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 think most replies are locked on to the living portion of the question, but not many are touching on the play portion. Sure the suburbs usually offer safer living situations with better schools but I'm thinking the OP meant the whole package= live-work-play.
The OP did not define "play." This can mean different things for different people, and in turn this can mean that for some things a core city would be better, but not for all. "Play" can mean bars and nightclubs and other types of nightlife. It can mean sporting arenas and stadiums. It can mean concerts and other types of live music. It can mean movies or stage plays. It can mean theme parks, waterslides, and playgrounds. It can mean national parks. And so on.
It seems that people often default to the core cities when they think of "play." But the real answer is, it depends. If you're an avid moviegoer, you're likely to find more and better theaters in the suburbs than in the cities. Ditto for playgrounds and theme parks. Some suburbs have excellent restaurants. And some sports stadiums and concert venues are located in the suburbs. But yeah, for nightlife, in general the core cities will win.
^I this key is to find such places where the latter completely true, as there will be crossover to some degree in most places, including Hartford and as illustrated by JayCT.
I think my title is fairly self explanatory, but let me give an example:
I was in a Connecticut forum on another platform and the people were complaining about Hartford. Most of the people were saying that it was better to live/work/play in places like Middletown, West Hartford or Wethersfield than to do that in Hartford itself.
Hartford is kind of a boring city, with a downtown that is dead after 5pm and parts of the city that have very high crime rates, so it makes sense than the surrounding towns/cities feel the need to make up for what Hartford lacks.
Can you think of any other MSA that are similar?
Anywhere with high crime in the core will drive the party to the suburbs unless police are heavily present.
It depends, as most cities still are the go to for the play and in many cases the work option. The live portion will depend on the type of lifestyle and neighborhood one wants. So, this will depend on who you ask.
Also, I see that you are from the UK and in Europe, it is generally flipped in terms of the city being the place where those with money live, while the suburbs are where those with lower incomes tend to live.
I suppose you're right. I just feel there are too many places in the US where access to good quality safe urban living is limited, you're almost locked into a suburban lifestyle in most places even in so called cities. I take your point (partially, I feel its a bit more complicated, but I digress) about money, but back home its not like suburbs where awful places with negative stigmas. Anyway I don't want to derail this thread with a rant, so I'll just leave it there
I suppose you're right. I just feel there are too many places in the US where access to good quality safe urban living is limited, you're almost locked into a suburban lifestyle in most places even in so called cities. I take your point (partially, I feel its a bit more complicated, but I digress) about money, but back home its not like suburbs where awful places with negative stigmas. Anyway I don't want to derail this thread with a rant, so I'll just leave it there
To be fair, I see your point and a lot of it is that some of the popular neighborhoods in a lot of cities are more streetcar suburban in nature. They have the walkability and even quite a few amenities, but may be mainly single family homes and if there are rentals, they are SFH’s or only so many apartments/townhomes/condos available.
Some urban neighborhoods are in lesser thought of cities that are relatively safe(r) or are in areas of town that are relatively safe(r).
In some cases, you may have say villages, boroughs or small “cities†that also offer that lifestyle, but at a smaller scale.
So, it may come down to finding a community that fits your total criteria or come close to it.
I think most replies are locked on to the living portion of the question, but not many are touching on the play portion. Sure the suburbs usually offer safer living situations with better schools but I'm thinking the OP meant the whole package= live-work-play.
There are a few burbs that offer complete package, but most suburbs don't have that much by way of good night life. Maybe the older NE ones. But suburbia the last 60 decades have come to mean seas of Cul de sac sprinkled with office parks. Very few have the complete package to even compete with core cities in the live, work & PLAY arena.
Most suburbs have miniscule night life.
I'm drawing a blank on cities where you can live, go to work and have a ball of a time in the burbs to an extent greater than the core city.
I almost regret putting in the "live" part of the question because I realize that so many American cities have criminal elements that make it so many people wouldn't want to live there.
I also realize that singles may want to live in these cities, but once they have families and want their kids to attend public schools, the cities are out of the question. There are exceptions, though.
Still, even in cities that have high crime rates, you'll often see people coming from the suburbs to go out to bars/clubs/dinner and/or go to work.
I guess I was thinking about the cities where people would rather not do any of the things I've mentioned.
I almost regret putting in the "live" part of the question because I realize that so many American cities have criminal elements that make it so many people wouldn't want to live there.
I also realize that singles may want to live in these cities, but once they have families and want their kids to attend public schools, the cities are out of the question. There are exceptions, though.
Still, even in cities that have high crime rates, you'll often see people coming from the suburbs to go out to bars/clubs/dinner and/or go to work.
I guess I was thinking about the cities where people would rather not do any of the things I've mentioned.
In terms of the bolded, many families actually stay/go with the city school system, are going with private schools, charter schools and in some cases, homeschool, which is on the rise in many parts of the country. So, even that will depend on the family.
Northeast cities fit the criteria, but I'd personally rather live in the cores. With that said, I can see someone living in West Chester who never needs or wants to visit Philly because it offers them everything.
Western PA is the polar opposite. Pittsburgh and Erie are extremely centralized (I don't mean physically), so working/playing is difficult or borderline nonexistent depending on where you are. The other "big cities," Altoona and Johnstown- you couldn't pay me to live in, city or metro.
Most cities have at least some suburbs nicer than the city. Detroit sure is a leader here IMO.
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.
