Anonymous
Anonymous asked in TravelUnited StatesOther - United States · 2 months ago

Out of these cities where would you rather live and why ? Where do you see better future development?

Denver

Seattle

Miami

New York

Los Angeles

San Diego

5 Answers

Relevance
  • 2 months ago

    I like diverse cities...I'll go with NYC on anyday

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Andrew
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    Denver is all right, it's not my favourite US city. In terms of livability, I wouldn't rank it at the bottom, but I wouldn't put it at the top either. The nicer sections of the city are pleasant, there's great scenery, there's a pretty decent food and drink scene, it's not a very cultural place, and it has a very detached feel to it - Denver is the epicenter of its region, so if you live there, you feel like there really isn't anything else around, which can get old fast. The sections of the city that aren't very nice get worse all the time. I'd say that there are more opportunities there than in some other cities in the States, but then again, I'd rather live in a satellite community of Denver than within the city limits, not just because it's expensive, but because the surrounding communities offer a better standard of living. 

    Seattle is great. The weather is nice, the people are friendly, the food scene is wonderful... It's a great walking city, it's close to nature, the city planning is pretty good, and it doesn't feel like the big city that it is. Of the cities that you listed, if you could afford it, you ought to go with Seattle. Then again, a place like Tacoma which was horrid even 20 years ago has completely turned around. And Tacoma is only about 45 minutes from downtown Seattle by car. It's far, far cheaper. I like Tacoma, and for what you'd pay in Seattle, you could purchase two houses in Tacoma right next to one another. 

    Miami is awful. It's a far cry from the image that people have of the place. Miami is not Miami Beach. Miami is a hot, sticky, dirty city where there are huge racial issues, lots of crime, and very few redeeming qualities to life there. I hate it. You can find beaches everywhere. Why live in a place like that? Florida is a soulless place, there's zero character and Miami is the end of the line. You couldn't pay me to live there. 

    New York is probably the best city on the planet. If you have money, there's really no better place in the world to live. It's got everything - restaurants, bars, museums, parks, shopping, concerts, theatre... It's one of the most vibrant cities out there. It's also incredibly safe compared to other cities in the US. But the cost of living is beyond extortionate. There are five boroughs so the cost of living fluctuates from one part of the city to the other, but overall it's ludicrously overpriced. Manhattan is insane - people are paying $5,000 to live in closets. In Brooklyn, you have areas that were essentially no-go neighbourhoods that were plagued with gangs and drugs back in the 90s where people are paying $3,000 to commute into Manhattan. Queens is the most ethnically diverse place in the world. You want to eat lamb curry at 4:00 A.M.? Well, if you live in New York City, you can. The Bronx is awful, always has been. And Staten Island is developing so rapidly that it's catching up with the rest of the city. If money was no object, I'd definitely live there for part of the year, if not most of it, but I wouldn't want to deal with the bad aspects of living there day in and day out - the high rents and taxes, the overcrowded public transportation, etc. 

    Los Angeles is horrible. 

    San Diego is nice, the weather isn't bad, but it's getting more crowded and polluted all the time. Most of the people that I've met over the years who have grown up there have left because they couldn't afford to stay. The prices for a home are astronomical and one could do a lot better elsewhere. I'd take it over LA or any of the other horrid cities in California like Bakersfield, Fresno or Stockton. It's got a nicer feel than someplace like Sacramento, but inasmuch as I hate California, I think Northern California - the Bay Area and north of there, is far better than Southern California.  

    • ...Show all comments
    • Andrew
      Lv 7
      4 weeks agoReport

      Northern California is infinitely more picturesque and scenic than the arid, overcrowded Southern part of the state. It's true that commutes are generally shorter in terms of distance, but often take much longer because of the heavy traffic. 

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    2 months ago

    San Diego. But that's because I'm here now, I like it, and I don't want to move. If you're coming in from outside these days it's horribly expensive to find a place to live :(

    • shawn2 months agoReport

      true 

    • Login to reply the answers
  • Pearl
    Lv 7
    2 months ago

    i would rather live where i live now

    • Login to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 2 months ago

    Given the choice of those, I think I'd pick San Diego.  It's expensive (well, all big cities are expensive these days) but it has the best climate and the nicest amenities.  I also love Denver and Seattle, but I wouldn't want to deal with the weather in those places.

    Future development?  I don't think cities serve the role they once did.  Development is going to be in suburbs, in 'edge cities'.  Smaller towns with space to grow.  All the cities you listed are so crowded you can't put your arms out! 

    • Login to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.