JJ5, I agree. City life is not for everyone.

But Brookside specifically said he/she was "ready to relocate to a city" and asked for suggestions. So we made some that fit the description of what is desired.

I'm with Suze. I live in the suburbs near two cities. And live in a 1200 sq. ft. house. I have never lived in anything larger in my 50 + years. I don't drive. So if I ever have a chance I would move to a city. Great public transit and "walking distance", sounds great to me about now. :-)

Washington, D.C. My husband and I spend every weekend doing stuff in this town and it's always new and fresh. It is a vibrant city, subway, great restaurants, world-class museums, shops -- decent weather, always something to talk about. We love this city! And it's the PEOPLE's city!

If millions of people did not love the city lifestyle... well, the cities would not be so crowded & expensive! Think about it.

Brookside,
I think you should get your list down to 3 or 4 places and actually go and check them out. True, visiting isn't the same as living there, but it can give you a very good idea--better than just taking others' opinions about a place.

I'd vote for Seattle 'cause I think it's a great place to live and have lots of single friends in their 40s who love it here. I think NYC is a great place to visit, but wouldn't want to live there (sorry, couldn't resist it
O-) )

But do go and check it out for yourself and good luck.

You can do some online research to narrow things down, even before a visit. Craig's List is an amazing resource, for one.

I was hot to move from Seattle to San Francisco a couple years ago. It took only a little bit of research and one visit in person to realize I could not make enough money to have a similar apartment/lifestyle in the city there, as I have here in Seattle. I would have to live out in Oakland at best. Just put $1500 a month in a search for SanFran, Seattle, Denver, etc. and see what pops up for apartments. Do the same for your employment.

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

yes, for most of my life. When I was a child we had an apartment that size. When we moved to a house it was bigger, approximately 1700 square feet (for a family of six) and for the 14 years I've lived on my own I've never had a place larger than 900 square feet (my current place is around 600 I believe), as a single person or a couple, I would be thrilled with 1200 square feet, and that is more common that you'd think I'd venture to say.

ditto. as single people all my friends have city apartments or condos from 500 to 900s.f. As above, 1200s.f. would be a HUGE amount of space.

I was asking this of Brookside, not for people who've lived in the city their entire lives or continually as singles now.

I raised three kids in under 1000SF and with 1 bathroom, but that's not the norm with 40 somethings from suburbia in 2006.

I must know at least 10 couples in their 40's & 50's (not retired) who have tried this and as I said before, except for the ones who went to Colorado, the remaining have all come back to areas of origin- where they have more space, less noise, more green, family connections closer AND with some access to a big city (less than 50 miles). But they all have (even both friends 40's and 50s, and my cousins in their 60's who went to live LOOP and Near North Chicago where he has a job as a muscian) come back for all the above reasons.

It may be for you and the only way is to try it. I did. I lasted about 2-1/2 months and I was 48 at the time.

It does have some marvelous advantages and it has some disadvantage as well. You have to live there to really know and it works the best if you research (as suze suggests) and trial it- you'll find your right niche in the right neighborhood too. And I would be very realistic about the ties you have established in the location where you are- because that point becomes a breaker for some people who least suspect it. If they are few- you may be right to go for it.

Men's Journal is about to name Portland, OR, as the very "best of the best" places for single *men* to live. Port Townsend, WA, is on the list in the small town category. Walla Walla is listed as a hot new potential; Orcas was named for its island life quality.
http://www.ptleader.com/main.asp?Sec...rticleID=14534

Of U.S. cities, I would still strongly go for Portland on the West Coast and Philly on the East. When we first left the Pacific NW after a decade in Eugene and Portland (before that we had lived for a similar lenght of time in Center City Philadelphia), we went to NYC. My husband had an excellent job offer and we found a good apartment in a full service building (the Boulevard on 86th and Broadway), but it took us only a month to decide the NYC wasn't for us. Fortunately, we lucked into a beautiful apartment just off Rittenhouse Square back in Philly. We were much happier in Philadelphia...it offered a better overall quality of life, in our opinion. The jobs picture in the Philadelphia area is fairly robust, esp. if you're in publishing or the healthcare industry (by that I don't mean a doctor, nurse, etc., they can find jobs almost anywhere).