8 ms·

There is some sort of cultural attraction in play also. All of the cities in red would be considered some sort of high profile cultural hub. I live in a very c

• Joof 10y ago
  Austin has culture and affordability as a counterexample.
  • zem 10y ago
    as does houston, which always seems to be overlooked on these lists. i spent four years there for grad school, and other than the woefully inadequate public transit system it was a very livable and extremely cosmopolitan city.
    • karcass 10y ago
      Rice or UH?
      • zem 10y ago
        rice. nice part of town too, one of the few places i could actually walk to stuff.
        • bsder 10y ago
          The Rice University area is WAY non-representative of Houston. Saying that you live in Houston when you live near Rice is like saying that you live in Texas when you live in Austin.
  • iamdave 10y ago
    Austin has [...] affordability Lived experience and countless local articles scream otherwise. Of course, when you compare to NYC and LA, just about everything looks 'affordable'-yet this is the most common refrain to Austin: "It's cheaper than NY". What city in the US that isn't greater-LA, SF or Seattle isn't?
    • Joof 10y ago
      I'm using data from the link, which disagrees.
      • joveian 10y ago
        The link is about change in values; the absolute value is also important.
      • adevine 10y ago
        Average data for Austin, though, misses some important points. Anything near central is quickly becoming unaffordable to anyone without a high paying professional job. Outer lying areas are still affordable, but the transportation situation is so horrendous that living in those outlying areas comes with a high personal cost if you have to commute.
        • iamdave 10y ago
          Even living in the city core has serious transportation costs in a few areas. I used to live in South Central Austin and commute north of 183 to work. When my car broke down I took the bus-no big deal, coming from Chicago I don't have many aspersions to public transit-so long as it works and is relatively safe (or as safe as a city can reasonably make it). When I say "pick your poison" re: cost, I mean getting from my apartment to my job on time meant waking up 3 hours before shift begins and riding for two hours. Getting off work at 5:30 and not getting home until almost 9 depending on traffic conditions (school year meant having to ride through the UT area, that added another hour). The "personal cost" adevine mentions here is real and it is painful. You're either going to spend more on gas and vehicular maintenance, or you're going to spend every waking moment not at work sitting on the bus (depending on where you live), or waiting for a bus.
  • bsder 10y ago
    Um, I would fault you on both. First, downtown Austin is now actually more expensive than downtown San Diego. When people say "Austin" and "cheap housing" they mean Round Rock, Pflugerville, San Marcos, etc. Many of those places are now an hour or more commute to downtown Austin in horrific traffic that now rivals Los Angeles. When people think "San Diego" they don't mean commuting from Ramona or Temecula (an equivalent hour of horrific commute). Second, Austin has some culture, but has been working overtime to flush it down the drain. Stevie Ray Vaughn would be an unwelcome, dirty scumbag on the current 6th Street. Medium sized venues (300-1000 people) that launched major music careers are becoming very scarce (I blame smoking bans mostly). And most of the "cultural" catering is to overpaid DINKs (Dual Income--No Kids) who want desperately to be so cool yet complain about the noise from the very places that they moved in next to in order to be cool.
    • CalRobert 10y ago
      San Diego is a bit odd in that it seems like a place where downtown is still relatively affordable (emphasis on relative), while people pay quite a bit to live in the beach towns and historic streetcar suburbs. I was surprised at how cheap condos in high rises in Little Italy could be, and how expensive houses in Clairemont Mesa (a place that seems to have few redeeming qualities) were. Source: Lived in South Park, a streetcar suburb about 3 miles from downtown, for the last year. Enjoyed SP, but disliked SD. Also, many people will decry my use of the word "suburb" for a place 3 miles out, but it was originally built as one and the residents have fought tooth and nail to prevent any development that would change its character or increase density. I'm sure they don't mind that their home values have increased massively as a result of these restrictions on building in nearly the only pleasant, walkable neighborhood in a city composed primarily of aphalt hellscape, though.
    • JPKab 10y ago
      "When people say "Austin" and "cheap housing" they mean Round Rock, Pflugerville, San Marcos, etc. Many of those places are now an hour or more commute to downtown Austin in horrific traffic that now rivals Los Angeles. " This is the reason I didn't move there a few years ago. I flew in for the interview, and was stuck in various traffic jams the entire 2 days I was there. The economy there is booming, so it's not like the traffic is coming from a bad place, but I'm not keen on hour-plus commutes.
• VLM 10y ago
  "Why move to a city to do stuff, if once I get there I cannot afford to do anything." Likewise, I live in a culture-free area, but between work and kids and numerous easily affordable vacations to cultural areas, I have no time to go out drinking (which is usually all people mean by "culture" anyway). If, suddenly on the commute home, an art museum fell onto the interstate, I'd merely have to detour around it, I have a little league practice to get to tonight. I find it ironic that a childhood friend lives in Chicago but can't afford to do anything but scrape by, but as an outsider I can trivially afford to visit and do more in his own hometown than he can afford to do! He does have a much cooler address than I do.
  • pm90 10y ago
    Culture is more than just drinking. Art, Museums, Sports, Music, Food etc. all contribute to what what we call culture. Also, people live in big cities for a variety of reasons. One the biggest ones is finding better jobs. If his current job is not paying enough to live by, I think that living in Chicago offers a lot more opportunities for him to get a job that does.
    • freyir 10y ago
      > Art, Museums, Sports, Music, Food etc. all contribute to what what we call culture. I love museums, but I go once or twice a year. Same with live sports. It doesn't really justify living in a place. Live music is great, although admittedly I don't do that as much as I used to. One of my favorite cultural activities? Traveling to experience another cultural. Nothing's quite as conducive to that as a low cost of living when I'm not traveling.
      • pm90 10y ago
        Sure traveling is great when you have the resources to do so on a regular basis. For the large majority of urbanites, regular travel is either not affordable nor very convenient (note that most of the people on this forum probably can travel frequently; I'm talking about the general populace). In such cases, events put out in local venues provide the best opportunities for recreation. It depends on which museum you're talking about. The Museum of Modern Art in Houston generally has month long exhibitions which I love. There is a Museum of Art in Austin which has even more regular events, based on different themes etc. So I definitely do visit museums more than once a year :)
• api_or_ipa 10y ago
  Since moving to Palo Alto, I have to think that this area resembles more of a small town that you describe rather than a large, cultural city. Local brewed beer is rare to non-existant. Pub beer labels read the usual brands you'd expect. We're skewered between San Jose (go Sharks!) and SF(go Giants & Warriors!) and save for a few brief weekends of Stanford football are completely void of our own sporting events. Our skyline is worse than lacklustre, it's non-existent. In fact the lack of tall building means Stanford's own belltower has some singular local prominence. Except for the fact that nearly every building is emblazoned with the Who's Who of tech company branding, it would be difficult to pick out Palo Alto from any other sleepy college town.
  • santaclaus 10y ago
    > SF(go Giants & Warriors!) The Warriors are in Oakland (for now)!
  • jonknee 10y ago
    > Except for the fact that nearly every building is emblazoned with the Who's Who of tech company branding, it would be difficult to pick out Palo Alto from any other sleepy college town. The $3m but very unremarkable homes make it a little easier.
    • Chinjut 10y ago
      If they're unremarkable, perhaps not...
  • rco8786 10y ago
    Palo Alto is a suburb.
    • dredmorbius 10y ago
      That's a large part of the problem. It is / is near employment hubs. It offers very little by way of housing options. Hence: housing prices are extreme.
  • 10y ago
• rdl 10y ago
  I'd argue many of the cities in blue (extreme expansive/inexpensive) have culture at least on par with many of the most red/expensive/restricted cities -- it's different due to geography. Austin, Atlanta, Las Vegas, Orlando compare favorably to San Jose, San Diego, Sacramento.
  • Xcelerate 10y ago
    I grew up in Atlanta. I just wish in-the-perimeter wasn't such a ghost town. I think this is changing with the massive number of apartments being built lately (and the Beltline), but it would be nice to have more of a "bustling" downtown (compare the number of pedestrians mid-day in SF vs mid-day in Atlanta). But then again, I've always been partial to the concept of European walking cities.
    • foobarian 10y ago
      When I visited Atlanta 20 years ago, staying in a downtown hotel, I was surprised by how empty the city got after 5pm. It was a huge contrast to NYC where people actually live. It sounds like this is actually changing now.
  • mountaineer22 10y ago
    How are the summers (temp/humidity)?
    • yompers888 10y ago
      I don't have a specific answer, but rather a general suggestion: weatherspark is a site with pretty thorough climate data. It shows average high and low temperature and humidity throughout the year, as well as 10/25/75/90 percentiles for each. Also does wind and precipitation. I miss their old weather dashboard like crazy, but the climate data is still good.
    • 2chen 10y ago
      Awful on the entire East Coast. Hot and overbearingly humid.
• rayiner 10y ago
  > I am looking to move cities, but after factoring in an astronomical rise in housing cost, and a price of living adjustment that does come close to matching, I am having second thoughts. Why move to a city to do stuff, if once I get there I cannot afford to do anything. There are a number of good, affordable cities. Baltimore is fantastic for how cheap it is.
  • RhodesianHunter 10y ago
    Yes, when 16% of available housing is abandoned things tend to get pretty cheap.
  • scurvy 10y ago
    Isn't the crime in Baltimore still pretty bad?
    • rayiner 10y ago
      Like in most cities, crime is a block-by-block issue. Places like Fells Point or Bolton Hill are pretty safe. We lived at the edge of Bolton Hill for two years with a small child and loved it.
      • scurvy 10y ago
        I have 4 friends who live in Baltimore, and they say it's the opposite of most big cities. In most big cities, there are a few blocks that are bad but most of the city is safe. They say it's the opposite in Baltimore -- most of it is dangerous and there are a few safe areas.
• tikhonj 10y ago
  I spent a bit of time living in New York, and I was never short on something to do even without spending much—if any—money. There's just so much to explore and enjoy on foot on top of free scheduled events. The museums vary in price but some are definitely affordable (including the Met where you can pay any price for a ticket). Just the parks and the city itself—eminently accessible thanks to the incredible subway system—are worth it on its own. I'm back in the Bay Area now and, well, it's not New York, but it's still surprisingly accessible. Concerts with local bands, free lectures (on tech topics or not), free events at a park or on the beach... No magical subway system though: public transport exists but, especially if you're coming in from out of SF, it's a bit of a pain. Point being that you can definitely experience a lot either for free or for pretty cheap. But there's no way to get around the high rent, except with a high salary.
  • dllthomas 10y ago
    If you're coming into SF from outside, consider the bus. Takes longer than BART to cover the same distance, but is far more comfortable and I find I am more able to make good use of the time.
    • tikhonj 10y ago
      I've taken the bus to and from Berkeley before, but I highly prefer Bart. It's significantly faster and I actually find the train more comfortable, especially at off-peak times. The stations tend to be nice places to wait than outdoor bus stops too. I do have some friends who prefer the busses, so it's clearly not clear-cut.
      • dllthomas 10y ago
        It's certainly a YMMV kind of thing. > especially at off-peak times Yeah, BART is a much more pleasant experience at off-peak times than anywhere near rush-hour. In my experience, I still find the NL line (at least) uncrowded enough to get a seat any time of day (unless there's significant BART trouble).
      • JauntTrooper 10y ago
• analog31 10y ago
  Indeed, it may be that having a highly centralized city, and a cultural hub, go together. I live in a mid sized town in the Midwest where there is a fair amount of demand for living in the central neighborhoods -- people ranging from hipsters to retirees, and also a lot of culture. I use a lot of those amenities. Music is a huge part of my life. I'm a performing jazz musician. My kids participate in the youth symphony. We attend classical music concerts together. (Yeah, my kids are weird). I'd have a very hard time living in a culture desert, and would probably not want to live in the US at all unless it's in one of a very short list of cities.