3 ms·
it's doesn't even remotely compare to somewhere like Boston or NYC or DC or Philadelphia or San Francisco or Seattle. The benefits fall off pretty quickly afte
by dionidium 10y ago
it's doesn't even remotely compare to somewhere like Boston or NYC or DC or Philadelphia or San Francisco or Seattle.
The benefits fall off pretty quickly after NYC, Chicago, LA, and San Francisco. As a Midwesterner who has long considered a move for exactly the reasons you mentioned, my reaction to a move to Philadelphia or Seattle or Austin (or whatever) is basically, "why bother?" I can live an "urban enough by comparison" lifestyle right here.
But, that's not true of the Big Four.
- tropo 10y agoFor city life, Boston clearly beats San Francisco. In the USA, probably only New York can beat Boston. Prime example: two decades ago, Boston's MBTA T (subway/tram/light rail stuff) had technology that San Francisco's MUNI still can't manage. LA is a sprawl. Chicago is a war zone. Well, LA is that too. This may be city life, but it doesn't count if we're considering positive attributes!