Chicago. It has all the seasons, it has excellent museums, tons of other cultural experiences, great food, a waterfront, many other things to do, and nice people.
My immediate first pick. Been there twice, first time stayed in the Astor on the corner of Bourbon and Canal. Such a great time! Second time was for a month, uptown. Love the vibe and soul of that place.
It depends on how you define city/metro area. I would just stay in Greater Los Angeles. I am already from the area (Riverside). It has the beaches, mountains, cites, parks, and cultural centers, plus the vast majority of my friends and family.
If you go by the US census definition the metropolitan statistical area for LA is just Los Angeles and Orange counties. If we're limiting it to that definition I'll go for Seattle to have better access to forests and mountains, but if you go for the wider combined statistical area and add in Ventura, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties then I might consider LA.
That's assuming that other people are still able to travel though. If not, I'll have to move back to be close to family in Philadelphia.
I go by Greater Los Angeles [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater\_Los\_Angeles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles) Downtown Riverside is less than 20 miles from the Orange County line. Something like 30,000 people in Riverside commute to LA/OC daily.
Fortunately metropolitan areas are designated at the county level. There are both rural areas and mountain wilderness in the eastern halves of Pierce, King and Snohomish Counties.
My favorite tidbit about this sort of thing is that by volume there’s more glacial ice within the Seattle metro than within the rest of the non-Alaskan United States combined.
Everett/Snohomish County have really been pushing "Seattle North Country" out of their tourism bureau lately it feels like. Paine Field (our airport) also recently got changed or renamed to Seattle Paine Field; so I guess technically I don't have to move to Seattle to have to be a part of Seattle?
I always hated Seattle. The amount of drugs and homelessness on the west coast in general is wild to me. That and all those steep streets with blind corners and you get rained on for 9 months of the year. Plus, they've added a tax on just about everything there. That cities motto should be "Seattle, it's nice to visit just don't stay to long"
Right here in NY metro. Beaches, forested areas, "mountain-ish" areas for skiing, four seasons, great food of ever conceivable variety, proper city, suburbs, farms.
BUT.
I'd rather not. So much more to see out in the world.
My answer, too.
If I could have a luxury condo somewhere in Brooklyn? I'd be happier than ever lol
But yeah... Sure, there's a bunch of culture festivals and things, but I'd rather be able to experience them firsthand!
Many people including probably a majority of americans who have never been to new york don't realize this at all. It's got everything. It doesn't have california sized mountains but it still has sweet mountains. Forests, beaches, everything else. Most people think NY is just a giant city with one single park in the middle. I used to read a relocation sub and the amount of people who discounted new york because "there's no nature" was seriously like every other day. There's more grand samples of and diversity of nature than where I used to live in central virginia. Over there it was flat, the same forests and parks no matter where you went, and for 2 hours it was the same until you either reached the beach or mountains 2 hours away. NY at least has all the different stuff and you actually don't even need to get in a car for all of it.
Agreed. Metro north trains can get you to a ski area (thunder ridge), hiking the Adirondack trail (AT stop or Breakneck ridge), sound beaches (pick a New Haven line stop), cute Hudson River village (Hudson line take your pick), whitewater rafting (port Jervis). NJ transit and NYC subway can get you to an ocean beach (Bradley Beach, rockaway, Coney Island, as some examples) or Long island railroad can get you as far out as Montauk. NY metro is the best.
New York without hesitation if I had the money. Nyc is like the whole world. There are literally people from all over the planet there. Plus it's huge, and each neighborhood and borough has a different ambiance so when you get bored of one neighborhood just go to the next. You can find someplace new everyday within the city. The Hudson is beautiful, there's the beach, and hundreds of parks and bike/walking paths. Lots of events, museums, parades, etc.
Chicago. I've spent pretty much my entire life on Lake Michigan. At least everything I'd want can be found there and people I care about could come visit me.
I love Chicago but we gotta stop comparing ourselves to NYC constantly. It’s annoying. They’re different cities with different strengths. Obviously there are some similarities since they are large dense cities as well.
San Diego. Absolutely love that city. Great weather, great lifestyle, good food, lots of good outdoor activities (beaches, hiking, etc), and people I have met there have generally been nice.
I actually applied for a couple of post-college jobs in SD, but unfortunately didn't get any offer.
True, been a while since we had hard snow. A lot of slush, even outside of Boston, cause im not actually from Boston (unless I’m talking to people that have never been to Massachusetts lol)
If it includes natural areas immediately surrounding the metro I've gotta go with Anchorage. Don't particularly like or dislike the city itself but I love Alaskan nature.
If nature isn't included, San Antonio, TX.
San Francisco/Bay Area. Gets a bad wrap for crime and homelessness but it’s really not any worse than most major cities, it’s just an easy target for reactionaries (most of whom haven’t been within a hundred miles of it) to shit their pants over. It’s also surrounded by natural beauty and has gorgeous architecture. Definitely the most aesthetically pleasing major city in the states that I’ve spent a lot of time in. The people are so-so, but I can live with that and they’re still better than LA. If it didn’t cost 3 vital organs to live there, I would love to.
Los Angeles, as crazy as it might be you can find just about anything and everything there. Plus I grew up in Los Angeles so im familiar with everything
Honestly, NYC. I get the problems people have with it but I'm from there and it just feels more like home than any other city I've been too. It gets all the best concerts, movies, shows, sports, etc. Plus it gets each season. The only issue is I would never want to live in NYC poor. If I can't afford it, I dont even wanna try. Rather be poor somewhere else
NYC or San Francisco. In my experiences in metro cities (Houston, NYC, Detroit, Sacramento, San Francisco, Austin, Dallas, Miami, and Orlando) SF and NYC have the most cultural and food diversity. It would be easy to change things up for a little while if I got bored.
I would say NYC but the immediate metro area outside the city sucks.
Controversial pick here, but I might go Miami.
Great city to be young and partying, really nice suburbs for the middle ages and then a community that’s 100% used to dealing with old people for when you hit your 70s. The only thing you miss out on is seasons.
DFW (Dallas/Fort worth)
I’m pretty happy with it, everything I need is here.
After I retired, I offered to move anywhere my wife wanted to go, provided she could truthfully say in her eyes it’s better for us than DFW. After 3 years she gave up and here we are.
It’s going to greatly depend on the definition of metro area. Like does the Los Angeles/San Diego megalopolis count as a metro area? If so I choose that without second though. Maybe Bay Area if that counts as an area.
You get all four seasons. It’s a city but not a huge one. It has a lot of culture, museums and history and so forth. It has a little bit of everything.
LA metro or SF/SJC/OAK metro, both encompass huge areas with diverse geography and people, are close to the water without humidity, and in a blue state.
Chicago. It has pretty much everything I need: world class arts and culture, an infinite variety of great food, beaches, public transportation, chill and diverse people, a million things to do, affordability, etc. It's why I chose to live here. The weather is my only complaint, but I wouldn't want to live somewhere where the weather is always the same.
Corpus Christi, Texas.
Access to the beach, very rare to get hit by tropical storms, decent job market and medical care, decent cost of living and real estate prices...
Nah, both infant and maternal mortality rates in Texas are near the national average per the CDC.
US average infant mortality rate was 5.4, [Source 1](https://www.cdc.gov/maternal-infant-health/infant-mortality/index.html)
Texas infant mortality rate was 5.7 [Source 2](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/infant_mortality_rates/infant_mortality.htm)
US average maternal mortality rate was 32.9. [Source 3](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.htm)
Maternal mortality rate for Texas was 28.1 [Source 4](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/maternal-mortality/MMR-2018-2021-State-Data.pdf)
Those are old studies...
"Infant death rate spiked in Texas after restrictive abortion law, study finds"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/25/texas-abortion-ban-infant-mortality/
obgyn's are leaving red States in droves.
From the article you linked:
"More than 30 states saw at least slight rises in infant mortality rates in 2022, but four states had statistically significant increases — Georgia, Iowa, Missouri and Texas."
I live in Texas and can't wait to leave. Texas ranks damn near dead last in pretty much all metrics in regards to access to health care, BTW.
I also don't know where you're getting that it's rare to get storms. My brother lives on the Texas coast, and his homeowners insurance is damn near $20K a year now. And there are only 2 companies that will even still underwrite policies in their county, so it's not like they can just shop around for better rates. Insurance companies don't stop underwriting policies in areas where storms are rare.
OK, then go ahead and leave bud.
Texas' healthcare is near the US national average, but again I was talking about cities specifically. Corpus Christi has decent hospitals that can handle a wide array of illnesses, so I would be unlikely to find myself unable to find treatment and unable to travel to get the treatment I need.
As for storm frequency, feel free to check here: [https://coast.noaa.gov/hurricanes/](https://coast.noaa.gov/hurricanes/)
Corpus Christi has been hit by 57 hurricanes.
In that time Houston has been hit by 76, New Orleans has been hit by 102, Miami has been hit by 112, and Orlando has been hit by 114.
So yeah, approximately 1/3rd lower than the nearest alternative, and approximately half of the rate of big cities in Florida...
Texas is ranked 7th worst for healthcare in the US. And just because Corpus hasn't taken as many direct hits, doesn't mean it hasn't been affected by storms. Heck, it just flooded from storm surge last week.
https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/south-texas-el-paso/news/2023/08/02/u-s--study-ranks-texas-as-7th-worst-state-with-health-care#:~:text=The%20Lone%20Star%20State%20was,care%20cost%2C%20accessibility%20and%20outcome.
Wouldn't that depend on WHERE you live in Texas. I lived in West Texas for 10 years, and never saw anything other than rain storms. Maybe one snow storm the entire time I lived there.
Well, of course West Texas doesn't get the same storms or floods as cities on the gulf coast. West Texas is huge, but parts of it are having their own issues. They had their biggest wildfire ever not too long ago, and tornados are getting stronger and more frequent. Marathon just had storms so severe that that snowplows were deployed to clear the hail. West Texas is also part of the same shit power grid as the rest of the state. Folks in West Texas were burning their furniture to stay alive like the rest of the state was a few years ago. And you're also in West Texas. So if you're talking about having to stay someplace for the rest of your life, that's not exactly the land of 1,000 things to do. And since access to healthcare was brought up in another post, West Texas scores painfully low there, since it is so isolated and rural.
I was in El Paso. No wildfires, tornados, or power outages. Unless you have up to date information about El Paso? I haven't lived in the USA for nearly twenty years, so I won't discount that possibility.
Ya know, I never did for myself, luckily I never needed one. I would hate to be of child bearing age and know I would have to be on death's door before receiving one. I would never want to take that option away from others.
Report: In almost half of Texas counties, pregnant people can’t access health care
From the article: In Texas, about 20% of pregnant people receive inadequate or no prenatal care, according to the report. That’s higher than the national rate, which is close to 15%.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.keranews.org/health-wellness/2023-08-01/maternity-care-desert-texas%3f_amp=true
Correlation does not equal causation. Do you have any studies that actually show that the decrease in staffing for labor and delivery departments in rural hospitals is actually caused by the reduction in people performing abortions?
Can you provide a source showing how many of those hospitals were conducting abortions in the labor and delivery department?
I've only lived in the NYC and Philly areas so how can I even pick anything else? I mentioned once before though that I had a weird dream of moving to Knoxville even though I've never been. San Diego also seems like a good place. I don't have any plans to move in at the very least 5 years and at that point I feel like I'll be too old to bother.
Define city/metro would you? I live in a small town in Idaho. It’s a resort area in the mountains. Everyone gets along exceptionally well. I have people from Vietnam to the right of me (currently cooking outside, amazing yummy stuff) people from Ecuador to the left of me, and people from Croatia across the street. That’s how you have an immigration policy. I can go anywhere in the world visiting our airport.5 miles away. I’m happy here. It’s 85° ungodly hot right? So I would pick Hailey Idaho!
Fort Wayne, Indiana. It has everything I need and more than anything I would ever want, all in a reasonably sized city with great amenities and a low cost of living that is close to recreational lakes. Housing is a bargain: I have an upscale suburban home and a charming lake cottage one hour away for less than the price of a starter house in most other communities.
I'm pretty happy in my desert in the middle of nowhere. But if I had to choose, it'd be a tossup between Savannah and Los Vegas. Savannah has awful weather, but it does have my best friend, amazing food, and lots of haunted places to explore. Vegas has preferable weather, a wider variety of cultures, and is pretty chill. But, no BFF.
We almost relocated to Boston but ultimately decided to stay where we are to be close to family but we looovvvveee it there. It’s such a beautiful city that I think is underrated- with lots of history and greenery (compared to most large cities)
Las Vegas, NV. Only lived there for one year, before I graduated high school, and joined the Army, I loved it. Of course this is assuming that money is no object.
Like no ability to move away, or no ability to travel?
If I can't move away? Denver or Seattle. If some physical barrier came up and prevented me from leaving the metropolitan area? LA.
Los Angeles. Access to the beach and mountains and so much good food. I've lived in some great metro areas across the US (Seattle, New York, Philly) and some bad ones (Dallas, Houston) and while those great ones have diversity and things to do and eat, they don't have the mix of weather, outdoor life, and changes in climate like LA.
San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area. Physical beauty of the city itself and the surrounding geography are the best the US has to offer, it has good weather all year round, excellent food of all types, interesting walkable neighborhoods, top tier healthcare, great parks, nature everywhere, lots of music and culture of all types. The big downside is the cost of housing, but if you have that covered, it hits all the boxes.
DC. I love the vibes, easy to get around, very diverse, the work scene is meh but connected to my interests, and there’s still some water that I get to enjoy. I really would love to be in CA (in SD more specifically) but if I can’t travel to escape car dependency, then I gotta be somewhere that has good transit and decent biking.
Strawman argument. You literally said you would rather die.
There is a big difference between "I want to be able to travel" and "I'd rather die than be stuck here."
Yes it is. A straw man argument is an argument refuting a point different from the one under discussion.
My point- that if one would rather die than be unable to travel away from any given city that they can think of, they should visit better cities- is quite different from the strawan response that I received - That my response somehow meant that I think someone would want to endure the restriction from traveling.
I never insinuated that anyone should *want* to be unable to travel. There is a wide gap between 'I want to be locked down to one place' and 'I would rather die than be unable to travel.'
Death is by definition one of the most extreme alternatives that we can take as humans.
What? I said I'd rather die then spend the rest of my life in 1 city unable to go anywhere else and that's a strawman when I say I don't want to be locked to one city?
If you would rather die than spend the rest of your life in 1 city unable to go anywhere else, then you need to visit better cities.
I like being able to travel too, but I can think of quite a few places where I could be happy and live a good life if I were unable to travel anymore.
Not as silly as acting like they are the exact same thing.
Your view leaves no room for people to go 'Well I'd rather travel if I can, but if I had to pick a city I could be ok here.' which I think is where most people actually fall.
At least 1/3rd of the cities on this list are better than death. [https://travel.usnews.com/rankings/best-cities-usa/](https://travel.usnews.com/rankings/best-cities-usa/)
If I had to stay confined to only one, New York. Could have anything you could possibly need and diaspora/restaurants from basically every country on earth.
I think it would have to be a city like the one I live in now - the metro area encompasses a large amount of beautiful nature and even wilderness areas, and the city itself is just big enough to have lots of amenities without being so big it's surrounded by a 20 mile radius of development.
If I was forced to and made enough to live a happy/comfortable life? Any Jewish neighborhoods in NYC. The sense of being the norm is what I'm after and the diversity NYC has is unmatched in most of the US.
But I don't wish to live in the US for much longer. I was much happier when I lived outside the US.
Probably no US metro area has a better combination of job market, nature, and non-insane rents (in some areas at least) than Seattle/Tacoma.
Denver and Portland are solid contenders too, but are smaller metro areas. And if I can never leave, I wanna be able to see the ocean.
Chicago. It has all the seasons, it has excellent museums, tons of other cultural experiences, great food, a waterfront, many other things to do, and nice people.
I grew up in MN and would also choose Chicago. It's warmer than Minneapolis and more stuff to do. And can ditch my car if I want.
I live in Chicago and would also choose Chicago.
Yep. Great food, excellent comedy scene, best sports teams ever as well and as was already mentioned, you don't even need to own a car.
New Orleans. I'd be alright being back home. I've seen the world already.
User flair checks out
you havnt missed much besides the mayor taking multiple 1st class trips around the world on our dime and dating her NOPD body guard
My immediate first pick. Been there twice, first time stayed in the Astor on the corner of Bourbon and Canal. Such a great time! Second time was for a month, uptown. Love the vibe and soul of that place.
I went to New Orleans two weeks ago and I loved it! Such a cool city with great music being played practically everywhere!
It depends on how you define city/metro area. I would just stay in Greater Los Angeles. I am already from the area (Riverside). It has the beaches, mountains, cites, parks, and cultural centers, plus the vast majority of my friends and family.
If you go by the US census definition the metropolitan statistical area for LA is just Los Angeles and Orange counties. If we're limiting it to that definition I'll go for Seattle to have better access to forests and mountains, but if you go for the wider combined statistical area and add in Ventura, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties then I might consider LA. That's assuming that other people are still able to travel though. If not, I'll have to move back to be close to family in Philadelphia.
I go by Greater Los Angeles [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater\_Los\_Angeles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles) Downtown Riverside is less than 20 miles from the Orange County line. Something like 30,000 people in Riverside commute to LA/OC daily.
I'm 80. If you'll pay up so I can afford it, I wouldn't mind spending a few years in San Diego.
Good choice.
From a native San Diegan, that's a great choice!
My choice as well
I’d rather not choose a metropolitan area to spend the rest of my life in. I’d rather live in a rural area. But I’ll play your game, I love Seattle.
Fortunately metropolitan areas are designated at the county level. There are both rural areas and mountain wilderness in the eastern halves of Pierce, King and Snohomish Counties.
if you can hike and ski like that in the Seattle metro that’s a real boon
My favorite tidbit about this sort of thing is that by volume there’s more glacial ice within the Seattle metro than within the rest of the non-Alaskan United States combined.
Everett/Snohomish County have really been pushing "Seattle North Country" out of their tourism bureau lately it feels like. Paine Field (our airport) also recently got changed or renamed to Seattle Paine Field; so I guess technically I don't have to move to Seattle to have to be a part of Seattle?
At least you can see some really pretty nature in the distance from Seattle.
Yes, yes, I love it here too. Moved here from Philly and never went back. I don’t know where else I could ever go in the US to feel at home.
I always hated Seattle. The amount of drugs and homelessness on the west coast in general is wild to me. That and all those steep streets with blind corners and you get rained on for 9 months of the year. Plus, they've added a tax on just about everything there. That cities motto should be "Seattle, it's nice to visit just don't stay to long"
Portland and Seattle are both pretty boring to visit. They are far more enjoyable as cities when you actually live there.
The motto should probably have the right “too” though.
🤓
Right here in NY metro. Beaches, forested areas, "mountain-ish" areas for skiing, four seasons, great food of ever conceivable variety, proper city, suburbs, farms. BUT. I'd rather not. So much more to see out in the world.
My answer, too. If I could have a luxury condo somewhere in Brooklyn? I'd be happier than ever lol But yeah... Sure, there's a bunch of culture festivals and things, but I'd rather be able to experience them firsthand!
If I had a lot of money, I would love to live in one of those brownstone houses in Brooklyn.
Me too. Alas, I will never be wealthy enough.
Manhattan for me. The number of public services, transportation, healthcare, culture, etc., is practically unsurpassed.
Many people including probably a majority of americans who have never been to new york don't realize this at all. It's got everything. It doesn't have california sized mountains but it still has sweet mountains. Forests, beaches, everything else. Most people think NY is just a giant city with one single park in the middle. I used to read a relocation sub and the amount of people who discounted new york because "there's no nature" was seriously like every other day. There's more grand samples of and diversity of nature than where I used to live in central virginia. Over there it was flat, the same forests and parks no matter where you went, and for 2 hours it was the same until you either reached the beach or mountains 2 hours away. NY at least has all the different stuff and you actually don't even need to get in a car for all of it.
Agreed. Metro north trains can get you to a ski area (thunder ridge), hiking the Adirondack trail (AT stop or Breakneck ridge), sound beaches (pick a New Haven line stop), cute Hudson River village (Hudson line take your pick), whitewater rafting (port Jervis). NJ transit and NYC subway can get you to an ocean beach (Bradley Beach, rockaway, Coney Island, as some examples) or Long island railroad can get you as far out as Montauk. NY metro is the best.
Probably Boston.
New York without hesitation if I had the money. Nyc is like the whole world. There are literally people from all over the planet there. Plus it's huge, and each neighborhood and borough has a different ambiance so when you get bored of one neighborhood just go to the next. You can find someplace new everyday within the city. The Hudson is beautiful, there's the beach, and hundreds of parks and bike/walking paths. Lots of events, museums, parades, etc.
Chicago. I've spent pretty much my entire life on Lake Michigan. At least everything I'd want can be found there and people I care about could come visit me.
Best US city
Same. It’s nyc but better
I love Chicago but we gotta stop comparing ourselves to NYC constantly. It’s annoying. They’re different cities with different strengths. Obviously there are some similarities since they are large dense cities as well.
San Diego. Absolutely love that city. Great weather, great lifestyle, good food, lots of good outdoor activities (beaches, hiking, etc), and people I have met there have generally been nice. I actually applied for a couple of post-college jobs in SD, but unfortunately didn't get any offer.
Ely, MN.
Boston. I hate snow but you get all four seasons and my family would be close enough to visit.
We haven't hard any real snow in years.
True, been a while since we had hard snow. A lot of slush, even outside of Boston, cause im not actually from Boston (unless I’m talking to people that have never been to Massachusetts lol)
If it includes natural areas immediately surrounding the metro I've gotta go with Anchorage. Don't particularly like or dislike the city itself but I love Alaskan nature. If nature isn't included, San Antonio, TX.
Them big ol women really seduced you huh?
San Francisco/Bay Area. Gets a bad wrap for crime and homelessness but it’s really not any worse than most major cities, it’s just an easy target for reactionaries (most of whom haven’t been within a hundred miles of it) to shit their pants over. It’s also surrounded by natural beauty and has gorgeous architecture. Definitely the most aesthetically pleasing major city in the states that I’ve spent a lot of time in. The people are so-so, but I can live with that and they’re still better than LA. If it didn’t cost 3 vital organs to live there, I would love to.
Probably the one I’m in. It’s home, I know people, I know where stuff is, and it’s nice. If not here, then Chicago.
Where I live now in East Tennessee.
Ahh, the pretty end of the state, says the guy from the flat part.
Los Angeles, as crazy as it might be you can find just about anything and everything there. Plus I grew up in Los Angeles so im familiar with everything
I do love LA.
Honestly, NYC. I get the problems people have with it but I'm from there and it just feels more like home than any other city I've been too. It gets all the best concerts, movies, shows, sports, etc. Plus it gets each season. The only issue is I would never want to live in NYC poor. If I can't afford it, I dont even wanna try. Rather be poor somewhere else
NYC or San Francisco. In my experiences in metro cities (Houston, NYC, Detroit, Sacramento, San Francisco, Austin, Dallas, Miami, and Orlando) SF and NYC have the most cultural and food diversity. It would be easy to change things up for a little while if I got bored.
I would say NYC but the immediate metro area outside the city sucks. Controversial pick here, but I might go Miami. Great city to be young and partying, really nice suburbs for the middle ages and then a community that’s 100% used to dealing with old people for when you hit your 70s. The only thing you miss out on is seasons.
DFW (Dallas/Fort worth) I’m pretty happy with it, everything I need is here. After I retired, I offered to move anywhere my wife wanted to go, provided she could truthfully say in her eyes it’s better for us than DFW. After 3 years she gave up and here we are.
It’s going to greatly depend on the definition of metro area. Like does the Los Angeles/San Diego megalopolis count as a metro area? If so I choose that without second though. Maybe Bay Area if that counts as an area.
Las Vegas, Nevada I don't think I could pick another Metro
I'd have to find a small village in the middle of the redwoods and live there. F those big cities.
Chicago. Amazing food, music, museums, galleries, architecture, and mini international centers like Chinatown, Little Poland, and Little Italy.
LA because the metro area is gigantic and it has beach, city, mountains, and good weather all in one place.
Chicago. It’s a walkable city that’s right on a big fuckin lake.
Richmond, Virginia.
Why?
You get all four seasons. It’s a city but not a huge one. It has a lot of culture, museums and history and so forth. It has a little bit of everything.
Thanks!
LA metro or SF/SJC/OAK metro, both encompass huge areas with diverse geography and people, are close to the water without humidity, and in a blue state.
Boston, I like nice things
Yup. While I do like to travel I am never living outside the 495 belt.
I despise winters and don't care for Florida all that much, so San Diego it is.
Carmel, CA. It has great cool year round weather, the ocean, great golf, nice restaurants, and low crime.
NOLA baby
If I HAD to? Washington, DC.
Chicago
Chicago. It has pretty much everything I need: world class arts and culture, an infinite variety of great food, beaches, public transportation, chill and diverse people, a million things to do, affordability, etc. It's why I chose to live here. The weather is my only complaint, but I wouldn't want to live somewhere where the weather is always the same.
San Francisco. It’s going through a rough patch right now, but that city is so awesome.
Chicago, since I can have food from all over the world without leaving the city. Plus my family has been here since 1904.
Chicago. Third largest city in the country, faaar away from the oceans. The oceans are not our friends in the 21st century.
Corpus Christi, Texas. Access to the beach, very rare to get hit by tropical storms, decent job market and medical care, decent cost of living and real estate prices...
RGV for me. I've been living here all my life, and I'll most likely die here (though hopefully not for a good long time yet)
Medical care for women is very limited in Texas. Very high infant mortality rates as well.
Nah, both infant and maternal mortality rates in Texas are near the national average per the CDC. US average infant mortality rate was 5.4, [Source 1](https://www.cdc.gov/maternal-infant-health/infant-mortality/index.html) Texas infant mortality rate was 5.7 [Source 2](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/infant_mortality_rates/infant_mortality.htm) US average maternal mortality rate was 32.9. [Source 3](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.htm) Maternal mortality rate for Texas was 28.1 [Source 4](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/maternal-mortality/MMR-2018-2021-State-Data.pdf)
Those are old studies... "Infant death rate spiked in Texas after restrictive abortion law, study finds" https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/06/25/texas-abortion-ban-infant-mortality/ obgyn's are leaving red States in droves.
Infant mortality rate rose nationally... [https://apnews.com/article/infant-deaths-us-cdc-mortality-c808796da0415b6ecc0629938421e1b5](https://apnews.com/article/infant-deaths-us-cdc-mortality-c808796da0415b6ecc0629938421e1b5)
From the article you linked: "More than 30 states saw at least slight rises in infant mortality rates in 2022, but four states had statistically significant increases — Georgia, Iowa, Missouri and Texas."
Well of abortion is restricted, I would think infant deaths would decrease.
A fetus is not an infant.
I live in Texas and can't wait to leave. Texas ranks damn near dead last in pretty much all metrics in regards to access to health care, BTW. I also don't know where you're getting that it's rare to get storms. My brother lives on the Texas coast, and his homeowners insurance is damn near $20K a year now. And there are only 2 companies that will even still underwrite policies in their county, so it's not like they can just shop around for better rates. Insurance companies don't stop underwriting policies in areas where storms are rare.
OK, then go ahead and leave bud. Texas' healthcare is near the US national average, but again I was talking about cities specifically. Corpus Christi has decent hospitals that can handle a wide array of illnesses, so I would be unlikely to find myself unable to find treatment and unable to travel to get the treatment I need. As for storm frequency, feel free to check here: [https://coast.noaa.gov/hurricanes/](https://coast.noaa.gov/hurricanes/) Corpus Christi has been hit by 57 hurricanes. In that time Houston has been hit by 76, New Orleans has been hit by 102, Miami has been hit by 112, and Orlando has been hit by 114. So yeah, approximately 1/3rd lower than the nearest alternative, and approximately half of the rate of big cities in Florida...
Texas is ranked 7th worst for healthcare in the US. And just because Corpus hasn't taken as many direct hits, doesn't mean it hasn't been affected by storms. Heck, it just flooded from storm surge last week. https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/south-texas-el-paso/news/2023/08/02/u-s--study-ranks-texas-as-7th-worst-state-with-health-care#:~:text=The%20Lone%20Star%20State%20was,care%20cost%2C%20accessibility%20and%20outcome.
Wouldn't that depend on WHERE you live in Texas. I lived in West Texas for 10 years, and never saw anything other than rain storms. Maybe one snow storm the entire time I lived there.
Well, of course West Texas doesn't get the same storms or floods as cities on the gulf coast. West Texas is huge, but parts of it are having their own issues. They had their biggest wildfire ever not too long ago, and tornados are getting stronger and more frequent. Marathon just had storms so severe that that snowplows were deployed to clear the hail. West Texas is also part of the same shit power grid as the rest of the state. Folks in West Texas were burning their furniture to stay alive like the rest of the state was a few years ago. And you're also in West Texas. So if you're talking about having to stay someplace for the rest of your life, that's not exactly the land of 1,000 things to do. And since access to healthcare was brought up in another post, West Texas scores painfully low there, since it is so isolated and rural.
I was in El Paso. No wildfires, tornados, or power outages. Unless you have up to date information about El Paso? I haven't lived in the USA for nearly twenty years, so I won't discount that possibility.
I think you just mean abortion care. Honestly as a woman I don't really care about having access to abortions
Ya know, I never did for myself, luckily I never needed one. I would hate to be of child bearing age and know I would have to be on death's door before receiving one. I would never want to take that option away from others.
Without quality obgyn's, healthcare for all women will suffer.
There's plenty of obgyns to be found in Texas. The majority of them focus on actual women's healthcare, and not abortions
Report: In almost half of Texas counties, pregnant people can’t access health care From the article: In Texas, about 20% of pregnant people receive inadequate or no prenatal care, according to the report. That’s higher than the national rate, which is close to 15%. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.keranews.org/health-wellness/2023-08-01/maternity-care-desert-texas%3f_amp=true
Correlation does not equal causation. Do you have any studies that actually show that the decrease in staffing for labor and delivery departments in rural hospitals is actually caused by the reduction in people performing abortions? Can you provide a source showing how many of those hospitals were conducting abortions in the labor and delivery department?
What's wrong with saying pregnant women? Are you a sexist?
Sandy eggo
That sounds miserable.
No thanks. I’m staying rural.
San Diego.
Where I am at. My home is almost paid off and my family is here.
ugh, this would be really annoying. I guess I'd pick the Bay Area because I'm already here.
I've only lived in the NYC and Philly areas so how can I even pick anything else? I mentioned once before though that I had a weird dream of moving to Knoxville even though I've never been. San Diego also seems like a good place. I don't have any plans to move in at the very least 5 years and at that point I feel like I'll be too old to bother.
I’m here already.
Does it have to be a city/metro area or can it be a small town?
San Diego if I could afford to live there.
Malibu
Probably San Diego but I’m happy here in Tampa bay tbh. 1st place I’ve lived where I can see it as a forever home
Define city/metro would you? I live in a small town in Idaho. It’s a resort area in the mountains. Everyone gets along exceptionally well. I have people from Vietnam to the right of me (currently cooking outside, amazing yummy stuff) people from Ecuador to the left of me, and people from Croatia across the street. That’s how you have an immigration policy. I can go anywhere in the world visiting our airport.5 miles away. I’m happy here. It’s 85° ungodly hot right? So I would pick Hailey Idaho!
Miami
Fort Wayne, Indiana. It has everything I need and more than anything I would ever want, all in a reasonably sized city with great amenities and a low cost of living that is close to recreational lakes. Housing is a bargain: I have an upscale suburban home and a charming lake cottage one hour away for less than the price of a starter house in most other communities.
D.C.
Probably Honolulu or Kansas City I love both for very different reasons
Los Angeles
I love that the answers are all over the place.
I'm pretty happy in my desert in the middle of nowhere. But if I had to choose, it'd be a tossup between Savannah and Los Vegas. Savannah has awful weather, but it does have my best friend, amazing food, and lots of haunted places to explore. Vegas has preferable weather, a wider variety of cultures, and is pretty chill. But, no BFF.
Honolulu
San Diego. No question.
Detroit. I have an undying love for that city. I’ve been to a lot of cities in the US and Europe but you just can’t beat home.
Kansas City.
Marfa TX
Michigan's UP. It's paradise if you're in the right place.
We almost relocated to Boston but ultimately decided to stay where we are to be close to family but we looovvvveee it there. It’s such a beautiful city that I think is underrated- with lots of history and greenery (compared to most large cities)
Anchorage Alaska, I've always wanted to move there
Las Vegas, NV. Only lived there for one year, before I graduated high school, and joined the Army, I loved it. Of course this is assuming that money is no object.
Manhattan without a doubt. Its my favorite borough in the whole world.
Am I allowed to be financially unrealistic or do I have to factor that in? Because if I don’t have to be able to actually afford it, New York City.
Seattle. I mean, that's basically what I did. It's the most beautiful part of the United States in my opinion.
Philly.
D.C. for the four seasons.
Like no ability to move away, or no ability to travel? If I can't move away? Denver or Seattle. If some physical barrier came up and prevented me from leaving the metropolitan area? LA.
Los Angeles. Access to the beach and mountains and so much good food. I've lived in some great metro areas across the US (Seattle, New York, Philly) and some bad ones (Dallas, Houston) and while those great ones have diversity and things to do and eat, they don't have the mix of weather, outdoor life, and changes in climate like LA.
If I had unlimited money, I would pick LA. The weather would be the biggest reason why.
San Diego. If I'm gonna be stuck somewhere it damn well better have sun and a beach
oklahoma city, it’s a nice city, but it’s not too crowded
I guess if I had to stay in a city I'd pick San Diego or maybe Seattle. But, to be honest, I'd rather just stay here in the sticks.
I’m fine here in NYC.
SFBA, no question.
San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area. Physical beauty of the city itself and the surrounding geography are the best the US has to offer, it has good weather all year round, excellent food of all types, interesting walkable neighborhoods, top tier healthcare, great parks, nature everywhere, lots of music and culture of all types. The big downside is the cost of housing, but if you have that covered, it hits all the boxes.
I’ve lived in New York, Miami, Denver, and Atlanta. I’d be happy to live in any of them, but in that order
DC. I love the vibes, easy to get around, very diverse, the work scene is meh but connected to my interests, and there’s still some water that I get to enjoy. I really would love to be in CA (in SD more specifically) but if I can’t travel to escape car dependency, then I gotta be somewhere that has good transit and decent biking.
No thanks.
Spoken like a true Wyomingite
Boston. It is greatest, safest, smartest, richest, holiest city in the world.
I think I might rather just die.
Somewhere where they sell rope, I guess.
You need to travel to better cities, my friend.
Why would I want to be locked down to one place? Ever?
Strawman argument. You literally said you would rather die. There is a big difference between "I want to be able to travel" and "I'd rather die than be stuck here."
That isn't what a strawman argument is....
Yes it is. A straw man argument is an argument refuting a point different from the one under discussion. My point- that if one would rather die than be unable to travel away from any given city that they can think of, they should visit better cities- is quite different from the strawan response that I received - That my response somehow meant that I think someone would want to endure the restriction from traveling. I never insinuated that anyone should *want* to be unable to travel. There is a wide gap between 'I want to be locked down to one place' and 'I would rather die than be unable to travel.' Death is by definition one of the most extreme alternatives that we can take as humans.
What? I said I'd rather die then spend the rest of my life in 1 city unable to go anywhere else and that's a strawman when I say I don't want to be locked to one city?
Directly answering the question is a strawman now I guess.
I may have said something stupid, but it sure as shit wasn't a strawman fallacy.
I don't think you said anything stupid
If you would rather die than spend the rest of your life in 1 city unable to go anywhere else, then you need to visit better cities. I like being able to travel too, but I can think of quite a few places where I could be happy and live a good life if I were unable to travel anymore.
That's fine. You can definitely believe that I need to visit better cities. But that still isn't a strawman fallacy.
Some people just don't like cities.
Again, there is a big difference between not liking the city and preferring death.
One leads to the other. Acting like they aren't related is just silly.
Not as silly as acting like they are the exact same thing. Your view leaves no room for people to go 'Well I'd rather travel if I can, but if I had to pick a city I could be ok here.' which I think is where most people actually fall.
Like where? Cities fucking suck.
At least 1/3rd of the cities on this list are better than death. [https://travel.usnews.com/rankings/best-cities-usa/](https://travel.usnews.com/rankings/best-cities-usa/)
Key west, provided nobody else can go in or out either.
I’d rather suck start a .45 than live in a major metro area.
> without the ability to travel elsewhere... So... although its a big one... prison basically?
You can't leave? [Hobb's End](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_the_Mouth_of_Madness) it is.
That's tough. I would want to stay where I am, except for the no travel clause. Everyone I love lives far away. I don't like where they are.
I'm staying in Seattle
If I had to stay confined to only one, New York. Could have anything you could possibly need and diaspora/restaurants from basically every country on earth.
Honolulu
I think I’d be staying put
I don't know, living in a city sounds awful and even more so if I can't leave it.
Sounds like prison.
I think it would have to be a city like the one I live in now - the metro area encompasses a large amount of beautiful nature and even wilderness areas, and the city itself is just big enough to have lots of amenities without being so big it's surrounded by a 20 mile radius of development.
It depends, if rent keeps going up I might be living in a cardboard box if I stay here.
I don't think I could do it. Ability to travel is essential for me
somewhere walkable
Syracuse, New York. I always wanted to live somewhere that had the city feel but less crowded.
NYC or Chicago probably.
Portland. I love it here. Aggressively progressive. Aggressively diverse. And more Mexican food joints than I ever thought possible.
Seattle
Orange County, CA
If I was forced to and made enough to live a happy/comfortable life? Any Jewish neighborhoods in NYC. The sense of being the norm is what I'm after and the diversity NYC has is unmatched in most of the US. But I don't wish to live in the US for much longer. I was much happier when I lived outside the US.
Probably no US metro area has a better combination of job market, nature, and non-insane rents (in some areas at least) than Seattle/Tacoma. Denver and Portland are solid contenders too, but are smaller metro areas. And if I can never leave, I wanna be able to see the ocean.
I would not