chicago over Boston now.. Even though it's expensive enough to make me want to vomit.
Just moved from Chicago to Boston. Originally from the suburbs- AH, north shore- and also lived in Old Town/Lincoln Park for years. It's an incredible city. While downtown Chicago is tough to match, I'll take greater Boston for the long term without any hesitation. Chicago is the best city, outside of NYC, to be young and social in the cities core. Great nightlife, other like-minded folks everywhere, waterfront in the summer, etc. So for the sake of this conversation, I give downtown Chicago the upper hand over downtown Boston. When you consider Cambridge/Somerville/Brookline, greater Boston city living is very expansive, and offers just as many neighborhoods that the OP would consider living in (maybe more than Chicago honestly).
We love all of the neighborhoods in and around Boston, and the suburbs are just beautiful. North shore Chicago is very similar to a lot of the suburbs here, and i'm certain that's by design- brick roads, lit lamps, boutiques, train stops and high schools built right into the fabric of the town. When you add in the Cape and the islands, north shore/south shore towns, the white mountains, Vermont, Maine's coast.. It's just an incredible place to settle down.
Maybe just my road map, but I loved Chicago in my mid 20's, but wouldn't trade living in Chicago over Boston now.. Even though it's expensive enough to make me want to vomit.
I was in Boston for a few weeks last summer. It's greatness, as an area, I likely take it over Denver or DC.
I'd go with NYC, Boston, Chicago, or SF - though I'd honestly choose Chicago. NYC, Boston, and Chicago have cold winters - NYC is the mildest of the 3, but that's not saying a ton. The average temperature in winter in NYC may be about 5-7 degrees warmer than Chicago but it's a crapshoot. Some days both cities are the same temperature - sometimes Chicago is even a little warmer. On average though 5-7 degrees warmer in NYC. So you're talking about maybe upper 30s versus lower 30s in Fahrenheit. Both are cold, and not that much different. If you think you can handle NYC winters, then you can handle Chicago winters too. Only difference is that the cold days that occur every once in awhile will be colder in Chicago. The other day I think it was around 5 F in Chicago while in NYC it was 15-20 F. Again, both are still cold and for both cities each of these occurrences aren't the norm, though they will occur every winter more than once.
As far as other things go, among the 4 cities, Chicago is easily the most affordable. Of course downtown is not necessarily cheap but we're talking about a luxury apartment (1 bedroom ) for $2500 with all sorts of amenities in Chicago with a potentially amazing view versus close to or over $4000/mo in Manhattan and well over $3000 in the hip parts of Brooklyn. Even more in SF. I live in Upper Manhattan and my 1 bedroom is a little shy of $3000/mo. I have no amenities other than an elevator and washing machine room. In Chicago, I paid under $2000/mo for a downtown apartment with an amazing 22nd floor view, stainless steel appliances, a new gym, a doorman, an area with a pool table, meeting spaces, etc. The types of amenities that get put in some of these newer buildings in Chicago are amazing - some have arcade rooms, private lounges with alcohol for residents, golf simulators, 2 pools (my friend's building had 3 total pools), small movie theater, dog runs, etc. You will pay less than $3000/mo for this in Chicago - in Manhattan an equivalent building is easily over $5000/mo.
I lived in Chicago for a number of years and now NYC - I still love Chicago and there's no doubt in my mind I'll live there again. To be honest, as far as festivals, free things to do, etc etc I feel that Chicago is not a ton different than NYC. Obviously there's more of everything in NYC, but so far my time in NYC compared to Chicago is not much different in this regard. If I want something to do, to see, etc I will always find it in either city. I think SF and Boston are also good for this, but maybe not as much as NYC and Chicago.
In any case, can't go wrong with those 4 cities. My personal favorite is Chicago followed by NYC. No reason to think you can't handle a winter in Chicago if you think you can handle a NYC winter though. If you think you can't handle a cold winter, then give SF a try. SF is a good place still - albeit very expensive, but one of my favorite cities in the US too. Great natural beauty that the other cities I listed do not have - at least the same type of. Chicago would probably come next just due to the lake alone with all the beaches, the running/biking/etc paths along it and everything.
Last edited by marothisu; 12-28-2017 at 11:43 PM..
IMO:
1. Chicago
2. Boston
3. Boulder (there's lots to do in Denver metro)
4. Austin
5. Seattle
6. New York City
7. San Francisco
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.
