ewwww, NYC. Go for Denver and Colorado. I'm in PA and have visited Denver once and if you want to escape the city its so easy - not to mention that the scenery is gorgeous.

Regarding the suggestions above, I like Atlanta and San Diego, depending on your coastal preference. (Denver sounds interesting, but I've never been there, and I think I'd rather be closer to a coast.) I'm surprised no one has mentioned Boston. Seems exactly what you are looking for: jobs, culture, parks, public transport, mature yet active/contemporary vibe.

OK Seattle negatives:
traffic is horrible
housing prices are very very high

I'm not in my 40's, but New York is what you need.

Yes, it's expensive -- because everyone wants to live here (econ 101, supply and demand).

But salaries tend to be higher, and you don't need a car (which saves A LOT of money).

In New York, you're surrounded by the best and brightest from all walks of life -- business, art, education -- and not just from the USA, but the whole world.

Don't rule out the Greatest City in the World because you're scared of the cost of living -- it's expensive for a reason, and that's exactly what you're looking for.

Where are you going to live when you
become 50 Somethings ?

R5

San Diego, Portland, San Francisco, Seattle would be my top picks.

Philadelphia. I have many 40 something friends living there. Ticks all your boxes and you will find plenty of 30/50/60 somethings there as well. Although it sounds unthinkable, many New Yorkers are relocating to Philly. Lots of creative people around.
After that, I'd pick Portland, OR. The jobs picture there is weaker than in the Philadelphia region, though.
If you could go north, think about Vancouver, BC.

Gekko:

Get over yourself. There is plenty of culture, ethnic restaurants/neighborhoods, and class in other cities. NYC has 11 million people, too many for a quality of life.

I agree Stephanie. If Gekko's superior attitude were shared by all New Yorkers, that alone would be a good reason NOT to live there.

Of the very bright and also physically active that have left us, I'd have to say that the most in number have gone to Colorado- that have not returned. The others have all just about to the last one come home to Chicago.

That may tell you something.

I do agree with all those posters who said your question would be better asked if you gave more criteria and talked actual dollars.

NYC, Chicago, SF, San Diego, Seattle and most very big cities all have a huge quality of life density issue that is seldom addressed on Fodors. Have you every lived in 900 to 1200 sq.ft., for example, for more than just a couple of months?

I don't think the size of the apartment is a big deal if it's well designed. 1200 square feet is actually quite spacious for a single or a couple with no at-home kids in a large city. Over the last few years, my husband and I have lived in places *far* smaller than that for several months at a time and managed quite well (our current home is probably just over 1000 square feet--it's the suburban London version of a Philly trinity). A large home doesn't even interest us now. If someone offered us a choice between a 500 square foot apartment in Paris and a 3000 square foot home in the average 'burb, we'd plump for Paris in a heartbeat.

One thing to consider is your personal context and family. Brookside, don't know anything about your demographics --M/F, married or single, children or not, family you cherish or avoid. All those issues would likely be part of your decision, and might influence the suggestions here.

It's a few years since I was 40-something... I know that now I have young grandchildren, proximity to them gives great joy to my life (and that was a surprise). If they were to move far away, I'd be travelling a lot more!

Brookside, I rest my case. Spend some time in New York and you'll understand.


(And, uh, apparently an uncanny ability to discern "plenty of culture" includes a healthy dose of ignorance? New York City has around 8.2 million residents, and an incomparable "quality of life" -- that is, if you've got what it takes.)

<<Have you every lived in 900 to 1200 sq.ft., for example, for more than just a couple of months?>>

JJ5, Yes I have... all my life.

That makes a big difference. If you are comfortable with that kind of space for two people, as suze is, you won't feel the Daniel Boone syndrome.

If quality of life includes living in a vibrant vital urban environment (San Francisco, Seattle, New York City) and you are of normal income, the reality is you adapt.

It's all about priorities. As one poster already mentioned I'll take 400SF in Paris, over 2000SF in Podunk, any day of the week!

But many of us wouldn't and have moved back. And Brookside doesn't sound like she has had any real big city living experience. Visiting is not living experience.

And also, IMHO, the people who are past 40 will not be starting out with an "average" income for people their age in the city of destination. It may be possible, but it just isn't probable.

I wouldn't buy anything in a place, nor attempt a permanent move until I lived there for a two month trial and really understood the area environs.

I know people like Brookside who moved and were back within a 1/2 year. Couldn't stand the noise levels, etc. etc. etc.

Consider San Fran or Boston. Boston is a ton of fun.

I am a 40 something female who would LOVE to live in Denver! I have an office there and travel there frequently.
I cannot for the life of me find a downside.My husband says it is too cold... but I find Denver pretty moderate really. Great neighborhoods, great activities, nice people and amazing scenery.
One day I will be able to make the move!

Probably know about 40 to 50 people who have done this over the years, and I can honestly say that the Colorado ones have never moved back.