During the past three months, I've traveled to Manhattan, San Francisco, San Jose, Portland, Chicago, and Miami for biz/personal trips.
I've stayed in mid-priced hotels. (Actually, non were cheap as in staying at a Best Western in the 'burbs. :-) )
Observations:
Manhatten: Used to love to go here. Now I find it crowded, dirty, and people are rude on the streets, but normal once inside. Least value per sq ft of hotel space of all the cities.
San Fran: Love the Wharf. Expensive, a homeless problem, past its prime?
Portland: Beautiful, had to fight off the homeless on every block as I walked. No sun the entire trip.
San Jose: Energy! Wonderful weather, expensive as hell. Traffic sucked.
Chicago: More I go, the more I fall in love. Clean, not crowded, people are friendly. Saw two panhandlers the entire weekend. Good hotel value.
Miami: Great food, the babes on South Beach were amazing eye candy. It would be too hot in summer. Condos expensive.
So if I had to move from middle of no-where Wisconsin where there are more cows that cars, I would pick downtown Chicago and try to find a condo overseeing a river or Lake Michigan.
When you say money is no object: You mean that you can afford to rent a 1000 square foot apartment? Or money is really no object.
If you have the money to take Limos every where and helicopters out to the Hamptons to visit your weekend cottage, well that is a different story. Without a doubt, the more money you have you can experience all the great things and avoid more of the dirty drudgery.
So if I was ultra wealthy, I would go with NY. If I was merely wealthy, I would go with SF.
And if I was merely upper middle class (which I am), I would go with neither but would enjoy SF more than NY.
Chicago and Portland both have a lot of up sides. But I'm not keen to deal with either in the winter. Don't want to live in a snowy environment. Don't want to go months at a time not seeing the sun. I would rather live someplace in the southwest desert (but not Vegas).
To those that like Miami, more power to them. I've gone there a few times for work. Don't care for the humidity. It seems that people that live there don't ever actually see the ocean unless they are going to the beach with kids. Not my vibe. [Reply]
Money no object? I'd buy 1000 acres in rural Montana and put my house in the middle of it. I love to hunt and fish, the hell with living in a larger city. [Reply]
Raleigh-Durham. Close enough to Charlotte to not miss anything exciting. Close enough to OBX for vacation. Inland enough that humidity and hurricanes are not so much of a problem.
Edit: The Chesapeake bay area would be my first choice but no downtowns on the Bay/Rivers so that kinda kills the appeal and where the really nice expensive homes are. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Frazod:
I work in Chicago. I live about as far away from Chicago as I can and get to work in a reasonable amount of time.
I can't recall if I've asked you this but what keeps you in that area? You voice your disdain for Chicago a lot, you're conservative AF and yet you remain there. What gives? [Reply]
The way I am feeling today, Boston would be first—along the waterfront— centrally located to get to all family, relatives and friends; the mountains of New Hampshire and the Cape and Freeport Maine the latter two for sailing with sister or brother's family. [Reply]
Originally Posted by vailpass:
How the he'll did San Jose make this list? It's a business place not a destination.
I didn't even know San Jose had a downtown. I thought it was just a suburb.
Defining 'downtown' is an interesting topic. I'm presuming we're talking about major metro areas, so we can arbitrarily assume that it's the place in a metro area of 1 million or more people that has the largest concentration of high rises. (Metro areas are formally defined as 50,000 or more people, but there are a whole lot of those, and a lot of them are parts of larger metro areas.
If I was to stick to the above definitions, it would be hard to beat Manhattan if money was no object. You've got Central Park, Broadway, and a zillion restaurants and stuff.
Other cool cities would be Denver (access to mountains), San Diego (weather), Charleston (if you could live in that historic area), and Washington DC (museums). If you could go smaller, Santa Fe has a very interesting downtown.
Los Angeles would be a great choice if you could live elsewhere in the metro area. Downtown LA is no great shakes, but the beach cities are awesome. They'd probably be my top choice, but they're not the 'downtown'. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I didn't even know San Jose had a downtown. I thought it was just a suburb.
Defining 'downtown' is an interesting topic. I'm presuming we're talking about major metro areas, so we can arbitrarily assume that it's the place in a metro area of 1 million or more people that has the largest concentration of high rises. (Metro areas are formally defined as 50,000 or more people, but there are a whole lot of those, and a lot of them are parts of larger metro areas.
If I was to stick to the above definitions, it would be hard to beat Manhattan if money was no object. You've got Central Park, Broadway, and a zillion restaurants and stuff.
Other cool cities would be Denver (access to mountains), San Diego (weather), Charleston (if you could live in that historic area), and Washington DC (museums). If you could go smaller, Santa Fe has a very interesting downtown.
Los Angeles would be a great choice if you could live elsewhere in the metro area. Downtown LA is no great shakes, but the beach cities are awesome. They'd probably be my top choice, but they're not the 'downtown'.
Old Town Charleston is absolutely beautiful. Used to go there as a kid to visit my aunt. City Market, Fort Sumter, etc. Totally would.
Also agree on Denver. Colorado has it all.
Sedona is a location I would a!so consider though I like being closer to a city. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lewdog:
I can't recall if I've asked you this but what keeps you in that area? You voice your disdain for Chicago a lot, you're conservative AF and yet you remain there. What gives?
I'm old and I've lived here for 30 years. And while I live comfortably, I don't live comfortably enough to simply pull up stakes and start over somewhere else.
Besides, Illinois is like most states ruined by one or two giant urban pits of liberal despair - get outside of the pit, and the rest is okay. I like where I live. I also like my job. I just wish it was somewhere else. And unfortunately, I'm not going to make decent money in my field unless I work in a major city. And as major cities go, I'll take Chicago over LA or New York. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I didn't even know San Jose had a downtown. I thought it was just a suburb.
Defining 'downtown' is an interesting topic. I'm presuming we're talking about major metro areas, so we can arbitrarily assume that it's the place in a metro area of 1 million or more people that has the largest concentration of high rises. (Metro areas are formally defined as 50,000 or more people, but there are a whole lot of those, and a lot of them are parts of larger metro areas.
If I was to stick to the above definitions, it would be hard to beat Manhattan if money was no object. You've got Central Park, Broadway, and a zillion restaurants and stuff.
Other cool cities would be Denver (access to mountains), San Diego (weather), Charleston (if you could live in that historic area), and Washington DC (museums). If you could go smaller, Santa Fe has a very interesting downtown.
Los Angeles would be a great choice if you could live elsewhere in the metro area. Downtown LA is no great shakes, but the beach cities are awesome. They'd probably be my top choice, but they're not the 'downtown'.
DC is a shithole with horrible people and even worse traffic. [Reply]
