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.
Exactly how large is a "large city"? A million or more city population? Then very few of them would be considered "afforadable", at least by comparison to other cities. I don't see Chicago as all that affordable.
If you're talking about cities with at least a million metro population, then there are many options: Kansas City, Louisville, Memphis, St. Louis, Nashville, and Milwaukee to name a few.
Ist off, city population means nothing, only the metro population matters.
IMO a metro of one million is a small city. To be one of the "big" cities you need a metro of at least four/five million.
bryson, If having at least four million people is the definition of a "large city", then there are only 14 metros that meet that criteria: NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Philly, Houston, DC, Miami, Atlanta, Boston, San Fran, Detroit, Inland Empire, and Phoenix.
But frankly, I can't see why Phoenix is a "large city" and Seattle isn't. To me, Seattle seems much bigger, more worldly, and more urban. And Phoenix seems like an endless expanse of suburbs. So maybe population isn't the best gauge of what constitutes a "large" city.
well, if it is the quality of what nyc provides, a different spin on it altogether. boston is out, because of the high cost of living, but i really love boston. philly is a wonderful city in which to live, but i just don't like the average "loud, rough-edged, blue collar" presentation. yes, i know that is going to make several upset, but i really like the city, but it seems to bring up that image, when you don't specify areas of philadelphia. i think that louisville, cincy, memphis, or maybe tampa, although it is in florida, and you still pay a premium for living there. from what i have seen lately, i would also add richmond to the list. denver is too expensive, kinda of isolated, cowboyish, and a bit odd for several reasons. seattle, san fran, san Diego, minneapolis-st. paul, phoenix, dallas, houston, austin, las vegas, and l.a. are all too expensive. slc is a bit too sanitized, boise to small, detroit is no, chicago, maybe, but it is fairly expensive. alberquerque might be for you. might not be big enough, but it has some personality, even though one doesn't hear much about the city.
bryson, If having at least four million people is the definition of a "large city", then there are only 14 metros that meet that criteria: NYC, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Philly, Houston, DC, Miami, Atlanta, Boston, San Fran, Detroit, Inland Empire, and Phoenix.
But frankly, I can't see why Phoenix is a "large city" and Seattle isn't. To me, Seattle seems much bigger, more worldly, and more urban. And Phoenix seems like an endless expanse of suburbs. So maybe population isn't the best gauge of what constitutes a "large" city.
I agree that population isn’t the only criteria. In Seattle’s case being the largest city in it’s geographic region counts for something and makes it a large city by default but generally speaking, a large population is necessary to support many of the amenities that make a city “largeâ€.
For Phoenix, having a place like Scottsdale in the metro adds weight to the population. On the other hand the Inland Empire is not a city and I doubt if it ever will be.
I couldn't. So I went to Philly lol. Many people are getting priced out of NYC and moving here.
Philadelphia is very similar to Brooklyn as a whole - only less pricey, a bit less pretentious(but in turn, probably a bit more seedy lol), and while you will not find anything in this country that compared to Midtown Manhattan in terms of energy and vibrancy - you will find neighborhoods in Center City that can compete with neighborhoods in Manhattan. Philly and NYC tend to "share" a lot of their local musicians and art installations due to their proximity.
If getting that "big city" 24/7 nonstop feeling is a top priority I would head to Chicago. Philly is big, and has similar vibes to NYC - but you cannot get the feeling like you can just get lost in a crowd of people or energy of the city. NYC is so vast that you can live there for your entire life and still be stumbling across new things on a daily basis - you are much less likely to feel like that in any other city in the US. Chicago, after a fairly good sized margin, would be the next best thing to achieving that feeling.
EDIT;
I think it's also important to realize that America has so many really nice large and mid-sized cities that offer great urban amenities at an affordable price. People seem to completely snub cities like Cleveland, Minneapolis, Milwaukee - no, there is nothing that can match the rat race of NYC - but most people overestimate their desire to actually live in that setting for extended periods of time which can be very exhausting and cramped unless you can afford some breathing room(which I know I can't, in NYC lol). I still would love to move to NYC eventually, and it's definitely a goal of mine to live there for at least a couple years of my life - but I don't see myself being able to stay there my entire life.
Chicago is the obvious answer here - you get a big city vibe with most things you'd get in NY (albeit in a different package) at a fraction of the cost.
Philly would be the next best choice as it's more affordable than Boston or DC and also offers proximity to NY.
If the OP really wants NY though why not look at NY? There are plenty of neighborhoods in Queens, Brooklyn and northern NJ that are doable on $60k (though i suspect you would still probably get more bang for the buck in Chicago and Philly).
The last two posts are excellent. I agree that Chicago and Philadelphia are the only two US cities that have the big American city vibe that NYC has. I had the same thoughts as the OP several years ago and I chose Philadelphia for four reasons: 1) I am an East Coast person, 2) I love the ocean and it is close by, just like NYC, 3) the food scene, festivals, arts and culture is very similar to NYC, and 4) I can get on a train or bus and be in Midtown Manhattan in a little more than an hour. A couple of people even commute to NYC from my neighborhood in Philadelphia. Looking back, I know I made a good decision.
NYC is the most vibrant and functional city in America. Baltimore, Wilmington and Richmond are some of the least vibrant and most dysfunctional cities in America. I can't see how someone interested in NYC would settle for them.
Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Oakland, Washington DC, Pittsburgh, perhaps Chicago, maybe Boston, and MAYBE Baltimore.
Last edited by tcave360; 01-15-2014 at 10:25 PM..
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.
