Chiefs If money were no object, which major USA downtown would you pick to live? - Page 4

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.

What about you?
[Reply]

Originally Posted by scho63:
LA is a dump! Clique's all over, pompous shallow assholes in Bev Hill and Hollywood, smog, gang bangers everywhere, ocean is cold and some of the worst traffic anywhere.

I wouldn't live there if you paid me! :-)

Gang-bangers, smog, what? Have you not been to Los Angeles in the past 20 years?
[Reply]

Originally Posted by GloucesterChief:
DC is a shithole with horrible people and even worse traffic.

You just have to avoid the places where congressmen and senators hang out.

The positives are that the mall is a big park, and the museums are amazing.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by Rain Man:
You just have to avoid the places where congressmen and senators hang out.

The positives are that the mall is a big park, and the museums are amazing.

That part of DC is only like a fifth of the city and full of tourists which is even worse than the horrible people that actually live in DC.
[Reply]

I love Manhattan and would love to live there for a while. That said, I think that the work culture there would eat me alive, and I bet I'd get tired of it after a year or two. So I'd love to live there...temporarily. Until then, I'll stick with Denver.
[Reply]

Manhattan would be my first choice.

I spent a couple days as a tourist in DC for the first time in a decade. Really enjoyed it.

If it was Miami Beach as opposed to downtown Miami, I would take a two week vacation to test drive the beach lifestyle. In the end I can't imagine it overtaking the advantages of Manhattan.

Urban traffic is primarily an issue for people who live in the 'burbs. Between walking, public transportation and Uber, I wouldn't even own a car.
[Reply]

Manhattan

So much to experience and the most beautiful woman on the planet in my opinion.

I think after a year I'd have to tap out. Well, either tap or I'd become fully ingrained in the culture and never leave. Prolly tap however.
[Reply]

All of these responses too many people, too crowded, why would you live downtown if you were rich? Very baffling. It's expensive to live downtown because PEOPLE WANT TO FUCKING DO IT. It's dirt cheap to live in the country or on the side of a fucking mountain because NOBODY WANTS TO DO IT.

I hate people too, but they serve a necessary purpose. There is entertainment where people are. There is nice infrastructure where wealthy people area. Nice restaurants. Sports teams. etc etc. I'm quite anti-social, too, and I would absolutely love to live downtown SF, Seattle, or Manhattan. Money solves lots of the pains in the ass that downtown living can provide.

If money wasn't an option, I'm not sure if I'd live anywhere. I'd have probably 4 homes.
1. Condo at Panorama Towers in Vegas
2. Penthouse in Seattle
3. Penthouse in Manhattan
4. Condo or something in Hong Kong or Tokyo
[Reply]