But what is quality of life? It seems like something that depends on the person making the determination. Some people like cities. Others like the privacy and solitude of the countryside.

Is it proximity to arts and entertainment? Is it quality of food? Is it open spaces? Is it clean air? Is it night life? Is it just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality.

Open your eyes. Look up to the skies and see. I'm just a poor boy. I need no sympathy because it's easy come, easy go. Little high, little low.

Anyway the wind blows, it doesn't really matter to me.

To me.

Hey now, thars more to life than watching a bunch of queers dressed like cats prancing around on stage. Things like guns and mud wrasslin

I have lived my whole life in bland, vanilla suburbia, in flyover country. But I have visited New York and London repeatedly. I would love to live in either city.

If I ever won a lottery.

Big cities have shiatty qualities of life unless you're well off.

Cedar Rapids: the next Hipster Mecca.

Cities are great, awesome even. Everyone who lives in the biggest cities, especially NYC and surrounding area, should stay there knowing that every place else just doesn't measure up. They should never think of moving out, especially to Florida!

I know some people from high school that moved to NYC and love it. Personally I can't imagine living in a tiny apartment, taking the subway or taxi if I want to go anywhere, and dealing with all the people. Rent over $1000 for a tiny studio apartment is insane to me. When I rented, I always had a two-bedroom apartment for around $500 and when I moved to college it was $600 and I thought THAT was ridiculous.

Plus I like peace and quiet. You aren't getting that in NYC unless you are a billionaire.

AverageAmericanGuy: But what is quality of life? It seems like something that depends on the person making the determination. Some people like cities. Others like the privacy and solitude of the countryside.

Is it proximity to arts and entertainment? Is it quality of food? Is it open spaces? Is it clean air? Is it night life? Is it just fantasy? Caught in a landslide, no escape from reality.

Open your eyes. Look up to the skies and see. I'm just a poor boy. I need no sympathy because it's easy come, easy go. Little high, little low.

Anyway the wind blows, it doesn't really matter to me.

To me.

+1

I know this is going to come as a real shocker, but the headline and the article bear little resemblance to one another. The article isn't saying anything at all about people fleeing cities for peace & quiet in the country, it's talking specifically about "emerging" cities like Beijing and Shanghai taking the throne of "nicest place to live."

Begs to differ.

I live in the UK. The *only* city we have in the top 50 on the Mercer Quality of Life index is London...

I'd hazard a guess that most of the 62+ million people on this rain soaked island wouldn't see Vienna as an achievable move. How many of the "merely affluent" (sarcastic, from the link) need to move to counteract the "very rich" (again from link) and the "rest of us" (me) both staying put?

I'd rather think that people will try to improve their quality of life, if time allows, in their current area and move complete only if necessary.


That said I'm moving from my home city soon, but that's hunting jobs for ya.



Hmmm....Should have stuck with my initial post idea of "London is a myth, all that's there are servers and tourist attractions."

Flyover country is great if you are from flyover country.

If you moved here from the coast its like leaving a supermodel sex goddess for a homely girl with a chunky butt who goes along with everything you say unless you point out that high school football and gossip aren't really that compelling.

freewill: / Also, article is old news. New York City's population turnover is massive and more Americans move out than move in, and it's not just people starting starting families and those who would love to live there but can't afford it. If anything, it tends to be higher earners who want to get out.

But, with that said, Bro Code is specific that you don't stick your dick in crazy. New York is as crazy as they come and she probably has a few STDs.

This thread is pretty tapped out already, so I'll just pile on and beat the dead horse a little more.

Mega cities are no good, in my way of thinking, unless you shiat-tons of cash. Milwaukee is perfect for me in many ways. It's large enough to be interesting, has virtually all of the amenities of Chicago at an acceptable quality level, is small enough to walk from one end of downtown to another, affordable, and close enough to the boondocks to really enjoy the outdoors. I drive 25 minutes to work downtown, but go home to a place that has turkey, deer, coyotes, and cranes in the neighborhood. Go a little further out and it's spectacular camping areas, swimming quarries, and shooting ranges.

And if one wants to visit spectacular museums, even though ours aren't too shabby, the Art Institute and others are a short drive away.

I live in Toronto, where the cost of living is slowly creeping up to ridiculous (though still nowhere close to London).. I've got a small 1-bedroom apartment which I share with my GF and which costs more each month than a 3-bedroom house would cost an hour out of the city. But I also don't need to own a car, am a 2-minute walk from the subway and two grocery stores, and a bunch of restaurants and a nice street life. I'm a half-hour walk from downtown, and a half-hour bike ride away from my work. I couldn't stand living in the suburbs (even those still within Toronto city limits) because having a large home is not all important to me, whereas being able to walk outside and do interesting things is very important to me.

sharkbeagle: Cedar Rapids: the next Hipster Mecca.

The City of Five Smells and 60000 speed traps?

No way.

Take it from someone who lives there. Eastern Iowa is everything the name implies.

BiggityBanninated: Flyover country is great if you are from flyover country.

If you moved here from the coast its like leaving a supermodel sex goddess for a homely girl with a chunky butt who goes along with everything you say unless you point out that high school football and gossip aren't really that compelling.

Born and raised in Southern California(2 miles from the coast). Sure, it's great, but leaving is like leaving a hot golddigger for a low maintenance girl next door.

I have a friend who lives in NYC. Queens, to be more specific, in a ~700 sq ft. apartment with his wife and small kid. It takes him an hour, all told, to get to work in Manhattan every day.

The idea of living in a city is a nice one, if you can afford to live right in the heart of the city, in a comfortable apartment. I cannot for the life of me understand why people want to live on the fringes, cramped in small apartments, dealing with the traffic, noise, crime. It's like all the drawbacks of city life with none of the benefits.

There used to be this thing in America called a 'town'. It wasn't remotely close to a city, but there was a walkable downtown with shops, parks, theatres, museums and the like. There was mixed-use zoning and reasonable transit, which made it plausible to live and work in the area without being particularly wealthy or owning a car.

You might have heard of them. You may have seen examples of them on Nick At Night reruns. You may even drive to the remnants of local towns, from your suburban cul-de-sac car-required hellhole, as if it were an open-air mall.

It's a shame that America stopped building these kinds of places. They were a nice happy medium between cities and suburbia. And they're far less expensive to build, maintain and live in, than suburban sprawl. If/as wages for the bottom 80% continue to stagnate, we're going to need more places that don't rely on growth economics to remain economically feasible.

Jerkwater: I have a friend who lives in NYC. Queens, to be more specific, in a ~700 sq ft. apartment with his wife and small kid. It takes him an hour, all told, to get to work in Manhattan every day.

The idea of living in a city is a nice one, if you can afford to live right in the heart of the city, in a comfortable apartment. I cannot for the life of me understand why people want to live on the fringes, cramped in small apartments, dealing with the traffic, noise, crime. It's like all the drawbacks of city life with none of the benefits.

There's that museum they go to once every two years, for one.

/Happy in smaller metros.

ringersol: There used to be this thing in America called a 'town'. It wasn't remotely close to a city, but there was a walkable downtown with shops, parks, theatres, museums and the like. There was mixed-use zoning and reasonable transit, which made it plausible to live and work in the area without being particularly wealthy or owning a car.

You might have heard of them. You may have seen examples of them on Nick At Night reruns. You may even drive to the remnants of local towns, from your suburban cul-de-sac car-required hellhole, as if it were an open-air mall.

It's a shame that America stopped building these kinds of places. They were a nice happy medium between cities and suburbia. And they're far less expensive to build, maintain and live in, than suburban sprawl. If/as wages for the bottom 80% continue to stagnate, we're going to need more places that don't rely on growth economics to remain economically feasible.

I'm pretty sure they're still there. It's not like they razed them to build more culdesacs

Clearly subby has never lived in flyover country either. That's OK, though, more of it for the rest of us to love.

Jerkwater: I have a friend who lives in NYC. Queens, to be more specific, in a ~700 sq ft. apartment with his wife and small kid. It takes him an hour, all told, to get to work in Manhattan every day.

The idea of living in a city is a nice one, if you can afford to live right in the heart of the city, in a comfortable apartment. I cannot for the life of me understand why people want to live on the fringes, cramped in small apartments, dealing with the traffic, noise, crime. It's like all the drawbacks of city life with none of the benefits.

lol, I moved from Manhattan to Queens for MORE space...

It is really all relative. I can't imagine living in the 2,500 sf some of my friends in the 'burbs have. It all just looks to me like more cleaning and more room for all the shiat we accumulate.

That being said, in regards to lifestyle, I'm trying to convince my husband to move somewhere tropical. We could still live in a decent city (say, Montego Bay or Belize City or wherever) but have much more time on our hands due to the lifestyle change. He could still work in finance (we'd have to be in a good size city but there are always jobs in banking/finance particularly in developing nations) and I could still work in real estate (probably more on the vacation home side) and I have tourism experience. Our incomes would be much lower, but honestly, all I need is a safe area with running water and a nice view to be happy. Who needs HBO when I'd be sitting outside on a veranda every day?

But even if I could afford it, I can't imagine ever having more than 2000sf of house. EVEN with maids. I just don't find it necessary.

ringersol: There used to be this thing in America called a 'town'. It wasn't remotely close to a city, but there was a walkable downtown with shops, parks, theatres, museums and the like. There was mixed-use zoning and reasonable transit, which made it plausible to live and work in the area without being particularly wealthy or owning a car.

You might have heard of them. You may have seen examples of them on Nick At Night reruns. You may even drive to the remnants of local towns, from your suburban cul-de-sac car-required hellhole, as if it were an open-air mall.

It's a shame that America stopped building these kinds of places. They were a nice happy medium between cities and suburbia. And they're far less expensive to build, maintain and live in, than suburban sprawl. If/as wages for the bottom 80% continue to stagnate, we're going to need more places that don't rely on growth economics to remain economically feasible.

While I share your nostalgia and grew up in a town just like you described, most of these towns were supported by a local mill or factory. As manufacturing on this scale moved off-shore, these towns became untenable.

bhcompy: ringersol: There used to be this thing in America called a 'town'. It wasn't remotely close to a city, but there was a walkable downtown with shops, parks, theatres, museums and the like. There was mixed-use zoning and reasonable transit, which made it plausible to live and work in the area without being particularly wealthy or owning a car.

You might have heard of them. You may have seen examples of them on Nick At Night reruns. You may even drive to the remnants of local towns, from your suburban cul-de-sac car-required hellhole, as if it were an open-air mall.

It's a shame that America stopped building these kinds of places. They were a nice happy medium between cities and suburbia. And they're far less expensive to build, maintain and live in, than suburban sprawl. If/as wages for the bottom 80% continue to stagnate, we're going to need more places that don't rely on growth economics to remain economically feasible.

I'm pretty sure they're still there. It's not like they razed them to build more culdesacs

The "classic" type of town tends also to be the most expensive. People are really drawn to that type of town.

But classic towns are very hard to develop without a natural and progressing population. Developers hate that slow pace, and it is pricey to build in that way. In addition, stringent planning codes help a neighborhood's appeal but what developer wants to work with stringent codes? The developer of Coral Springs, for instance, was a genius who built slowly with stringent codes he designed specifically to keep the area's appeal and now is a great community. My hometown in NJ, on the other hand, is very expensive to live in and has a small downtown, but because of lack of codes the 1990s housing boom really killed the appeal of the area and now although still pricey because of its proximity to NYC, is one of the less expensive towns in the area (the other towns have much more stringent building codes).

For suburban development to be profitable, it has to be built and sold relatively fast. While some developers are realizing post-boom that bazilions of subdivisions without downtowns are likely not to sell well, its been a slow moving process to the more traditional town structure of planning due to the pace and cost of building such towns.

/works in new development.. but in urban development, not suburban

Use of the term 'Flyover' to describe the rest of the country = Complete Douchebag, no exceptions

I wish I had enough money to live further away from a city, hopefully with enough property that I could shoot in my back yard and nobody would call the cops.

I just don't see the appeal of living next to and seeing gillions of people every day, most of whom wouldn't bother to piss on you if you were on fire.

Lollipop165: The "classic" type of town tends also to be the most expensive. People are really drawn to that type of town.

But classic towns are very hard to develop without a natural and progressing population. Developers hate that slow pace, and it is pricey to build in that way. In addition, stringent planning codes help a neighborhood's appeal but what developer wants to work with stringent codes? The developer of Coral Springs, for instance, was a genius who built slowly with stringent codes he designed specifically to keep the area's appeal and now is a great community. My hometown in NJ, on the other hand, is very expensive to live in and has a small downtown, but because of lack of codes the 1990s housing boom really killed the appeal of the area and now although still pricey because of its proximity to NYC, is one of the less expensive towns in the area (the other towns have much more stringent building codes).

For suburban development to be profitable, it has to be built and sold relatively fast. While some developers are realizing post-boom that bazilions of subdivisions without downtowns are likely not to sell well, its been a slow moving process to the more traditional town structure of planning due to the pace and cost of building such towns.

/works in new development.. but in urban development, not suburban

Well that's the thing. New development. Go to somewhere like the Denver/Front Range area and there are tons of great downtown areas that are great places to live(Littleton, Parker, etc). Some of them have been there for a century or more. They're all attached to the greater metro area now with infill, but they maintained their identity and they thrive, and they're still cheaper than cities like Denver proper. You can't really develop a downtown overnight, or even over the course of a decade, and you probably shouldn't even try. Better to build around an existing one rather than develop a new one

You should keep flying over. Post a Twitpic of some food you ordered and then complain about some tourists if it makes you feel better. Nothing to see here! Those of us in 'flyover country' would really like to move to your big fancy city, but we aren't sophisticated enough! We'll just have to stay here, with all this yucky nature and living space. :(

bhcompy: Lollipop165: The "classic" type of town tends also to be the most expensive. People are really drawn to that type of town.

But classic towns are very hard to develop without a natural and progressing population. Developers hate that slow pace, and it is pricey to build in that way. In addition, stringent planning codes help a neighborhood's appeal but what developer wants to work with stringent codes? The developer of Coral Springs, for instance, was a genius who built slowly with stringent codes he designed specifically to keep the area's appeal and now is a great community. My hometown in NJ, on the other hand, is very expensive to live in and has a small downtown, but because of lack of codes the 1990s housing boom really killed the appeal of the area and now although still pricey because of its proximity to NYC, is one of the less expensive towns in the area (the other towns have much more stringent building codes).

For suburban development to be profitable, it has to be built and sold relatively fast. While some developers are realizing post-boom that bazilions of subdivisions without downtowns are likely not to sell well, its been a slow moving process to the more traditional town structure of planning due to the pace and cost of building such towns.

/works in new development.. but in urban development, not suburban

Well that's the thing. New development. Go to somewhere like the Denver/Front Range area and there are tons of great downtown areas that are great places to live(Littleton, Parker, etc). Some of them have been there for a century or more. They're all attached to the greater metro area now with infill, but they maintained their identity and they thrive, and they're still cheaper than cities like Denver proper. You can't really develop a downtown overnight, or even over the course of a decade, and you probably shouldn't even try. Better to build around an existing one rather than develop a new one

You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. New development is imperative to a growing society. Not everyone can live in 100 year old homes in established neighborhoods. I'm not talking about developers who build one house in a great town and move on to another area. Those are small scale suburban developers, which is considered the most classic form of development. The area I work in is similar, but only on an urban scale. I work in Manhattan. Most of the buildings are already there. The city is already an established city.

But building a "classic" city or town from scratch is VERY different and very hard to do. This is planning where whole towns or cities are built in a matter of years, generally by fewer than a handfull of developers, and are built to sell quickly due to large influxes in population. One developer might build 10,000 homes in just a year or two. They aren't building downtowns because it isn't quick, nor is it particularly profitable for the developers. Las Vegas, Phoenix, Atlanta etc are perfect examples of this. And their values have dramatically declined. The neighborhoods that held up the most on values are the most "traditional" type of neighborhoods with smaller homes on larger plots and sidewalks, not the 4,000sf new developments in unwalkable neighborhoods which were the standard of building in the 1990's.

Traditional towns (usually those established before the 1970s) are generally the most expensive towns to live in because of the walkability. And developers are beginning to notice this.

I agree with ringersol and you that the traditional town is the best way of planning suburban developments. The sad fact is that through out the 1990's, it wasn't the most profitable way. That's how we end up with "suburban ghettos" of shiatty planning and housing.

True story about Flyover Country -

This is cattle and farming land, between the Rockies and the deserts. Hardscrabble, tough land.

Family moves out from California, buys 40 acres west of one of our smaller towns. Built a classic Santa-Fake 4,000 sqft home from any suburb in the middle of their acreage. Sticks out like a sore thumb, but that's their dream, who would complain? Free country and all that.

Three months after moving in the wife - a turned out beach bunny MILF looking blonde - starts complaining to the County about the smells. "Smells like a barnyard" was her primary complaint. She kept after it, writing the local weekly paper, even hiring an attorney to see what could be done.

What was the problem?

They'd moved downwind of their nearest neighbor, a cattle feed lot operation with 400 head. Across the way, a mile down the road is a large egg-plant operation.

And she was complaining about the smell.

Never did "get it" and within a year they pulled up stakes and moved. That's the dangers of coming from the Big City to out here thinking the rural life is all bucolic and happy children playing in dew dappled fields full of buttercups.

Lollipop165: You don't seem to understand what I'm saying. New development is imperative to a growing society. Not everyone can live in 100 year old homes in established neighborhoods. I'm not talking about developers who build one house in a great town and move on to another area. Those are small scale suburban developers, which is considered the most classic form of development. The area I work in is similar, but only on an urban scale. I work in Manhattan. Most of the buildings are already there. The city is already an established city.

But building a "classic" city or town from scratch is VERY different and very hard to do. This is planning where whole towns or cities are built in a matter of years, generally by fewer than a handfull of developers, and are built to sell quickly due to large influxes in population. One developer might build 10,000 homes in just a year or two. They aren't building downtowns because it isn't quick, nor is it particularly profitable for the developers. Las Vegas, Phoenix, Atlanta etc are perfect examples of this. And their values have dramatically declined. The neighborhoods that held up the most on values are the most "traditional" type of neighborhoods with smaller homes on larger plots and sidewalks, not the 4,000sf new developments in unwalkable neighborhoods which were the standard of building in the 1990's.

Traditional towns (usually those established before the 1970s) are generally the most expensive towns to live in because of the walkability. And developers are beginning to notice this.

I agree with ringersol and you that the traditional town is the best way of planning suburban developments. The sad fact is that through out the 1990's, it wasn't the most profitable way. That's how we end up with "suburban ghettos" of shiatty planning and housing.

I don't disagree, but I don't think it will change. Business(the type that provide sustainable wages, not service/retail jobs) follows people(see Highlands Ranch, for instance, 30years on it has pretty decent business presence for a place that is essentially a giant development). As long as land owners are content selling enormous chunks of land to home developers, they're going to stock them full of homes. I grew up in Lakewood CA, which is a classic Levittown style 50s suburb. Tons of homes, but pretty walkable/bikeable and with sane grids. Only reason Lakewood worked was because it was right next to Long Beach, where all the aerospace jobs where, and very close to the ports and oil jobs of the South Bay. Problem is that kind of proximity for a new suburb doesn't exist anymore.

Honestly, I think the only way to do what you're saying is to build a university. When I look at a place like Temecula CA, I see a place that is a huge risk to become completely devoid of life. There is no major hospital, no university, no train to job centers(San Diego, Riverside/Corona/San Bernardino, South Orange County), just a bit of agriculture, natural resources(quarries), geological beauty, and a ton of developments. When I look at other isolated cities like this that survive, many times they're anchored by universities(Moscow ID, Pullman WA, Chico CA, etc). There is definitely no oversaturation of universities so they can ramp up rather quickly(if costs keep going up and applications keep going up that indicates that supply is too low) and they're essentially immune to offshoring and closure(though they struggle to find cash when public dollars are tight), so they're an awesome anchor for a fledgling community.

AverageAmericanGuy: Open your eyes. Look up to the skies and see. I'm just a poor boy. I need no sympathy because it's easy come, easy go. Little high, little low.

Anyway the wind blows, it doesn't really matter to me.

To me.

I think AverageAmericanGuy may have just killed a man.

Clemkadidlefark: Never did "get it" and within a year they pulled up stakes and moved. That's the dangers of coming from the Big City to out here thinking the rural life is all bucolic and happy children playing in dew dappled fields full of buttercups.

Fortunately the locals had enough push-back to get rid 'o them before they Californicated-up the place.

This Just In: Some people pay for what others pay to avoid.

If I need city trappings Portland is an hour away. Meanwhile if I want to spend a day at the river .. I go out my back door and walk 50 feet. Also I like breathing the air without needing utensils.

/Although the trip between Portland and home involves running the gauntlet of CCSD deputies, so I'm a taillight away from being a Fark headline anytime I make the trip

ph0rk: Jerkwater: I have a friend who lives in NYC. Queens, to be more specific, in a ~700 sq ft. apartment with his wife and small kid. It takes him an hour, all told, to get to work in Manhattan every day.

The idea of living in a city is a nice one, if you can afford to live right in the heart of the city, in a comfortable apartment. I cannot for the life of me understand why people want to live on the fringes, cramped in small apartments, dealing with the traffic, noise, crime. It's like all the drawbacks of city life with none of the benefits.

There's that museum they go to once every two years, for one.

/Happy in smaller metros.


As someone who (as a kid living in Queens) was in fact taken to NYC museums and zoos on most weekends, I'm getting a kick etc.

/mostly the AMNH, the Queens Hall of Science, the Metropolitan Museum, the Queens, Bronx, Central Park, and Staten Island zoos, the Bronx and Brooklyn botanical gardens, and (after it opened in the early 90s) the Liberty Science Center

fredbox: If I need city trappings Portland is an hour away. Meanwhile if I want to spend a day at the river .. I go out my back door and walk 50 feet. Also I like breathing the air without needing utensils.

/Although the trip between Portland and home involves running the gauntlet of CCSD deputies, so I'm a taillight away from being a Fark headline anytime I make the trip

At least Clackamas is a big, largely rural county with an understaffed sheriff's department. WaCo is a smallish county with man hours to burn.

Baloo Uriza: fredbox: If I need city trappings Portland is an hour away. Meanwhile if I want to spend a day at the river .. I go out my back door and walk 50 feet. Also I like breathing the air without needing utensils.

/Although the trip between Portland and home involves running the gauntlet of CCSD deputies, so I'm a taillight away from being a Fark headline anytime I make the trip

At least Clackamas is a big, largely rural county with an understaffed sheriff's department. WaCo is a smallish county with man hours to burn.

Clackamas is awful and the cops are bad shots, much to my detriment.

/personal issues with that area