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.
We were specifically looking to move to the Clayton area long term because it has one of the best school districts in the country. I think older houses there cost in the $1mm - $1.5mm range while newer houses cost $2mm+. While we would like to live in a newer house, I'm not sure we'll be able to afford it on a ~600k salary. We know St. Louis very well since we currently live here (not in Clayton, but in St. Louis City).
We don't know much about Pittsburgh. It seems that there are some very highly ranked elementary schools in the area and we have friends that have strongly vouched for the public school system there. Areas that feed into the North Allegheny School District seem to have nice new, spacious houses for well under $1mm. Fox Chapel seems to be significantly more expensive and the schools seem to have a lot less diversity. However, a big part of the charm of Clayton for us is the walkability. My wife could walk to work. We could walk our child to work. Our kids' friends would all be in a walkable distance. Long term I hope to work close by so that my commute is very short or hopefully walkable. I don't know if it's possible to recreate this experience in Pittsburgh. I don't want to spend a signficant portion of my time commuting to and from work. In addition, I think compensation for the specific field I'm targeting to go to in medicine might pay $50-$100k less in Pittsburgh compared to St. Louis (but it's hard to get data on this so i would need additional information to get some more perspective).
I guess the bar is a little higher for all of the cities outside of St. Louis because we know the city so well and we don't know any of the other cities that well.
Yes, I will always stump for the rolling hills and greenery of Philadelphia's country side.
Just not enough variety to me. I've lived in the Northeast and still like to visit but it's never for scenery or the outdoors, the old cities are nice to visit. Phoenix outdoor variety tops this list in my opinion with mountains that rise beyond the tallest peaks in the east jotting the cityscape and those that rise up to over 12,000' within a few hours drive. A few of my own photos, all in the metro area and beyond.
Just not enough variety to me. I've lived in the Northeast and still like to visit but it's never for scenery or the outdoors, the old cities are nice to visit. Phoenix outdoor variety tops this list in my opinion with mountains that rise beyond the tallest peaks in the east jotting the cityscape and those that rise up to over 12,000' within a few hours drive. A few of my own photos, all in the metro area and beyond.
Very nice photos. I'm the reverse. I love visiting out west and taking in the scenery. The word that always comes to mind for me, in comparison to the east, is 'dramatic'. The topography and variety is just much more dramatic to me. But I just couldn't deal with the lack of greenery. I get off the plane and the humidity and trees hit me in the face and it's like, oh thank god I'm back lol. Also those photos I posted are just Bucks County which is the county north of philly. Philadelphia sits directly on the edge of the Piedmont Plateau. South Philadelphia sits at sea level and it's swampy/boggy and flat as a pancake all the way to the ocean. To the north and the rest of the city is rolling hills until the Appalachians.
The Pine Barrens, NJ:
The farthest south I ever lived is NC and NJ to the north. So it kind of boggles my mind kind of that so many people in the southwest live in neighborhoods like:
Something about the no grass front yards feels wrong to me.
I'm pretty sure the OP wants to move to St. Louis though
But I just couldn't deal with the lack of greenery. I get off the plane and the humidity and trees hit me in the face and it's like, oh thank god I'm back lol.
My thoughts exactly. It's certainly interesting visiting the West from an East Coast perspective, but the desert is the last place I can think of for an appealing living environment. Arid/super barren landscape can be quite jarring and depressing, even with much more dramatic features than the East.
Nothing beats the Mid-Atlantic and South for lushness in the "green" season.
Nothing beats the Mid-Atlantic and South for lushness in the "green" season.
Ahem. Coastal PNW?
If I could add - The Prairie State has a different type of lush in green season. Unfortunately, it’s flat as a pancake. But there is something about the tall grass, mass amounts of wild flowers, ivy, residential tree canopy, and modest forestation you’ll find in Illinois. You can just tell how fertile the land is by how thick and polished the lawns and landscaping are. It makes the neighborhoods pop.
It’s different than the northeast, and certainly not as beautiful in most ways. But a sunny May afternoon on the North Shore will make you feel a certain kind of way.
^ I’m sure this applies to much of Missouri, as well.
If I could add - The Prairie State has a different type of lush in green season. Unfortunately, it’s flat as a pancake. But there is something about the tall grass, mass amounts of wild flowers, ivy, residential tree canopy, and modest forestation you’ll find in Illinois. You can just tell how fertile the land is by how thick and polished the lawns and landscaping are. It makes the neighborhoods pop.
It’s different than the northeast, and certainly not as beautiful in most ways. But a sunny May afternoon on the North Shore will make you feel a certain kind of way.
^ I’m sure this applies to much of Missouri, as well.
I don't know how many people know this, but:
The Eastern deciduous forest, which covers nearly all of the country east of the Mississippi, including Chicagoland, runs up the Missouri River valley as far as Omaha.
As a result, that city and both of Missouri's two largest are actually very green places. The state capital of Jefferson City ditto. Fall in the Missouri Valley when I was a kid looked every bit as colorful as fall in New England or the Mid-Atlantic.
Yeah, certainly the PNW is the greenest part of the West, by far, but even it's not as saturated with dense vegetation as Back East:
It's this in a place like Washington State, versus this in Maryland.
Just a pretty distinctively different look and feel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mwj119
If I could add - The Prairie State has a different type
It’s different than the northeast, and certainly not as beautiful in most ways. But a sunny May afternoon on the North Shore will make you feel a certain kind of way.
That's fair. I think the Midwest and New England definitely give the Mid-Atlantic and South a run for their money in parts for lushness; it's just not as consistent or naturally-occurring in my experience.
If I could add - The Prairie State has a different type of lush in green season. Unfortunately, it’s flat as a pancake. But there is something about the tall grass, mass amounts of wild flowers, ivy, residential tree canopy, and modest forestation you’ll find in Illinois. You can just tell how fertile the land is by how thick and polished the lawns and landscaping are. It makes the neighborhoods pop.
It’s different than the northeast, and certainly not as beautiful in most ways. But a sunny May afternoon on the North Shore will make you feel a certain kind of way.
^ I’m sure this applies to much of Missouri, as well.
The Pacific Northwest also has very nice greenery. Personally, I prefer our brand of deciduous forests, in which broad leaf trees dominate the forests, and the seasons bring dramatic changes in scenery. While there are some really nice broad leaf trees native to the PNW (I was stunned by the Hoh Rainforest), the majority of forestation is coniferous, which is totally different in kind. To each their own, but I prefer deciduous forests.
And yes, re: the question of scenery and climate of cities in this thread, I agree with the former posters that the East's (Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, etc.) greenery is much nicer to live in than the arid West (Phoenix). I lived out West for a couple of years, and when I moved back East, I gained a new appreciation for all of the vegetation here.
Yeah, certainly the PNW is the greenest part of the West, by far, but even it's not as saturated with dense vegetation as Back East:
It's this in a place like Washington State, versus this in Maryland.
Just a pretty distinctively different look and feel.
That's fair. I think the Midwest and New England definitely give the Mid-Atlantic and South a run for their money in parts for lushness; it's just not as consistent or naturally-occurring in my experience.
And actually, I'd say the same distinction can be made between Maryland and Missouri — two states that also have something in common. Missouri more closely resembles Washington State in the degree of lushness while it resembles Maryland more in the type of vegetation. But the Missouri River valley does have some very dense forest where land hasn't been cleared for farms, parks or settlements. This, for instance, is what MO 45 looks like northwest of Kansas City and just a little to the east of Leavenworth, Kan., and this is what MO 9 looks like as you approach Parkville, closer to downtown KC (the land to the left of the railroad is a Platte County park). Both of these highways lie in the Missouri River floodplain.
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.
