Big urban US cities- which one is the most 'livable?' (living, best)
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.
Cost of living
Purchasing power (wages compared to COL)
Traffic
Pollution
Crime
Weather
Quality of housing
People
Public transportation
Misc livability factors
Do they though? I think the earnings/housing ratio is pretty close in Boston and New York.
I actually think it’s the worst in Los Angeles.
If we're talking city proper than I would think it would go SF, NYC, LA, then Boston in terms of earnings/ housing ratio. If we expand it to the Metro than I would guess SF, LA, NYC, Boston. Could be off though.
COL knocks NYC, SF, and Boston out of the running for many.
I'd go with Philly as probably the best value, followed closely by Chicago if you are looking for a true urban city experience.
LA is also very livable in the sense that there are so many surrounding cities that are nice and can be affordable, and though you may not technically be in "LA," you practically are given how vast the metro area is. So if you like warmer weather and more access to nature, LA is a good pick.
Cost of living
Purchasing power (wages compared to COL)
Traffic
Pollution
Crime
Weather
Quality of housing
People
Public transportation
Misc livability factors
Cost of living: Philadelphia>Chicago>DC>LA>Boston>NYC>SF
Purchasing power (wages compared to COL) Philadelphia>Chicago>DC>Boston>NY>LA>SF
Traffic: PHL>DC>SF>NY>Bos>LA
Pollution: Boston>DC>Phl>NY>LA>SF
Crime: Boston>New York>SF>LA>DC>Phl>Chicago (Mix of City Prop/Metro)
Weather: Subjective. I guess most people go SF>LA>DC>Phl>NY>Bos>Chi
Quality of housing: DC>Chicago>PHL>Boston>LA>NYC>SF
People
Public transportation: DC>Chicago>Boston>SF>NYC>PHL (Reliability)
Misc livability factors: Boston for Day Trips, Park/Rec, Education, Healthcare. New York for food scene, arts and diversity. LA for variable things to do, weather n summer, vibes. SF for landscape, tech scene and winter weather. Philadelphia for taxes, properties and livability. DC and Chicago also have really stong positives and are strong in every category (Bar Crime)
Personally, for Quality of Life it would go for me:
If we're talking city proper than I would think it would go SF, NYC, LA, then Boston in terms of earnings/ housing ratio. If we expand it to the Metro than I would guess SF, LA, NYC, Boston. Could be off though.
People earn 10k more per year per household in Boston than NYC and its ever so slightly cheaper on average. It s probably ahead of LA and NYC there. Especially if you're including urban cities that touch Boston but arent the City of Boston (Lynn Quincy etc)
If we're talking city proper than I would think it would go SF, NYC, LA, then Boston in terms of earnings/ housing ratio. If we expand it to the Metro than I would guess SF, LA, NYC, Boston. Could be off though.
Boston wages are higher and COL is lower than NYC. Also the quality of amenities (Parks accessibility, etc) are higher in Boston. So what exactly makes NYC higher? Also whhy is SF and LA at the top of your list and not DC or Phil? Even Chicago.
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.
