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.
DC and Boston get some negative marks for their COL but I wouldn't really call them overpriced, at least not the way you are describing it, as they are still easily two of the more interesting places in the country.
Perceptions regarding Philly is a funny one, they seem to be kind of a hit or miss. To some, it's the cost-efficient alternative to NYC. To others, there is something significant lacking compared to the other major urban centers.
Mine are somewhat in between. It has lees going compared to a NYC for sure, but it's COL makes it more of an attraction than a Boston, DC, and especially SF. It's more on the boat with a Chicago in that sense I suppose, both being very different places apart from that of course.
Yeah, don't get me wrong I like DC and Boston (have family in both and visit often) but to be nearly as expensive as NYC is a bit out of wack IMO. And yeah I agree Chicago and Philly offer the most bang for your buck of any US cities-and to me actually offer more than Boston/DC. Philly has actually been steadily rising in COL, so I hope it can be contained unlike other cities mentioned.
I don't agree with the bolded though-that seems to be what some people not as familiar with Philadelphia may perceive-but Philly has advantages over NYC and vice-versa. I wouldn't tell someone to move to Philly if they are looking for a "cheaper NYC". Philly has a very strong local identity and culture, and should be appreciated for the city it is.
The difference in terms of rent between NYC/Boston/DC is almost negligible.
I have always felt that it makes more sense to be in NYC instead of Boston/DC if you are going to be paying so much in rent; To me Boston/DC are two of the most overpriced cities in the country.
IMO Boston is further left politically than NYC. Also, funny how perceptions differ; Among my friends/people I know Philly is seen as more "hip" than Boston and DC.
There is no such thing as overpriced. If people want to live there the rent goes up.
Given the similarities in many aspects, I'd go where the job opportunity looks best. Obviously these cities have many differences, but they're similar enough that I'd say to let your job dictate where you end up. I'd also add to the chorus saying that you should add Philadelphia to the list. No, it's not the bargain it used to be, but your money still goes further than the other three. It's also relatively "hip."
Except for the gun lover part, NYC sounds perfect for you. Cost of living will be huge in either DC, Boston, or NYC. That cancels itself out. I have found the friendliest people to be from NYC and Boston (including Philly and DC in the comparison).
EDIT: If you think that Philly should've been included on the poll, and would've voted for it, include something like "+1 Philly" at the top of your post.
I've heard people say that there are a lot of transplants per capita in Washington, DC. That is to say, that most people there seem to have come from some other part of the US for work. How true is that of NYC or Boston? Or Philly?
I don't like the the idea of being an outsider (or the token southern friend). Ideally, there would be a bunch of people from other parts of the country. I can gather info on foreign born population for each metropolitan area on Google, and from what it looks like it's unsurprisingly NY > DC > Boston. For that reason I'm really asking which one other Americans tend to move to.
(I can find info on net migration between states, and it looks like VA and MD beat NY and MA; I wonder if that's a proxy for migration between large cities.)
Last edited by richardwhitman; 06-07-2016 at 11:06 AM..
EDIT: If you think that Philly should've been included on the poll, and would've voted for it, include something like "+1 Philly" at the top of your post.
I've heard people say that there are a lot of transplants per capita in Washington, DC. That is to say, that most people there seem to have come from some other part of the US for work. How true is that of NYC or Boston? Or Philly?
I don't like the the idea of being an outsider (or the token southern friend). Ideally, there would be a bunch of people from other parts of the country. I can gather info on foreign born population for each metropolitan area on Google, and from what it looks like it's unsurprisingly NY > DC > Boston. For that reason I'm really asking which one other Americans tend to move to.
(I can find info on net migration between states, and it looks like VA and MD beat NY and MA; I wonder if that's a proxy for migration between large cities.)
For international migration, NYC is the clear winner. No other city comes close for being so globally diverse, with a good number of domestic migrants, of course. For domestic migration, DC is the clear winner--it truly is a blend of America, with some international flair thrown in. No arguments there.
Boston and Philly each certainly have their fair share of transplants, with Boston having more of a transplant edge due to having a heavier pull as more of a higher-ed epicenter, but overall they're both notably more provincial than DC or NYC. Even so, if you stick to the core urban areas of both cities, you'll find a pretty cosmopolitan environment in either.
Except for the gun lover part, NYC sounds perfect for you. Cost of living will be huge in either DC, Boston, or NYC. That cancels itself out. I have found the friendliest people to be from NYC and Boston (including Philly and DC in the comparison).
None of these areas are particularly gun friendly. Boston's pretty close to Maine and New Hampshire which are, however, gun friendly. In fact, many Boston workers live in Southern NH and commute to the city. Moreover, many tech jobs in the Boston area are located along 128 which is even easier to access from Southern NH.
How secular are the populations comparatively speaking? Would a plurality/majority of young people describe themselves as agnostic, atheist, humanist, etc? In other words, which is the most religious or irreligious?
How secular are the populations comparatively speaking? Would a plurality/majority of young people describe themselves as agnostic, atheist, humanist, etc? In other words, which is the most religious or irreligious?
the farther north you go, America becomes less religious and more liberal. I see DC winning the poll, but I don't know if that is what you are looking for. There suburbs tend to be pretty right leaning and while their train system extends out to the suburbs, it is extremely expensive along the said lines. I want to suggest somewhere in Northern New Jersey that that spits you out in Manhattan quickly but price is the question. I would just look at the NJT map and search the stops along the way. I love a town like Madison where Fairleigh Dickson College is, but just looking at Trulia, it is expensive in this day and age.
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.
