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.
If you are judging New York on its' citiness it is hard to beat, especially if you are young. Once you get into quality of life it is knocked down pretty far by its' high cost of living (as are SF and LA). New York tends to wear on people as they get older; it is hard to buy a house and the logistics of family life are harder than elsewhere. Also the hyper competitive nature of working and living there is hard to tolerate over the course of a lifetime, eventually most people want less of a rat race.
Piggybacking on this.
Honestly the only thing I find more compelling about NYC than most other places is the variety and quality of food offerings. In other words, a plethora of ethnic restaurants and "eclectic" restaurants and chef's restaurants. Other places have pro sports, other places have places to go enjoy live music, other places have museums, other places have parks and biking amenities and boating amenities, other places have more elbow room. Other places have a great quality of life and are much less expensive. I have a couple cousins in NYC (Manhattan) and any of my family that have ever visited have said the same thing- wouldn't want to live there. Bottom line- there's just too much quality of life to be much more easily had in so many other places. Again, the only thing I can't get anywhere else is the breadth+quantity of excellent food offerings, although there are cities which do come really close in that category.
To me, NYC having that one factor as the lone standout in the whole quality of life picture makes NYC far from the perfect metro area. I would say Washington, DC is a lot closer to the perfect metro area as far as US cities go.
To me, NYC having that one factor as the lone standout in the whole quality of life picture makes NYC far from the perfect metro area. I would say Washington, DC is a lot closer to the perfect metro area as far as US cities go.
DC packs a strong punch for its size. It has most of the amenities people usually like to have in a city and its surrounding areas. It also has a strong and stable economy with the headquarters of the biggest employer in America. These are reasons why I've been satisfied living here for a long time.
But still, a city like NYC is going to offer a lot more options just due to its sheer size. It's not only the food, but also entertainment, media, fashion, cultural trends, architecture, nightlife, etc. The real issue is the COL, which is simply unaffordable for the great majority of people.
But still, a city like NYC is going to offer a lot more options just due to its sheer size. It's not only the food, but also entertainment, media, fashion, cultural trends, architecture, nightlife, etc.
I would argue that I could enjoy just as much entertainment that suits my interests in DC as in NYC. I can enjoy symphony, festivals, museums, pro sports, etc. I would have access to all those things if I were in DC as opposed to NYC. Media & fashion, what does that even boil down to? So I can buy more articles of clothing straight off a fashion show runway, that's not anything I find particularly useful. There are the Broadway shows, sure, but it's not as if there is a lack of theater in DC. And to be honest, I even PREFER DC architecture to NYC architecture. I don't do the club scene, so the kind of nightlife I would enjoy, I would have just as much access to in DC (sportsbar sometimes, evening at the symphony sometimes, etc.)
And arguably I would have more biking enjoyment in the DC area than in the NYC area. At a point, sheer numbers of options simply becomes repetitive. Having 25 museums vs. 15 museums isn't the same thing as having 25 museums vs. 2 museums. I'm just saying it isn't as cut and dried as some might be quick to assume just based on sheer population.
As opposed to suburbs of other cities? Lol. Pound for pound no other area in the country is more appealing. Of course NYC is not for everybody but if you are looking for ultimate urban experience and access to world quality arts and job market there is no better place to be. Of course not everybody needs that but that's another thing that make New York so different than the rest of the cities in the US
Speaking of pounding, both Dallas and Houston pound NYC as places I would live. NYC is too expensive too bound up in union work rules leading to high cost and time to get things done. For my lifestyle NYC is near the bottom of the list of cities Id consider perfect.
FYI I lived 6 years in the N. NJ suburbs less than 30 miles from DT Manhattan and have family living in Manhattan, going on 41 years now.
But still, a city like NYC is going to offer a lot more options just due to its sheer size. It's not only the food, but also entertainment, media, fashion, cultural trends, architecture, nightlife, etc. The real issue is the COL, which is simply unaffordable for the great majority of people.
Good point but just because it is not affordable to most you can't argue its not great. Mercedes Benz cars are not affordable to most but to argue they are not great would be silly.
Good point but just because it is not affordable to most you can't argue its not great. Mercedes Benz cars are not affordable to most but to argue they are not great would be silly.
So you would consider a city great if most people could not afford to live in it? What is the purpose of a city if not for people to live and work? Is it for tourists or to demonstrate what a good transit system might look like if someone could afford to live there and use it? Is it having great museums for tourists? How does it sustain itself when the generation of haves who got in before it got too expensive pass on, the kids might get the property but how do they pay the property tax and other elements of living in NYC?
In this country the answer is probably yes, though it is still far from perfect. To get to "perfect" we would need to get better weather, move the beaches and mountains closer to the city, vastly improve our dilapidated and outdated infrastructure, and reduce urban blight (especially in the outer boroughs).
As things currently stand, I'd say cities like London and Barcelona come much closer to "perfect" from a strictly urbanist perspective.
2. Is there another big metro where a person can get a little bit of the best of NY's offerings without actually living there?
In this country -- not really. Chicago probably comes closest overall, followed by SF, Boston, Philly and DC. While each of these cities can give you many of the same cultural and entertainment amenities as NYC, none of them will give you NY's energy and buzz... which is at the core of what makes NY NY.
Perfect is subjective. Some folks like mountains and beaches near their cities.
Good point but just because it is not affordable to most you can't argue its not great. Mercedes Benz cars are not affordable to most but to argue they are not great would be silly.
Actually it's more like just because Dealer A has 45 Silver Mercedes Benz cars for sale on his lot while Dealer B has 35 Silver Mercedes Benz cars for sale on his lot doesn't mean that automatically I'm going to find purchasing a car at Dealer A way more preferable.
NYC can have 150 Chinese restaurants with, for example, DC only having 75. But that doesn't automatically mean that if I like Chinese food I'm going to highly prefer living in NYC to living in DC. At some point, more of something just because there is a higher population doesn't automatically result in anything more useful. At some point, 75 Chinese restaurants is easily past enough numbers for me to have good Chinese food available when I'm in the mood for some, and living in NYCs 150 doesn't really gain me any advantage.
So it's not that the amenity isn't great. It's that the amenity has to be put into context- do other places have an ample enough supply of that amenity (and others) at a much more affordable circumstance? Futhermore, if I live near Broadway and love theater but am broke all the time and can't afford a show because of my rent, does it matter that I live near such great theater? It becomes more of a tease, doesn't it? But if I live in a place with great theater and I pay a lot less to live there and have a lot more money TO enjoy theater with, isn't that a preferable outcome, and doesn't that situation make that city more of a perfect metro for such circumstances?
Actually it's more like just because Dealer A has 45 Silver Mercedes Benz cars for sale on his lot while Dealer B has 35 Silver Mercedes Benz cars for sale on his lot doesn't mean that automatically I'm going to find purchasing a car at Dealer A way more preferable.
NYC can have 150 Chinese restaurants with, for example, DC only having 75. But that doesn't automatically mean that if I like Chinese food I'm going to highly prefer living in NYC to living in DC. At some point, more of something just because there is a higher population doesn't automatically result in anything more useful. At some point, 75 Chinese restaurants is easily past enough numbers for me to have good Chinese food available when I'm in the mood for some, and living in NYCs 150 doesn't really gain me any advantage.
So it's not that the amenity isn't great. It's that the amenity has to be put into context- do other places have an ample enough supply of that amenity (and others) at a much more affordable circumstance? Futhermore, if I live near Broadway and love theater but am broke all the time and can't afford a show because of my rent, does it matter that I live near such great theater? It becomes more of a tease, doesn't it? But if I live in a place with great theater and I pay a lot less to live there and have a lot more money TO enjoy theater with, isn't that a preferable outcome, and doesn't that situation make that city more of a perfect metro for such circumstances?
You are wrong: statistically the larger number of establishment means larger number of excellent one. Bell curve. If you broke however you won't enjoy much NYC does provide the best and more diverse job market in the nation so it I'd a plus for the city, too. Large number of establishments also means more competition and I found that DECENT food outside of NYC cost much more.
So you would consider a city great if most people could not afford to live in it? What is the purpose of a city if not for people to live and work? Is it for tourists or to demonstrate what a good transit system might look like if someone could afford to live there and use it?
Lol. 10 million people lives there, more than in any other city. How is that for afford ability? Lol
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.
