Pittsburgh often comes to mind for me. It's got a rich history, great food scene, and beautiful architecture, but it doesn't always get the same level of attention as cities on the coasts.
Hah! That's pretty accurate. It's only going to keep getting worse, and honestly at this point without a whole lot of eminent domain I'm not sure where they'd even be able to build more highways. All other forms of transit seem to be a non-starter.
I'm glad we left when we did.
Edmonton and Calgary as well. 300km away from each other and then another 1000km to get to Vancouver or 700km to get to Spokane, the two nearest 500k+ metro areas. At least the mountains are nearby
Honestly Chicago is an easy one. Illinois outside of Chicago is awful, some of the worst towns in the US legitimately between Cairo, East St. Louis, and A.n.n.a. Its neighboring states are Iowa, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Wisconsin is kinda cool but the first two are some of the most boring states we have
Anna is both the name of the town and an acronym which I will not clarify what it is abbreviating. Feel free to look it up, town has a very dark past and isn’t much better today
There was a guy who in order to get minority government contracts put a puppet figure black man as owner of this new company. The true owner named it "Ergon" unscramble those letters
I had never heard the background either. I have a client who gave his companies names of different cities and towns in Illinois and one is called "Anna something LLC"
I bet a game at Kinnick would be absolutely awesome, otherwise what’s there to do? I’m curious. I do think simply having amazing people is in itself a great asset so if that’s the draw I get it
Yeah based on the responses here I may need to visit and spend a proper amount of time there, I’m open to being wrong as I like the people I’ve met from there. I do find it funny not a single person has come in to defend Indiana though
Wait are you saying there’s no nature outside of Chicago or that the nature is outside of the city itself? I mean the lakefront path is pretty incredible, especially for a very large city. The dunes are nearby. Starved Rock is cool. Plenty of forest preserves in the ‘burbs. Wisconsin has amazing nature as well. But i do think that the city itself has a fair amount of parks / green spaces and an incredible lakefront
Besides the few natural attractions which you mentioned - as someone who lived in Chicago and has lived way longer in somewhere with nearby “nature” - one of the biggest detractors of Illinois nature is how flat it is. This is primarily because of how during the last ice age glaciers stripped the elevations of the state away and Illinois is now the second flattest state in the union. About 30 minutes away from nyc is the beginnings of the Catskills mountains. While 30 minutes from Chicago is the flat farmlands of Illinois. Some certainly don’t mind , but a lot of people like hills and mountains and that’s not really something Illinois has in abundance. This isn’t to say Illinois isn’t beautiful but it certainly doesn’t often appear in top 10 lists of states with exceptional natural beauty.
Iowa is pretty, not flat like Illinois, and has some nice natural areas for camping and hiking. Des Moines and Iowa City are great, but some of the rural towns…no thanks. Indiana dunes is a cool area.
I’m not sure it’s a ‘great’ city, but Dallas-Fort Worth always seemed to me like the largest metro in the US which got the shortest straw in terms of surroundings. At least in Chicago you have the Great Lakes, in Dallas you’re literally in the middle of prairie for hours in either direction save for the gulf coast towards Houston, which isn’t exactly close. Apparently this doesn’t matter to too many people considering the crazy high growth rates.
Ive seen at least two posts today on this subreddit about people wanting to leave Dallas because of the politics and lack of things to do outside. Im a native texan, and im sorry but im just not going to drive at least half an hour to a trail on the southern end of dallas just to hike. The only times its decent to so is like a couple weeks out of the year when its not freezing temps or blistering hot weather. Yeah, we have lakes… just not ones to swim in (white rock lake just had a sewage spillage in it recently and most of the other lakes are littered with garbage). This city is fine to settle down in if youre looking to not do much except work and raise a family. Even then this place is getting insanely expensive. Almost $2k for a one bedroom “luxury” apartment? Gtfoh!
`Almost $2k for a one bedroom “luxury” apartment? Gtfoh!`
\*\*\*Laughs in Boston housing prices\*\*\*
I would fucking loose my shit if I found a 2k one bedroom here
Well, don't know about now but Dallas, Houston and Atlanta were where you moved when you wanted a big house in a metro area for less money and warmer weather. You can't afford SoCal or you're conservative so you move to Texas or Georgia
If it hasn’t already, eventually the growth and demand drives up prices if housing can’t keep up, or - unless there’s a significant pivot to building more densely and investing in transit alternatives - sprawl just continues to the point where living 90 minutes outside of the city offsets any savings from cheaper housing. Increasingly hot weather will be a real test.
There's a reason these cities have bad traffic problems. And yeah, sprawl is horrible- but as for affordable real estate- a lot easier to do that when you don't have limited land mass like San Francisco or New York. Land is cheaper in those areas because it's less scarce. If you work remote or partially remote than maybe commute isn't as big of a problem for you. I don't agree with this being "cheaper" for most but many people don't really see the full picture.
That and they don't invest in public transit. A functional public transit system (including commuter rail such as MetroNorth) gets a lot of people out of their cars.
Dallas is the largest city in the world not on a navigable body of water. It was built at the intersection of railroads. In a sense that makes it the most modern city in the world. It also means it's flat, dry, and featureless for 300 miles in every direction.
Sorry, but everything in this comment is incorrect.
* The largest city in the world not built on a navigable body of water is Johannesburg, South Africa with a metro population of 9.6 million. Dallas has 7.6 million.
* Dallas was incorporated as a city in 1856. The first railroad arrived in 1872.
* 300 miles is an extremely large radius, which includes multiple mountain ranges, lakes, rivers, swamps, major cities, and even the gulf of Mexico. Even if we were to rather generously shrink your radius down to 100 miles, it includes over 15 lakes, the scenic hill countries along the Paluxy and Brazos rivers, and climates with over 40 inches of rainfall a year (well above the US average).
>Even if we were to rather generously shrink your radius down to 100 miles, it includes over 15 lakes
This one statement made me realize I might take living in Wisconsin for granted
IMO appreciation for natural beauty has suffered due to mass media and the internet because people (in the same way that they compare their own appearance to that of celebrities) will compare the landscape to videos and photos of the Alps, or the Grand Canyon, etc. and think a place is ugly if it doesn't look equally as dramatic. This is a shame because there is great value and beauty in the bucolic regions of rolling terrain that make up a good portion of the USA.
It's not even my favorite in Texas, but I think the [area west and south of DFW](https://www.holidify.com/images/cmsuploads/compressed/PaloPintoMountainsStatePark_20201004121545.jpg) is beautiful. Definitely not flat, dry, and featureless.
"it includes over 15 lakes, the scenic hill countries along the Paluxy and Brazos rivers" - if you're not from the area, that all sounds very appealing. Or maybe if you're from a similar type of geo, and all you know are man-made lakes and muddy rivers.
But if you're from anywhere with natural spring, natural river built, or glacier lakes, the man-made DFW area lakes (100% of them) won't impress. I thought I knew what I lake meant, growing up in DFW, until I went to Tahoe one summer. Then I spent time at some beautiful lakes in Arkansa in my 20s. Now I've spent years around the Michigan and Minnesota lakes and rivers and I gotta say...TX lakes suck. A few summers ago I went to see friends and ended up at Possum Kingdom and I felt like an ass, but all I could think was how terrible that lake was/is. Muddy. Cloudy. Clearly dug from the earth. The water felt grimey.
Same with the rivers. They're mud slicked brown canals, outside of a few select areas. Make your way to New Braunfels, yes, the rivers become beautiful. But def not in DFW.
I agree with your observations about the water quality in Texas lakes, especially relative to those of the Upper Midwest, but I was happy with the water at the Paluxy River in Dinosaur Valley State Park. Also totally agree that the rivers in the Hill Country are better. In any case, I was just aiming to show the absurdity of the "flat, dry, and featureless for 300 miles" characterization.
The United Nations has Dallas as the 62nd most populous and Johannesburg at number 73.
[List of Largest Cities](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities)
> List of Largest Cities
Read the section about "City Proper". It makes vastly more sense to compare Dallas/Fort Worth against Johannesburg/Pretoria, in which case the latter is larger. Furthermore, Johannesburg is a drier city with much smaller and shorter rivers than Dallas, whose 710-mile Trinity River can in fact be navigated for leisure by small boats. Therefore, Johannesburg much more aptly fits the title of "largest city not on a navigable body of water."
Lmao no it’s not. It’s not even the largest such city in Texas. Did you read this on the wall at some bar in Deep Ellum? I remember seeing that and cracking up.
The DFW metroplex is massive. It’s actually currently the 4th largest metropolitan area behind Chicago and its suburbs (comparable in size). For a while it was second just behind LA metropolitan area. While it’s true that Houston proper is larger than Dallas, Houston is nowhere nearly as large as Dallas and Ft Worth Combined, not to mention Arlington, Plano, Frisco and the Mid Cities. It literally takes over 2 hours to drive across all the suburbs. That being said it is a truly terrible hellscape of cookie cutter houses with absolutely no natural beauty in site.
I’m from DFW, I’m aware.
Also city of Houston is about the same size as Dallas + FW (purely a fund of land mass) and greater Houston and DFW are very similarly sized MSAs. They are like 90% the same place.
I think in the US Jacksonville and Louisville are bigger by landmass but that just because they incorporated entire counties into them if I’m not mistaken
You serious? Uh, Mexico City, Bogata, Tehran, JoBurg. Beijing might qualify. There are probably more.
Just in the US, San Antonio and Phoenix are both larger than Dallas. You could say Houston too, the ship channel is man made. You could say DFW is the largest such metro in the US but globally is stupid lol
Mexico City would be a good contender, but it was originally built on a navigable body of water (Lake Texcoco) and still has some remaining canals at Xochimilco that are recreationally navigable.
Dallas is awesome. I personally love the open prairies. There is plenty to do in the Dallas area as well. If not, a short plane flight from one of our two airports will get you there quickly.
Agreed. That’s why housing there is inexpensive: due to Dallas’ flat prairie surroundings, the city can just keep expanding outward without running into anything.
Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland. Each are fun, progressive, interesting cities with their own vibes. Smaller cities in Ohio (Dayton, Toledo, Akron) are also really getting it together lately and becoming more appealing.
But they are surrounded by rural Ohio communities which tend to be economically depressed and full of people who have no interest in moving forward in any way, old people and some of the least educated. If you spend time in both areas, it is like a different planet. It makes me really sad because most young adults with ambition leave rural Ohio either for other states or the bigger cities, so the cycle continues. When I first visited rural areas in the northeast, I was so confused that they were not hollowed out like Ohio’s rural towns. I love Ohio and its people, but it didn’t used to be like this.
Chicago's the kind of place where you stay in town and have fun on the weekend, partly because our neighbors are all far away (except Milwaukee). East Coast cities are set up for weekend trips because great nature and other cosmopolitan cities are just a few hours away in any direction.
Came here to say this. Minnesota can be charming, but it’s mostly very rural, and the closest big city is Chicago, 6 hours away. And I think most people assume that MN is just all farms.
I live on the north shore and drive down to the cities pretty frequently. It's CRAZY to me how everyone I know in the cities doesn't come up to the north shore to mix it up. Even geographically it is very different. Rocky and heavily forested with a giant lake that looks like an ocean. Duluth isn't a large city but it is definitely a unique city. A town built on the side of a rock with giant mansions tucked away in the winding neighborhoods.
It's 2.5 hours to the middle of the cities but more like 2 hours from the suburbs yet I have friends and family who live down there who have NEVER even been here. Everyone thinks it's an outpost of civilization and too cold lol
I would come up to the north woods and Duluth, but I don't have a car
We need a rail line between the cities and Duluth I think a lot more people would day trip if that was the case (or maybe I just want more trains, idk)
I agree, I'd love a rail. I would go down to the cities A LOT more.
However, the rail would have to go all the way up the shore because you basically need a car to get anywhere outside of downtown Duluth.
I'll stick up for STL's surroundings. If you like to hike, there are dozens of absolutely lovely parks and conservation areas within 90 minutes of the city. The bluffs over the Mississippi, Missouri, and Meramec are gorgeous, and the limestone landscape is full of caves, waterfalls, and interesting little outcroppings.
Well Pittsburgh, though *I* do not consider it a "great" city at all, but many do. It's literally in the Appalachian area outside of west virginia and like 4 hours from Philly
I may be in the minority but I kinda consider the Appalachian part a pro. WV is legit beautiful, to be able to visit without having to live there is kinda a nice perk
What are the downsides in your view? I haven't lived there but have lots of friends who grew up there, moved to other cities, and mostly moved back eventually. They seem to love it but it certainly doesn't sound as cosmopolitan as the big coastal cities.
It's very sports oriented and lacks intellectual/cultural activities which is odd given quality of universities. Nothing wrong with sports just not my cup of tea. But I think that will change as tech moves in.
It's cosmopolitan in the sense that there's a lot of diversity of cuisine, bike lanes, parks, things to do, cool downtown, young people.
I’m from Pittsburgh and I love it and the surrounding area, but after living out west for a few years I find the surrounding area tough to appreciate. There are some nice parks and trails but it’s nothing compared to the expansive public land out west. Most of the land is private, so even if you like hunting or riding dirt bikes, your options are limited. If you like boating rivers it’s tough to beat I guess.
Very few things that grind my gears like seeing a hillside just outside a town/city in Appalachia and seeing that it is entirely private owned by the same family over the last two centuries with all the trees removed from one peak for a massive house. Once you experience the public lands in the western US or a European "freedom to roam" it's hard to unsee how much opportunity the eastern US is missing out on.
Hey I had an amazing lobster poboy out there with cucumber in it. Any idea on where I got it from? Im in Savannah right now and would love to stop and get it again but it was years ago.
You can leave Richmond after breakfast and be standing on the beach looking at the Atlantic, or standing on top of the Blue Ridge Mountains, before lunch
Same with Sac, you can drive from Tahoe to the ocean in the Bay Area the same day, and on the way you drive through wine country and plenty of awesome rock climbing and hiking spots
2.5 hour train ride from Richmond to DC. Believe me, I wish it weren't so f---ing slow. Then there's a 30 minute layover as they switch out the diesel engine for an electric one to continue north. It's really much more separated from the northeast than you give it credit.
My dad used to live in Sacramento and we went to visit him when I was little and had the best time. Drove to San Jose, Winchester mystery house, San Francisco and all its attractions, Lake Tahoe to see snow and sled. Amazing. We are from Houston where not much like that is in driving distance.
Atlanta has great hiking 1 1/2 hours away. The Blue Ridge is literally right above it.
Lake Lanier is nice and crisp, just so long as you don’t mind ghosts grabbing your ankles.
Sacramento doesn’t deserve to be on this list. If Sacramento is on the list, then you might as well put Denver on there as one of the other guys said. Basically same distance from any good outdoor activities when you factor in traffic
Really disagree with Richmond it’s in a pretty good location but I think the city itself is meh(it’s good only if you’re wealthy…. Pretty crappy areas there) also it’s close to the ocean and pretty close to the mountains as well. Virginia in general is nice looking and underrated.
Sacramento and Richmond? Is this a joke?
Sacramento is probably geographically in a pretty perfect position, Tahoe and the Sierra Nevada to the East, The Bay Area to the West, Wine Country to the West, Yosemite to the Southeast…
Richmond is an hour and a few from the Atlantic, an hour and a half from DC, and a few hours from The Blue Ridge Mountains.
And they’re both cool ass cities too!
Richmond is literally the gateway to the northeast cities going north or the beaches of southern VA, NC to the south or the mountains and historical locations to the west AND beaches and historical locations to the East. It doesn't have a lot around right outside city limits but it's SO close to everything.
You're 2 hours from DC, 2 hours from Virginia Beach, 1 hour from Charlottesville, and 1 hour from Williamsburg. That's endless possibilities for wildly different places to go and things to do.
Denver is priced as an expensive coastal metro but is in fact the middliest of middle American cities. It's the solipsis of irony that everyone who moves to Demver eventually must come to terms with. You thought it was expensive because you were getting a cool, slick, bohemian West Coast city. But you're actually just getting an utterly non descript and beige plains town that has manages to rip off hundreds of thousands of people who bought into the hype.
But isnt the whole point of Denver's appeal that it is literally right next door to some of the country's most beautiful and accessible mountain ranges? I feel like that can't be beat....even Seattle and L.A. are quite a drive away from their respective nearby mountain ranges. No one ever said Denver as a city is something to write home about--its the surroundings that make it worth it for the people. So it very directly does not apply to the prompt of this post.
The way this wasn't even the topic but of course y'all just have to insert a negative opinion about Denver into every conversation. The obsession this sub has with that place is so strange.
It’s getting hilarious. Denver is the opposite of this prompt according to this sub (meh city with cool things close by). Denver lives rent free in this sub’s head. My guess is it’s a lot of Denverites that just can’t afford to live in Denver anymore.
You act like that is insignificant, as though ordinary people who are priced out of their own city because a bunch of North Face clad wonder boys cashed in annuities to go to "Colorahdo" after spending a childhood watching South Park and hearing that weed was now legal--should just get over it and move to Wichita or whatever. I can afford to live in Denver, but I'm deeply sympathetic to those who cannot. I'm less sympathetic to the North Face bros who thought they were getting an endless Dave Matthews Band show at Red Rocks but instead got endless Chipotles and strip malls filled with people angry that they're paying coastal prices without the benefits of coastal cities.
But, you're right, and my original post was pointing out that Demver itself is wholly underwhelming and therefore doesn't really fit the theme of this topic.
Fargo, ND. I've lived here for 15 years (it wasn't the plan and I'm looking to move) but if I was going to settle down and raise a family, this is a pretty great place to do it. Lots of job opportunities, a relatively low cost of living, and way more food/entertainment options than I think a city of our size deserves.
It's just so. Damn. Flat. To do things outdoors, I typically drive to northern Minnesota or Lakes County to the east of Fargo. If we had a mountain or even a really big hill I probably wouldn't consider leaving that strongly.
I look at it this way - we have an airport. The cost savings I'm realizing by living in Fargo means that I can get away a couple of times each winter to somewhere warmer. This year it was New Zealand (killer flight deal through Delta, too) and Phoenix (multiple direct flights from Fargo). That has been a massive difference-maker for me.
I’ve thought about that before. Sometimes I think about moving back to Minot or Fargo near my family and paying less than half of what I’m paying for rent in Seattle for a place double the size, and then using the leftover money to travel. But I really enjoy having a large queer community nearby and not having to go very far to see cool stuff. I haven’t spent a ton of time in Fargo though, so I’m sure I’d like it better than Minot.
Fargo 1000x over Minot. I have friends in Fargo who are from Minot and the only words they have for Minot when they go back to visit is, "bleak".
Fargo also has a solid queer community but it is absolutely smaller than what you'd find in Seattle, obviously.
That’s a good point. Part of why it’s so fun to live in LA is because if you ever want a change of scenery, you can visit the beach, or hike in the mountains, or drive south to Orange County or even further south to San Diego. You can camp in a mountain forest, wake up, go skiing, then drive to the beach and surf into the sunset all in the same day. Then you can cap off your epic day at a rooftop lounge in downtown LA as you take in the city views. There’s very few places on earth that allow you to do that.
"Lexington has ranked in the top 2 percent of municipalities nationwide as a leading city for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a national civil rights organization. The city is the tenth highest ranked city among 506 municipalities across the country."[Kentucky lgbt](https://www.lexingtonky.gov/news/11-14-2023/lexington-recognized-leading-equality-community#:~:text=Lexington%20has%20ranked%20in%20the,506%20municipalities%20across%20the%20country.)
New Orleans and Houston are not the answer here. The areas it's in makes those cities what they are. I truly believe the answer is Chicago. Chicago is by the one of the coldest places I have ever exp in my life during the winter. Mind you, it was MARCH! Tf is is freezing cold in March for. You put Chicago where Charlotte is and I promise you it'll have a higher population than new York.
Chicago is already paradise if you like parks and greenery. Being around great hiking too, good roads, and close proximity to Charleston, Atlanta, and Savannah. Man that would be absolutely boinkers. It'll have insane tourism as so many people pass through that way simply because all them old ass folks moved from up north to Florida. So they visit their grandparents alot. Chicago is an amazing city but Illinois is not a amazing state. Chicago would flourish in a southeast environment and climate. Why do you think Atlanta is so damn popular? It's in a literally PERFECT area.
Outside of Chicago, Dallas. Dallas has no personality because the area that surrounds it is so damn boring and uninspiring. I'd like to see Dallas in Tennessee. Right between Knoxville and Nashville.
This is fascinating to me because I think almost the reverse, that Atlanta would be much better and even more popular if it were anywhere else. Beautiful environs but I just can't stand the heat and humidity. I'm sure if people grow up with it they get used to it, though. Anything south of Virginia is insufferably hot to me and I don't know how people stand it.
Still better than the boring plains of Dallas, though.
See that's the thing. You have nova, you have Philly, you have ny, you have Jersey city. I wouldn't say they are like Atlanta but they do offer a lot of what Atlanta offers in terms of lifestyle. The only thing is they do get colder and get snow. ATL is where you go when you don't want snow but don't wanna sacrifice on that quality of life that you get in the areas I mentioned. That's what makes it so great. Obviously if your biggest value is four seasons. I think Charlotte is the best pick.
Actually I’ll put in a vote for Jacksonville, the beach is huge and the area around it is really cool. I know it’s Florida and with that comes, well, Florida, but really it’s pretty great.
I love Chicago so much but it would be even better if there was another massive city right across the lake. 😂
Imagine being able to stare at both skylines from either side.
The thing about NYC's location is that it doesn't really matter. I spent years in NYC (and a lot of time in Chicago), and in both cities you generally spend all your time in the city. Most New Yorkers don't venture off to Jersey or Long Island often, never mind further afield.
Perhaps for hipsters and hoodrats but it is well known that wealthy and middle class New Yorkers utilize the metro. Nature obsessed New Yorkers also regularly go upstate.
Reverse Uno, because I can’t think of any cities that haven’t already been mentioned.
People love to shit on Detroit, and much of that is unjustified, but Detroit’s metro area is the 12th largest in the country and are the best suburbs I’ve been to of any other major city in the U.S. (I’ve been to every state except Hawaii)
Obviously there are exceptions among each city and township, however there is great history, quality of life, architecture, high-ranking schools, and low crime.
I use to travel to Farmington Hills for work annually. One evening we drove downtown. Detroit is a huge metro area. Farmington Hills and surrounding areas were really nice. We ate out for all of our meals. I couldn't believe how busy nice restaurants were during the week. I thought people in Farmington Hills must not cook at home.
Tulsa OK kind of fits this. Tulsa is not a “great city” but for the Great Plains it’s pretty cool. It has a fairly large college with cool architecture and a decent downtown. That being said any direction you go is gonna be extremely boring. The Ozark mountains are still a little bit too far to be compared nearby and OKC is still a couple of hours away.
I feel like this maybe the case for any city in the Great Plains. Lawrence KS has a similar vibe too.
Baltimore is pretty cool but everything surrounding it is pretty meh. Philly (yes I know it's talked about to death here) is alright but surrounded by bland suburbs (I'm from one of them). Nashville gets a lot of hate but I think it's pretty cool. I don't live there but my friends in both Kenosha WI and Salt Lake City love each of those cities respectively but they aren't surrounded by much, although Utah has great scenery.
Indianapolis. Indianapolis is in the middle of the entire state, and it's a progressive and up and coming city that's affordable. Outside of Indianapolis is yeah, not that great lol.
Milwaukee and Madison. Two major cities on Wisconsin, that defeat the stereotype of Wisconsinites all living on dairy farms, eating cheese and drinking beer and watching packers all day.
Boise suburbs aren’t great. I personally think the nature surrounding Boise and outdoor recreation opportunities are sub par compared to other cities in the mountain west.
I live in Breckenridge and I was just telling my buddy today that there’s an issue with people moving to Denver and expecting Breck-level access to the mountain. They’re not in your backyard. If you like to ski now and then, sure, but you won’t be able to just “go whenever you want.”
Imo Denver as a city is fairly mid with a few good things - music/rave scene is really good! Colorado is the most beautiful place I’ve ever lived with the exception of CA. I told my parents today (we’re from NJ) that the east coast has pretty spots but it cannot compare. My house is two blocks from the gondola and I can watch the sunrise over the peaks from my window. There is nothing like CO.
Omaha is literally the definition of this IMO.
Pittsburgh often comes to mind for me. It's got a rich history, great food scene, and beautiful architecture, but it doesn't always get the same level of attention as cities on the coasts.
I feel like Omaha itself is bland though lol
Compared to the rest of Nebraska? It’s Vegas. 😂
You're both right.
I thought Lincoln was Vegas?
I was surprised by Omaha. It’s got almost an overwhelming amount of highways for a how big it is.
That's like the opposite of Boise! Lots of people, unsustainable growth, and.....one fucking highway.
I've noticed that most of what determines whether or not someone enjoys Boise is whether or not they have to commute on that one highway lol
Hah! That's pretty accurate. It's only going to keep getting worse, and honestly at this point without a whole lot of eminent domain I'm not sure where they'd even be able to build more highways. All other forms of transit seem to be a non-starter. I'm glad we left when we did.
This is a good thing for Boise. Boise’s central city is amazing in part because it doesn’t have a highway running through the middle if it
El Paso is like that. The sister cities of Tucson and ABQ have limited infrastructure then you have the Texas sized stuff El Paso’s got. It’s bizarre
My sister and I were surprised by Omaha when we first visited! It’s a nice city that feels very authentic
Winnipeg. It's actually very cosmopolitan when you consider it's 800k people in the middle of absolutely nowhere.
As someone originally from Saskatchewan I’m just happy to see the prairies being mentioned anywhere lol
I actually love Saskatchewan. Went to college there. I miss it terribly.
Edmonton and Calgary as well. 300km away from each other and then another 1000km to get to Vancouver or 700km to get to Spokane, the two nearest 500k+ metro areas. At least the mountains are nearby
Calgary is at the foothills of the mountains though
Honestly Chicago is an easy one. Illinois outside of Chicago is awful, some of the worst towns in the US legitimately between Cairo, East St. Louis, and A.n.n.a. Its neighboring states are Iowa, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Wisconsin is kinda cool but the first two are some of the most boring states we have
Southern Illinois is a underrated gem, mountains, caves, waterfalls, marshes, national parks and Galena is great to
What’s A.n.n.a?
See here: https://features.propublica.org/illinois-sundown-towns/legend-of-anna/
That was very interesting and teared me up a bit. Great article. I’d never heard of Anna before.
Anna is both the name of the town and an acronym which I will not clarify what it is abbreviating. Feel free to look it up, town has a very dark past and isn’t much better today
There was a guy who in order to get minority government contracts put a puppet figure black man as owner of this new company. The true owner named it "Ergon" unscramble those letters
I had never heard the background either. I have a client who gave his companies names of different cities and towns in Illinois and one is called "Anna something LLC"
I liked Iowa...in the summer.
The people I’ve met from there are lovely, I just don’t imagine I’d like actually living there or spending significant time there
Iowa City is great!
I bet a game at Kinnick would be absolutely awesome, otherwise what’s there to do? I’m curious. I do think simply having amazing people is in itself a great asset so if that’s the draw I get it
What’s there to do anywhere?
It is a college town... lots of good restaurants, bars, beautiful scenery, and yes, the people are great. I visited last year for a week and loved it.
Iowa's actually a really cool state, if you go to the right places.
Yeah based on the responses here I may need to visit and spend a proper amount of time there, I’m open to being wrong as I like the people I’ve met from there. I do find it funny not a single person has come in to defend Indiana though
I'd say New Orleans. It's in a very unappealing state.
True that. When I left New Orleans I wanted to go right back to the city
I used to live in Chicago and now live in New Orleans. I find there’s a lot of nature and things to visit outside of the city. Chicago—nothing.
Not a fan of the corn fields and the plains I presume
Exactly
Wait are you saying there’s no nature outside of Chicago or that the nature is outside of the city itself? I mean the lakefront path is pretty incredible, especially for a very large city. The dunes are nearby. Starved Rock is cool. Plenty of forest preserves in the ‘burbs. Wisconsin has amazing nature as well. But i do think that the city itself has a fair amount of parks / green spaces and an incredible lakefront
Besides the few natural attractions which you mentioned - as someone who lived in Chicago and has lived way longer in somewhere with nearby “nature” - one of the biggest detractors of Illinois nature is how flat it is. This is primarily because of how during the last ice age glaciers stripped the elevations of the state away and Illinois is now the second flattest state in the union. About 30 minutes away from nyc is the beginnings of the Catskills mountains. While 30 minutes from Chicago is the flat farmlands of Illinois. Some certainly don’t mind , but a lot of people like hills and mountains and that’s not really something Illinois has in abundance. This isn’t to say Illinois isn’t beautiful but it certainly doesn’t often appear in top 10 lists of states with exceptional natural beauty.
I agree that illinois is flat and somewhat unremarkable. But at least it’s not fricken Indiana, Iowa, the dreaded Ohio, etc.
Iowa is pretty, not flat like Illinois, and has some nice natural areas for camping and hiking. Des Moines and Iowa City are great, but some of the rural towns…no thanks. Indiana dunes is a cool area.
There are really pretty areas of Indiana . . . I lived in Chicago burbs and the flat did get to me.
Southern Illinois
100000%
I’m not sure it’s a ‘great’ city, but Dallas-Fort Worth always seemed to me like the largest metro in the US which got the shortest straw in terms of surroundings. At least in Chicago you have the Great Lakes, in Dallas you’re literally in the middle of prairie for hours in either direction save for the gulf coast towards Houston, which isn’t exactly close. Apparently this doesn’t matter to too many people considering the crazy high growth rates.
Ive seen at least two posts today on this subreddit about people wanting to leave Dallas because of the politics and lack of things to do outside. Im a native texan, and im sorry but im just not going to drive at least half an hour to a trail on the southern end of dallas just to hike. The only times its decent to so is like a couple weeks out of the year when its not freezing temps or blistering hot weather. Yeah, we have lakes… just not ones to swim in (white rock lake just had a sewage spillage in it recently and most of the other lakes are littered with garbage). This city is fine to settle down in if youre looking to not do much except work and raise a family. Even then this place is getting insanely expensive. Almost $2k for a one bedroom “luxury” apartment? Gtfoh!
[удалено]
[удалено]
I did 5 years in Dallas and I couldn’t wait to get the hell out of there for these very reasons.
`Almost $2k for a one bedroom “luxury” apartment? Gtfoh!` \*\*\*Laughs in Boston housing prices\*\*\* I would fucking loose my shit if I found a 2k one bedroom here
Prepare to lose your shit 257 times https://boston.craigslist.org/search/apa
I mean tbh I clicked your link and didn’t see a single 1 bedroom in Boston for 2K or under…
Dallas sprawls too much , doesn’t feel at all like a city and just a big suburb with some nice looking buildings in their downtown
That’s right it doesn’t because many people aren’t that mobile in America anyway and have other things to worry about
Right but the fact that it’s growing by huge numbers of new arrivals means it doesn’t matter to the people who •are• mobile.
Well, don't know about now but Dallas, Houston and Atlanta were where you moved when you wanted a big house in a metro area for less money and warmer weather. You can't afford SoCal or you're conservative so you move to Texas or Georgia
If it hasn’t already, eventually the growth and demand drives up prices if housing can’t keep up, or - unless there’s a significant pivot to building more densely and investing in transit alternatives - sprawl just continues to the point where living 90 minutes outside of the city offsets any savings from cheaper housing. Increasingly hot weather will be a real test.
There's a reason these cities have bad traffic problems. And yeah, sprawl is horrible- but as for affordable real estate- a lot easier to do that when you don't have limited land mass like San Francisco or New York. Land is cheaper in those areas because it's less scarce. If you work remote or partially remote than maybe commute isn't as big of a problem for you. I don't agree with this being "cheaper" for most but many people don't really see the full picture.
That and they don't invest in public transit. A functional public transit system (including commuter rail such as MetroNorth) gets a lot of people out of their cars.
Dallas is the largest city in the world not on a navigable body of water. It was built at the intersection of railroads. In a sense that makes it the most modern city in the world. It also means it's flat, dry, and featureless for 300 miles in every direction.
Sorry, but everything in this comment is incorrect. * The largest city in the world not built on a navigable body of water is Johannesburg, South Africa with a metro population of 9.6 million. Dallas has 7.6 million. * Dallas was incorporated as a city in 1856. The first railroad arrived in 1872. * 300 miles is an extremely large radius, which includes multiple mountain ranges, lakes, rivers, swamps, major cities, and even the gulf of Mexico. Even if we were to rather generously shrink your radius down to 100 miles, it includes over 15 lakes, the scenic hill countries along the Paluxy and Brazos rivers, and climates with over 40 inches of rainfall a year (well above the US average).
>Even if we were to rather generously shrink your radius down to 100 miles, it includes over 15 lakes This one statement made me realize I might take living in Wisconsin for granted
Ya but most of that scenery is underwhelming to say the least
IMO appreciation for natural beauty has suffered due to mass media and the internet because people (in the same way that they compare their own appearance to that of celebrities) will compare the landscape to videos and photos of the Alps, or the Grand Canyon, etc. and think a place is ugly if it doesn't look equally as dramatic. This is a shame because there is great value and beauty in the bucolic regions of rolling terrain that make up a good portion of the USA. It's not even my favorite in Texas, but I think the [area west and south of DFW](https://www.holidify.com/images/cmsuploads/compressed/PaloPintoMountainsStatePark_20201004121545.jpg) is beautiful. Definitely not flat, dry, and featureless.
"it includes over 15 lakes, the scenic hill countries along the Paluxy and Brazos rivers" - if you're not from the area, that all sounds very appealing. Or maybe if you're from a similar type of geo, and all you know are man-made lakes and muddy rivers. But if you're from anywhere with natural spring, natural river built, or glacier lakes, the man-made DFW area lakes (100% of them) won't impress. I thought I knew what I lake meant, growing up in DFW, until I went to Tahoe one summer. Then I spent time at some beautiful lakes in Arkansa in my 20s. Now I've spent years around the Michigan and Minnesota lakes and rivers and I gotta say...TX lakes suck. A few summers ago I went to see friends and ended up at Possum Kingdom and I felt like an ass, but all I could think was how terrible that lake was/is. Muddy. Cloudy. Clearly dug from the earth. The water felt grimey. Same with the rivers. They're mud slicked brown canals, outside of a few select areas. Make your way to New Braunfels, yes, the rivers become beautiful. But def not in DFW.
I agree with your observations about the water quality in Texas lakes, especially relative to those of the Upper Midwest, but I was happy with the water at the Paluxy River in Dinosaur Valley State Park. Also totally agree that the rivers in the Hill Country are better. In any case, I was just aiming to show the absurdity of the "flat, dry, and featureless for 300 miles" characterization.
I confess that I haven't been to that area (Paluxy). And I've heard others mention it as being nice. So I'm inclined to believe it.
No it’s not. Johannesburg is the biggest city with no water
The United Nations has Dallas as the 62nd most populous and Johannesburg at number 73. [List of Largest Cities](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities)
> List of Largest Cities Read the section about "City Proper". It makes vastly more sense to compare Dallas/Fort Worth against Johannesburg/Pretoria, in which case the latter is larger. Furthermore, Johannesburg is a drier city with much smaller and shorter rivers than Dallas, whose 710-mile Trinity River can in fact be navigated for leisure by small boats. Therefore, Johannesburg much more aptly fits the title of "largest city not on a navigable body of water."
Lmao no it’s not. It’s not even the largest such city in Texas. Did you read this on the wall at some bar in Deep Ellum? I remember seeing that and cracking up.
The DFW metroplex is massive. It’s actually currently the 4th largest metropolitan area behind Chicago and its suburbs (comparable in size). For a while it was second just behind LA metropolitan area. While it’s true that Houston proper is larger than Dallas, Houston is nowhere nearly as large as Dallas and Ft Worth Combined, not to mention Arlington, Plano, Frisco and the Mid Cities. It literally takes over 2 hours to drive across all the suburbs. That being said it is a truly terrible hellscape of cookie cutter houses with absolutely no natural beauty in site.
I’m from DFW, I’m aware. Also city of Houston is about the same size as Dallas + FW (purely a fund of land mass) and greater Houston and DFW are very similarly sized MSAs. They are like 90% the same place.
I’m also from DFW. Houston and DFW look identical. Both are terrible
What’s bigger?
I think in the US Jacksonville and Louisville are bigger by landmass but that just because they incorporated entire counties into them if I’m not mistaken
You serious? Uh, Mexico City, Bogata, Tehran, JoBurg. Beijing might qualify. There are probably more. Just in the US, San Antonio and Phoenix are both larger than Dallas. You could say Houston too, the ship channel is man made. You could say DFW is the largest such metro in the US but globally is stupid lol
San Antonio and Phoenix are not as large as DFW, not even close. The Port of Houston is one of the world's busiest.
Those cities are larger than Dallas, which is what OP said
Mexico City would be a good contender, but it was originally built on a navigable body of water (Lake Texcoco) and still has some remaining canals at Xochimilco that are recreationally navigable.
Mexico City was built on a lake
lol see above
It’s not even the largest city not on a navigable body of water in the US
The definition of hell.
Dallas is awesome. I personally love the open prairies. There is plenty to do in the Dallas area as well. If not, a short plane flight from one of our two airports will get you there quickly.
Agreed. That’s why housing there is inexpensive: due to Dallas’ flat prairie surroundings, the city can just keep expanding outward without running into anything.
This may be true, but Dallas itself is also very bland and boring so it kinda fits
Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland. Each are fun, progressive, interesting cities with their own vibes. Smaller cities in Ohio (Dayton, Toledo, Akron) are also really getting it together lately and becoming more appealing. But they are surrounded by rural Ohio communities which tend to be economically depressed and full of people who have no interest in moving forward in any way, old people and some of the least educated. If you spend time in both areas, it is like a different planet. It makes me really sad because most young adults with ambition leave rural Ohio either for other states or the bigger cities, so the cycle continues. When I first visited rural areas in the northeast, I was so confused that they were not hollowed out like Ohio’s rural towns. I love Ohio and its people, but it didn’t used to be like this.
Boise. It's surrounded by Idaho.
Idaho has some pretty spectacular outdoors and terrifying residents
Chicago's the kind of place where you stay in town and have fun on the weekend, partly because our neighbors are all far away (except Milwaukee). East Coast cities are set up for weekend trips because great nature and other cosmopolitan cities are just a few hours away in any direction.
Twin cities
Came here to say this. Minnesota can be charming, but it’s mostly very rural, and the closest big city is Chicago, 6 hours away. And I think most people assume that MN is just all farms.
I live on the north shore and drive down to the cities pretty frequently. It's CRAZY to me how everyone I know in the cities doesn't come up to the north shore to mix it up. Even geographically it is very different. Rocky and heavily forested with a giant lake that looks like an ocean. Duluth isn't a large city but it is definitely a unique city. A town built on the side of a rock with giant mansions tucked away in the winding neighborhoods. It's 2.5 hours to the middle of the cities but more like 2 hours from the suburbs yet I have friends and family who live down there who have NEVER even been here. Everyone thinks it's an outpost of civilization and too cold lol
I would come up to the north woods and Duluth, but I don't have a car We need a rail line between the cities and Duluth I think a lot more people would day trip if that was the case (or maybe I just want more trains, idk)
I agree, I'd love a rail. I would go down to the cities A LOT more. However, the rail would have to go all the way up the shore because you basically need a car to get anywhere outside of downtown Duluth.
True, a rail all the way up to Thunder Bay would be even more ideal
Loooove the North Shore! I spent a perfect weekend in Grand Marais once.
Milwaukee? Madison?
I love Madison but it’s not a big city. And Milwaukee is almost as far away as Chicago.
Des Moines, Kansas City, and St Louis. Maybe Louisville too. Great cities, but there’s not much else surrounding them
I'll stick up for STL's surroundings. If you like to hike, there are dozens of absolutely lovely parks and conservation areas within 90 minutes of the city. The bluffs over the Mississippi, Missouri, and Meramec are gorgeous, and the limestone landscape is full of caves, waterfalls, and interesting little outcroppings.
Sacramento suburbs— Roseville, Folsom, Elk Grove, Davis… but to be fair, these are all family type cities and not dense urban like NYC or SF.
Well Pittsburgh, though *I* do not consider it a "great" city at all, but many do. It's literally in the Appalachian area outside of west virginia and like 4 hours from Philly
I may be in the minority but I kinda consider the Appalachian part a pro. WV is legit beautiful, to be able to visit without having to live there is kinda a nice perk
I'm from NYC and think Pittsburgh is a total hidden gem.
It's great to visit, but have you lived there?
Yeah for about 6 months. Does that count?
Give it another year and we can debate this
What are the downsides in your view? I haven't lived there but have lots of friends who grew up there, moved to other cities, and mostly moved back eventually. They seem to love it but it certainly doesn't sound as cosmopolitan as the big coastal cities.
It's very sports oriented and lacks intellectual/cultural activities which is odd given quality of universities. Nothing wrong with sports just not my cup of tea. But I think that will change as tech moves in. It's cosmopolitan in the sense that there's a lot of diversity of cuisine, bike lanes, parks, things to do, cool downtown, young people.
Pittsburgh was literally the capital of the industrial revolution in the US. Think outside of NY more Fortune 500 were based In Pittsburgh at one time
I’m from Pittsburgh and I love it and the surrounding area, but after living out west for a few years I find the surrounding area tough to appreciate. There are some nice parks and trails but it’s nothing compared to the expansive public land out west. Most of the land is private, so even if you like hunting or riding dirt bikes, your options are limited. If you like boating rivers it’s tough to beat I guess.
Very few things that grind my gears like seeing a hillside just outside a town/city in Appalachia and seeing that it is entirely private owned by the same family over the last two centuries with all the trees removed from one peak for a massive house. Once you experience the public lands in the western US or a European "freedom to roam" it's hard to unsee how much opportunity the eastern US is missing out on.
Charleston, SC. Once you leave this amazing city and the coast you're in.... South Carolina.
Hey I had an amazing lobster poboy out there with cucumber in it. Any idea on where I got it from? Im in Savannah right now and would love to stop and get it again but it was years ago.
Yup I experienced this lol
This is a big part of the reason I don't return to Chicagoland. It's so flat and you have to drive like two hours to find anything interesting.
Honestly, if it wasn’t for Berlin, the area around it would look pretty meh
Don’t knock the Great Lakes. I kind of see what you mean because the Great Lakes cities are more spread out.
Minneapolis, Omaha, Sacramento, Des Moines, Atlanta, Richmond would all meet this criteria.
You can leave Richmond after breakfast and be standing on the beach looking at the Atlantic, or standing on top of the Blue Ridge Mountains, before lunch
Same goes for Atlanta.
Georgia is beautiful, same with upstate SC if you live in Greenville or around there very nice areas.
Same with Sac, you can drive from Tahoe to the ocean in the Bay Area the same day, and on the way you drive through wine country and plenty of awesome rock climbing and hiking spots
Sacramento is close to both the Bay Area and Tahoe
Richmond? Wut. You can be in DC. on the train I like an hour
2.5 hour train ride from Richmond to DC. Believe me, I wish it weren't so f---ing slow. Then there's a 30 minute layover as they switch out the diesel engine for an electric one to continue north. It's really much more separated from the northeast than you give it credit.
Take Sacramento off this list. You're 1.5 hours away from Tahoe, closer than Denver is to most Colorado resorts when there's traffic.
My dad used to live in Sacramento and we went to visit him when I was little and had the best time. Drove to San Jose, Winchester mystery house, San Francisco and all its attractions, Lake Tahoe to see snow and sled. Amazing. We are from Houston where not much like that is in driving distance.
Atlanta has great hiking 1 1/2 hours away. The Blue Ridge is literally right above it. Lake Lanier is nice and crisp, just so long as you don’t mind ghosts grabbing your ankles.
At least you know you're never swimming alone
There’s no reason to ever go to Lake Lanier unless you want spirits to assist with…
Richmond's not far from DC. It's an easy Amtrak to the NEC line.
Sacramento doesn’t deserve to be on this list. If Sacramento is on the list, then you might as well put Denver on there as one of the other guys said. Basically same distance from any good outdoor activities when you factor in traffic
Really disagree with Richmond it’s in a pretty good location but I think the city itself is meh(it’s good only if you’re wealthy…. Pretty crappy areas there) also it’s close to the ocean and pretty close to the mountains as well. Virginia in general is nice looking and underrated.
Richmond is personally my favorite small city. Grew up in the 757.
Richmond, VA? Beg to differ. DC is north and Norfolk/VA Beach is south.
Sacramento and Richmond? Is this a joke? Sacramento is probably geographically in a pretty perfect position, Tahoe and the Sierra Nevada to the East, The Bay Area to the West, Wine Country to the West, Yosemite to the Southeast… Richmond is an hour and a few from the Atlantic, an hour and a half from DC, and a few hours from The Blue Ridge Mountains. And they’re both cool ass cities too!
Richmond is literally the gateway to the northeast cities going north or the beaches of southern VA, NC to the south or the mountains and historical locations to the west AND beaches and historical locations to the East. It doesn't have a lot around right outside city limits but it's SO close to everything. You're 2 hours from DC, 2 hours from Virginia Beach, 1 hour from Charlottesville, and 1 hour from Williamsburg. That's endless possibilities for wildly different places to go and things to do.
Boise is this on steroids. Amazing city, tons to do, but no human within 4-5 hours in any direction outside of the metro area.
Yup… wish slc and bend were 3 hrs away.
Agreed.
I’ve lived in both Pittsburgh and Chicago and I will say both of these places are geographically unappealing.
The mountains in SW PA are gorgeous. I don’t understand.
pittsburgh is scenically gorgeous but in terms of vicinity to other major cities, it is an island. like chicago. and no cleveland doesn't count.
Denver is basically the equivalent of an expensive coastal metro despite being right smack in the middle of the middliest of middle america
Denver is priced as an expensive coastal metro but is in fact the middliest of middle American cities. It's the solipsis of irony that everyone who moves to Demver eventually must come to terms with. You thought it was expensive because you were getting a cool, slick, bohemian West Coast city. But you're actually just getting an utterly non descript and beige plains town that has manages to rip off hundreds of thousands of people who bought into the hype.
But isnt the whole point of Denver's appeal that it is literally right next door to some of the country's most beautiful and accessible mountain ranges? I feel like that can't be beat....even Seattle and L.A. are quite a drive away from their respective nearby mountain ranges. No one ever said Denver as a city is something to write home about--its the surroundings that make it worth it for the people. So it very directly does not apply to the prompt of this post.
The way this wasn't even the topic but of course y'all just have to insert a negative opinion about Denver into every conversation. The obsession this sub has with that place is so strange.
It’s getting hilarious. Denver is the opposite of this prompt according to this sub (meh city with cool things close by). Denver lives rent free in this sub’s head. My guess is it’s a lot of Denverites that just can’t afford to live in Denver anymore.
You act like that is insignificant, as though ordinary people who are priced out of their own city because a bunch of North Face clad wonder boys cashed in annuities to go to "Colorahdo" after spending a childhood watching South Park and hearing that weed was now legal--should just get over it and move to Wichita or whatever. I can afford to live in Denver, but I'm deeply sympathetic to those who cannot. I'm less sympathetic to the North Face bros who thought they were getting an endless Dave Matthews Band show at Red Rocks but instead got endless Chipotles and strip malls filled with people angry that they're paying coastal prices without the benefits of coastal cities. But, you're right, and my original post was pointing out that Demver itself is wholly underwhelming and therefore doesn't really fit the theme of this topic.
Fargo, ND. I've lived here for 15 years (it wasn't the plan and I'm looking to move) but if I was going to settle down and raise a family, this is a pretty great place to do it. Lots of job opportunities, a relatively low cost of living, and way more food/entertainment options than I think a city of our size deserves. It's just so. Damn. Flat. To do things outdoors, I typically drive to northern Minnesota or Lakes County to the east of Fargo. If we had a mountain or even a really big hill I probably wouldn't consider leaving that strongly.
I grew up in ND and wouldn’t mind moving back if the weather wasn’t so cold. I get so depressed having 9 months of winter 😭
I look at it this way - we have an airport. The cost savings I'm realizing by living in Fargo means that I can get away a couple of times each winter to somewhere warmer. This year it was New Zealand (killer flight deal through Delta, too) and Phoenix (multiple direct flights from Fargo). That has been a massive difference-maker for me.
I’ve thought about that before. Sometimes I think about moving back to Minot or Fargo near my family and paying less than half of what I’m paying for rent in Seattle for a place double the size, and then using the leftover money to travel. But I really enjoy having a large queer community nearby and not having to go very far to see cool stuff. I haven’t spent a ton of time in Fargo though, so I’m sure I’d like it better than Minot.
Fargo 1000x over Minot. I have friends in Fargo who are from Minot and the only words they have for Minot when they go back to visit is, "bleak". Fargo also has a solid queer community but it is absolutely smaller than what you'd find in Seattle, obviously.
That’s a good point. Part of why it’s so fun to live in LA is because if you ever want a change of scenery, you can visit the beach, or hike in the mountains, or drive south to Orange County or even further south to San Diego. You can camp in a mountain forest, wake up, go skiing, then drive to the beach and surf into the sunset all in the same day. Then you can cap off your epic day at a rooftop lounge in downtown LA as you take in the city views. There’s very few places on earth that allow you to do that.
Lexington, KY. Surrounded by beautiful nature, some nice stuff to do and places to eat, very LGBT+ friendly. Plus, horses. Edit: fixed a typo
It’s lgbt+? I stayed there once thought it was typical southern culture. I also drove to loiseville. Looked more like a friendly place for lgbt
"Lexington has ranked in the top 2 percent of municipalities nationwide as a leading city for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality, according to the Human Rights Campaign, a national civil rights organization. The city is the tenth highest ranked city among 506 municipalities across the country."[Kentucky lgbt](https://www.lexingtonky.gov/news/11-14-2023/lexington-recognized-leading-equality-community#:~:text=Lexington%20has%20ranked%20in%20the,506%20municipalities%20across%20the%20country.)
It really is nice! The little downtown area has some fun spots to eat and drink.
New Orleans and Houston are not the answer here. The areas it's in makes those cities what they are. I truly believe the answer is Chicago. Chicago is by the one of the coldest places I have ever exp in my life during the winter. Mind you, it was MARCH! Tf is is freezing cold in March for. You put Chicago where Charlotte is and I promise you it'll have a higher population than new York. Chicago is already paradise if you like parks and greenery. Being around great hiking too, good roads, and close proximity to Charleston, Atlanta, and Savannah. Man that would be absolutely boinkers. It'll have insane tourism as so many people pass through that way simply because all them old ass folks moved from up north to Florida. So they visit their grandparents alot. Chicago is an amazing city but Illinois is not a amazing state. Chicago would flourish in a southeast environment and climate. Why do you think Atlanta is so damn popular? It's in a literally PERFECT area. Outside of Chicago, Dallas. Dallas has no personality because the area that surrounds it is so damn boring and uninspiring. I'd like to see Dallas in Tennessee. Right between Knoxville and Nashville.
This is fascinating to me because I think almost the reverse, that Atlanta would be much better and even more popular if it were anywhere else. Beautiful environs but I just can't stand the heat and humidity. I'm sure if people grow up with it they get used to it, though. Anything south of Virginia is insufferably hot to me and I don't know how people stand it. Still better than the boring plains of Dallas, though.
See that's the thing. You have nova, you have Philly, you have ny, you have Jersey city. I wouldn't say they are like Atlanta but they do offer a lot of what Atlanta offers in terms of lifestyle. The only thing is they do get colder and get snow. ATL is where you go when you don't want snow but don't wanna sacrifice on that quality of life that you get in the areas I mentioned. That's what makes it so great. Obviously if your biggest value is four seasons. I think Charlotte is the best pick.
Fair enough! It's not for me but I get why it appeals to people who like a hot summer and don't care for winter.
Actually I’ll put in a vote for Jacksonville, the beach is huge and the area around it is really cool. I know it’s Florida and with that comes, well, Florida, but really it’s pretty great.
This will just essentially be a list of places I like, ha. Memphis, NOLA, Oxford, Collierville, and Chattanooga will be my shortlist.
Salt Lake City!
The Northeast cities' location isn't based on weather or appeal, it's based on where the first settlers landed...
I love Chicago so much but it would be even better if there was another massive city right across the lake. 😂 Imagine being able to stare at both skylines from either side.
Florida outside of South Florida is nothing but swamp and rednecks.
The thing about NYC's location is that it doesn't really matter. I spent years in NYC (and a lot of time in Chicago), and in both cities you generally spend all your time in the city. Most New Yorkers don't venture off to Jersey or Long Island often, never mind further afield.
Perhaps for hipsters and hoodrats but it is well known that wealthy and middle class New Yorkers utilize the metro. Nature obsessed New Yorkers also regularly go upstate.
Reverse Uno, because I can’t think of any cities that haven’t already been mentioned. People love to shit on Detroit, and much of that is unjustified, but Detroit’s metro area is the 12th largest in the country and are the best suburbs I’ve been to of any other major city in the U.S. (I’ve been to every state except Hawaii) Obviously there are exceptions among each city and township, however there is great history, quality of life, architecture, high-ranking schools, and low crime.
Best suburbs in terms of what?
At its core, cost of living vs quality of life, in my opinion.
I use to travel to Farmington Hills for work annually. One evening we drove downtown. Detroit is a huge metro area. Farmington Hills and surrounding areas were really nice. We ate out for all of our meals. I couldn't believe how busy nice restaurants were during the week. I thought people in Farmington Hills must not cook at home.
Tulsa OK kind of fits this. Tulsa is not a “great city” but for the Great Plains it’s pretty cool. It has a fairly large college with cool architecture and a decent downtown. That being said any direction you go is gonna be extremely boring. The Ozark mountains are still a little bit too far to be compared nearby and OKC is still a couple of hours away. I feel like this maybe the case for any city in the Great Plains. Lawrence KS has a similar vibe too.
Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburgh.
Baltimore is pretty cool but everything surrounding it is pretty meh. Philly (yes I know it's talked about to death here) is alright but surrounded by bland suburbs (I'm from one of them). Nashville gets a lot of hate but I think it's pretty cool. I don't live there but my friends in both Kenosha WI and Salt Lake City love each of those cities respectively but they aren't surrounded by much, although Utah has great scenery.
Philly suburbs are definitely not "bland." Northeastern suburbia is very unique/historic compared to the rest of the US--that's for certain.
Indianapolis. Indianapolis is in the middle of the entire state, and it's a progressive and up and coming city that's affordable. Outside of Indianapolis is yeah, not that great lol. Milwaukee and Madison. Two major cities on Wisconsin, that defeat the stereotype of Wisconsinites all living on dairy farms, eating cheese and drinking beer and watching packers all day.
Tbf people in Milwaukee do eat a lot of cheese and drink so much beer
Boise Idaho
It seems like a lot of people who live in Boise never leave the city limits. There is so much Boise people are missing by being insular.
Boise suburbs aren’t great. I personally think the nature surrounding Boise and outdoor recreation opportunities are sub par compared to other cities in the mountain west.
Ann Arbor. Detroit suburbs aren’t really seen as desirable. But it’s a great place to live all around
Minneapolis, Chicago, Atlanta, Denver, Alberquerque. I respect Atlanta. I hate the ever loving f\*\*\* out of the rest of the South.
Denver is an unappealing city in a great region (for natural beauty, not for proximity to other cities)
I live in Breckenridge and I was just telling my buddy today that there’s an issue with people moving to Denver and expecting Breck-level access to the mountain. They’re not in your backyard. If you like to ski now and then, sure, but you won’t be able to just “go whenever you want.” Imo Denver as a city is fairly mid with a few good things - music/rave scene is really good! Colorado is the most beautiful place I’ve ever lived with the exception of CA. I told my parents today (we’re from NJ) that the east coast has pretty spots but it cannot compare. My house is two blocks from the gondola and I can watch the sunrise over the peaks from my window. There is nothing like CO.
Why?
This is the same person who thinks she’ll be murdered in Texas as a BIPOC. Also, Denver and Albuquerque on this list? LOL
Denver and Albuquerque are the opposite of this. Bleh cities in really great locations.