Where would you live for a year if housing was paid for?
 

Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Austin, Boston or New York?

Boston

I'd pick Boston.

From that list; San Francisco.

It would depend upon:

1) Where I was coming from
2) What I had to do get the housing paid for
3) What the rest of my financial situation looked like
4) What my interests were
5) Where the housing is within the cities

That being said, we recently moved from Boston to San Francisco, so that should give you some answer to what our choice would be. We also looked very hard at LA and New York, but ultimately passed.

If I had to rank, I'd say:

SF
LA
NYC
Boston
Chicago
Philly
Austin

None but....NYC (Manhattan)

I pretty much agree with travelgourmet, although assuming that Austin is warm, I'd probably bump Chicago to the bottom of the list. Love the city, would hate the weather.

If you open up the field even further, I'd probably choose a small, charming place that is accessible to Boston..like Salem or Nantucket. I Iike cities but it would have to be really nice housing for me to want to live in one.

I will phrase. Where would you live for a year if housing was paid for and why? Opening up the field to anywhere but wany to be in a metropolitan or just closely outside of it.

I liked the question before I saw the list. So, none of the above.

Beat you to it, MmePerdu. :)

<i>Where would you live for a year if housing was paid for and why? Opening up the field to anywhere but wany to be in a metropolitan or just closely outside of it.</i>

Still in the US? How metropolitan?

If you opened it up further (but still US), I don't think much of my list would change. Maybe Portland, OR, Charleston, SC, or New Orleans might sneak into consideration, but I don't think they'd beat any of your original list out other than Philly and Austin.

As for why I would rank the cities as I do...
-SF is just such a center of innovation and is so vibrant culturally. The weather is pretty good too.
- LA has just become so frickin' cool, adding to it already being a media capital and having great weather.
- New York is New York - it is probably too insular for me to live there long-term, but for a year it would be awesome.
- Boston makes my list primarily because I went to school there and it is, in some ways, home - that it is quite possibly the intellectual center of the US (and vies for the world) work in its favor.
- Chicago has great people, but I would put it (and probably anywhere else) a notch lower than the others.

FWIW, if we were to expand to the rest of the world, my list would go:

Tokyo
London
Hong Kong
Singapore

Yes, I think about these things with some regularity.

I lived in LA for the first 28 years of my life and in San Francisco or just outside of SF since 1975. I went to college near Chicago (and visited Chicago several times), have friends in NYC we've visited a couple of times and also rented an apt there 3 years ago for 10 nights. Have been to Boston a couple of times & also Austin on business. Never been to Philadelphia. We also spend 2 months vacationing in France every year.

My ranking would be:
San Francisco
Manhattan
France

I'm a lifetime Californian - so I don't like cold, high humidity, or too hot.

I love San Francisco because:
- San Francisco is small - only 49 square miles.
- I can walk to get groceries, out to dinner, have coffee with friends, and hop on the J-Church Muni Metro to get to work or to downtown
- My wife & I spent many, many Sundays playing volleyball in Golden Gate Park with friends
- My wife & I went with friends to GG Park for a jog after work or on weekends
- It is 1 1/2 hrs to the Napa & Sonoma wine country
- It is 2 1/4 hrs to the Carmel/Monterey area
- In 5 hrs or so I can get to Yosemite, Lake Tahoe, and the Sierra Nevada mountains. Less than that to the Gold Country.
- You can be what you want to be in San Francisco (this can be a plus or a minus)
- Ethnic diversity
- Sexual orientation diversity
- Restaurant diversity

Stu Dudley

Things to do in the San Francisco area:

http://www.fodors.com/community/unit...mendations.cfm

Stu Dudleu

Greg, no problem, conversation, not a race.

Of those cities, I'd choose SF. I enjoy Boston, but the weather would be an issue for me. I'd also enjoy Chicago and NYC, but with similar weather concerns.

If you open it up world-wide, places I'd be interested in include Bangkok, Singapore, Paris and London.

NYC

I would pick New York City because it is the most fascinating of the places you list and it has more opportunities to experience great theater, music, art, dance, etc. than the other options. There is also great hiking nearby. Lots of restaurants. Cheap eats, too. Fun to walk the streets. Great neighborhoods to explore. Lots of sun. Friendly people. It is one of the great cities of the world. George Gershwin lived there. So did Joe DiMaggio. Marilyn Monroe went to school there. I lived there for thirty years. I've found other fascinating cities in my travels, but none that satisfy me the way New York City does. I'm a fan, but maybe Austin would suit you better. Forget San Francisco. It wears thin after a few months.

HTtY

"Stu Dudleu"

will that be your nom de plume en France?

In that case, San Francisco, city of my birth.

Not as bad as your "San Francisco public library" with the missing "l" in public.

>> George Gershwin lived there. So did Joe DiMaggio.<<

But Joltin Joe was from San Francisco.


>>Marilyn Monroe<<

And his wife lived in San Francisco also.

>>In that case, San Francisco, city of my birth<<

Mine too!!

Stu Dudley (did it correct this time)