Where should I live in the USA? I like music, culture, etc - but I need to be close to Europe.

July 31, 2009 4:13 AM

Where should I live in the USA? I like music, culture, etc - but I need to be close to Europe.

So I have the opportunity to be a US permanent resident next year and am starting to research as much as I can about where I might live. But there's a glitch - the timing is kind of bad and I am going to need to spend a fair of time in Europe over the next 3 years for work. I've got the permanent residence maintenance issues in hand (assuming I get the visa next year of course! I'm a DV winner) but the big question is: where should I live in the US (probably a few months each time) and establish my life/residence until I move for good?

I have spent about 4 months in the US across the past 5 years for vacation and conferences, places I've liked best have been Seattle, Chicago, especially Evanston, Santa Monica (but not so much the rest of LA), New York. I have only spent a day in Boston, but it seemed good. I don't drive so public transport is critical. I would not move to San Francisco for this reason. Climate I am not so worried about.

I have previously lived in Sydney, The Hague, and currently London. I like areas that are lively but not on top of the action - we live just north of Camden Town, and I lived in Newtown when I was in Sydney. I eat a lot of Asian and ethnic foods - I like variety. I also like living in a place with a lot of music, good bars, bookstores, museums etc and access to open spaces and parks. Living in London and the Hague, I'm used to an overpriced cost of living. My husband is an academic so a city with lots of academia would be good. Most of my US friends live in NYC.

The kicker is that I would be going back and forth between the US and Europe often for a couple of years, so I would prefer somewhere that is close flightwise to keep costs and flight times down (7hr flight vs 11 hr, for instance). A city with ample short-term leases would be good (or long-stay holiday apartments). We also need someplace where establishing a life is not too difficult - places where you can open a bank account and get ID and build credit. London for example, is tedious at this.

Where should I go, MeFi?

posted by wingless_angel to work & money (80 comments total)

New York City and Boston are pretty much it.
posted by jedrek at 4:15 AM on July 31

yeah, seconding Boston. I moved to here (Boston) from Ireland, can't drive and find it easy to get around. I also travel to europe a few times a year and you can get flights to all the major European cities from here.

Tons of academia, music, bars, bookstores......
posted by a womble is an active kind of sloth at 4:25 AM on July 31

Boston--Brookline, Cambridge
posted by TWinbrook8 at 4:26 AM on July 31

I vote Boston. Boston feels very European to me, compared to NYC just feeling super multicultural.
posted by olinerd at 4:27 AM on July 31

Start at the top of the criteria list and work down. Your key criteria is to live in a hub city on the East coast. That's Boston, New York, DC, and (I think) Atlanta and Orlando.

Then you look at your next most essential criteria and cross Atlanta and Orlando off the list as they have no public transportation to speak of. You don't even have to bother with any other criteria (which in the case of Orlando and to a lesser extent Atlanta is a very good thing.)

Then you look at Boston, New York, and DC, compare transport and start looking at arts and culture. NYC is going to be the hands-down winner there unless it has specific aspects you don't like.

Honestly, though, all three cities are very well connected by one Amtrak route on the North East Corridor and I'd go visit them all because they have very different personalities. Each city has everything you want, but in different incarnations. They are not far apart (by US standards) and they are all worth checking out.
posted by DarlingBri at 4:30 AM on July 31 [2 favorites]

On the basis of reading your initial sentence I was going to say "Boston". Having read through the details I have not really changed my mind. It has interesting culture, easy access to Europe, a large population of transient students (meaning that it is easy to make friends as a newcomer), good public transport.
posted by rongorongo at 4:30 AM on July 31

Living in Chicago would tack about an hour onto your flight time compared to New York. I don't know if that's a deal-breaker for you. If not, I would seriously consider Chicago.
posted by craichead at 4:48 AM on July 31

Boston. Definitely Boston. And I can't explain why, but I think you would like living in the Allston/Brighton neighbourhood.
posted by michswiss at 4:51 AM on July 31

Philadelphia is another choice that meets your criteria of flights to Europe, public transport, academics, bars, music, bookstores, and museums, although it has less of everything than NYC and Boston. But it is also cheaper, on average.
posted by blue mustard at 5:05 AM on July 31

craichead: not a dealbreaker, but the comments upthread about Boston make sense. I have spent about 3 weeks in Chicago. It felt a little bigger and like it took a while to get places on the El, but that may just be because I'm used to large cities where the transport makes everything feel compact.
posted by wingless_angel at 5:06 AM on July 31

Great-circle distances from U.S. cities with major international airports to London:

1. Boston: 5254 km
2. New York: 5554 km
3. Philadelphia: 5705 km
4. Washington: 5917 km
5. Detroit: 6061 km
6. Chicago: 6361 km
7. Minneapolis: 6461 km
8. Atlanta: 6776 km

For reference, the cruising speed of a 747 is about 900 kph; obviously the actual gate-to-gate times will be slower than that, but you can use these numbers to estimate relative travel times (e.g. flights from LHR-BOS should be about 20 minutes quicker than flights from LHR-JFK.)
posted by Johnny Assay at 5:10 AM on July 31 [1 favorite]

Also, a wildcard choice: Princeton NJ. It's a pleasant and walkable college town with decent amenities, although tiny, quiet and suburban compard to the urban centers of NYC and Boston. Still, it has a train station for wider travels, and all the NY and Philly airports are about a 60-90 minute commute by bus or rail.
posted by blue mustard at 5:11 AM on July 31

Johnny Assay: Brilliant, thank you!

Blue mustard: Any and all wildcards appreciated, keep 'em coming!
posted by wingless_angel at 5:13 AM on July 31

I'd also vote for Boston, and I say that as a born-and-raised New Yorker. It is everything you say that you're looking for, and cheaper than NYC (which is great, but can be overwhelming). Plus, you can take the Bolt Bus down to NYC in five hours' time for $15 any time you want to get that extra little NYC boost.

I live in Philly for 5 years and it doesn't really compare, but your mileage may vary. Princeton does not seem like a viable alternative to me, but you should check it out.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 5:19 AM on July 31

I lived in Pittsburgh for 10 years without a car, it's an airport hub, and it's about two notches below Boston/NYC/DC in housing costs, but only one notch below culturally. Carnegie-Mellon and U of Pitt are the biggest of several colleges and Universities.
posted by bendybendy at 5:27 AM on July 31

A few minor points : (1) flight costs & availability might not match distances, you should find historical flight information, (2) airport access may take longer for some localities, and (3) cost of living varies wildly among these places.

Atlanta was criticized for having poor public transit up thread, which depends upon your location really, but Atlanta's subway runs directly into the airport, shaving easily 30 min & much hassle off travel time vs. any NYC airport. I think this might hold for Boston too, not sure.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:36 AM on July 31

San Francisco isn't actually that bad without a car. However, the area surrounding it is pretty terrible without one. But if you don't leave the city that often, you could get by with a Zipcar rental or something like that.

Between BART and Muni, you can get anywhere in the immediate SF area. Going farther is very easy with Caltrain, but there won't be much transportation for you on the other end of the Caltrain line.
posted by twblalock at 5:37 AM on July 31

In Boston the Silver Line runs right to the airport.

Providence, RI would be a place to look at as well. About an hour from Boston and on the Commuter Rail, Peter Pan and Grayhound Bus Lines, and Amtrak, so easy to get to Logan.

Rent is 1/2 to 2/3rds of Boston. Brown, RISD, J&W, PC and RIC in town, so short-term leases are not foreign to local landlords. RIPTA offers decent public transit throughout the state.
posted by chiefthe at 5:43 AM on July 31

Atlanta's subway runs directly into the airport, shaving easily 30 min & much hassle off travel time vs. any NYC airport. I think this might hold for Boston too, not sure.

Yes and no. You can take the quasi-subway Silver Line (underground bus lane) to the airport or take a free 5-10 minute shuttle bus ride from the Airport stop on the Blue Line.

But anyway, Boston does seem like it hits all your main points. I have family and friends who have lived there with no car and managed just fine. For "lively but not on top of the action" you could look at the north end of the Red Line (Davis or Porter Square) or the west end(s) of the Green Line (Allston, Brighton, Brookline).
posted by letourneau at 6:05 AM on July 31

If you choose Boston: if money's not an issue, I'd recommend Cambridge or Brookline over an area like Allston/Brighton (I'm moving there in a month and am really excited, but I'm also a recent college grad who doesn't mind a solid layer of grime). Both have decent public transportation, large but relatively affluent immigrant populations (read: great ethnic food), and their own culture. Cambridge is a little more academic, thanks to Harvard and MIT. Both have plenty of green areas, neighborhoods that are very convenient to the city but feel more secluded, and more urban areas.

MeMail me if you want more specifics about Boston neighborhoods; I could go on for days.
posted by oinopaponton at 6:12 AM on July 31

Huh? I was born in and grew up in Boston and then a NYC suburb, spent my adolescence in London, and came back to Boston for school, with intermittent returns to Europe before I finally graduated. I've also lived in NYC for the past 12 years. (In between I also lived in Austin and Seattle, lucky me, and spent a lot of time in Chicago).

There is *no* comparison between NYC and Boston, and if you're looking to replicate the cultural richness and cosmopolitanism of London or Paris. Boston is a parochial little backwater by comparison. Every time I go there for any reason -- which is often enough -- I am reminded of why I love NYC so much more.

Also, your choices for cheap flights to Europe will be *much* better in NYC (in part because we have both Newark and JFK airports in range). And as for public transportation, NY kicks Boston's ass.

My .02 cents, anyway.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:17 AM on July 31 [6 favorites]

I don't see much choice for livable city than Boston; lived there for five years and was bouncing off to Europe a fair amount. If you are a hiker, then Boston's location is a plus as well.

The other option to think about is Washington DC. It also has a decent amount of what you are looking for although I don't care for it as the population is a bit more transient.
posted by fluffycreature at 6:18 AM on July 31

Also, from what I understand, living in Boston costs as much as NYC on average. "Livable" is of course a very subjective term.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:22 AM on July 31

Have you thought of Queens, NYC? Specifically Astoria, Jackson Heights, or Woodside. It's the most diverse "county" in the entire country, a veritable melting pot of Thai, Malaysian, Vietnamese, Chinese, Korean, Mexican, Puerto Rican, Venezuelan, Armenian, Greek, German, and many more cultures. Though the art and music scene won't be as good as Manhattan, living expenses are cheaper and the food is far closer to its ethnic roots.
posted by chalbe at 6:28 AM on July 31 [2 favorites]

Why is there no love here for D.C.? When I read good public transportation, museums, open spaces and parks in the OP, I immediately thought of D.C. It has its good share of restaurants, bars, and music scene as well, even though it may be a bar below NYC.

I live in the Midwest, but have visited all of the towns listed here multiple times, and really only like Seattle, Chicago, D.C., and Boston from those mentioned so far (I can't stand NYC, especially if you want open spaces, most of the time you feel claustrophobic in that city!). Seattle is out for not being close enough to Europe, but the remaining three (including Chicago) are easy to travel back and front from Europe.
posted by tuxster at 6:28 AM on July 31

And unlike Manhattan, Astoria has actual German bohemian beer gardens! Full of win!
posted by chalbe at 6:31 AM on July 31

most of the time you feel claustrophobic in that city!

Maybe you do. As a native of one town and a resident of the other, I have never felt NYC was claustrophobic or lacked open spaces by comparison to Beantown. Quite the contrary.

In my experience, really living well in Boston means driving a car, and dealing with the hassles of owning one in a hellish place to own a car.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:33 AM on July 31

Here's another way of looking at this: when you look back on your life, you'll be much sorrier you passed on a chance to spend at least a few years in a true world city -- New York -- in favor of a regional center -- Boston. People either love or hate New York, with most people who live here (I find) loving it more the longer they're here. It really isn't much more expensive than Boston or DC (I'd love to see numbers that prove it's more than marginally different cost-wise).

New York's comparison set is not Boston and DC. It is London, Paris, Tokyo, Berlin, Los Angeles, Mexico City. Comparing Boston to any of those cities is silly.

I'm being a total chauvinist, I know (and I am still a Red Sox fan). But I know both cities intimately, and I can't even wrap my head around the comparison.
posted by fourcheesemac at 6:38 AM on July 31 [1 favorite]

I lived in Pittsburgh for 10 years without a car, it's an airport hub, and it's about two notches below Boston/NYC/DC in housing costs, but only one notch below culturally.

Those are big notches -- Pittsburgh is someplace you can get a lot of house for $200K instead of completely jack-all for it.

If you mean that you can't drive rather than merely choose not to... unless you have a medical reason that you can't, I would learn to drive. It's one thing to live in NYC or central Boston all car-free because you want to; being forced to by lacking an easily-acquired skill is something else. Not being able to drive will put a damper on your ability to travel for business or pleasure within the US, and even if your home has good access to public transportation it would limit your ability to look for work to workplaces also convenient to public transportation.

You already like Chicago, so why not look there? Flights LHR/ORD seem to average (from looking not experience) about an hour longer than flights LFR/JFK, but on the other hand flying in and out of O'Hare (or Midway) is orders of magnitude less hassle than flying through LGA or JFK.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:39 AM on July 31

Um, to clarify some of fourcheesemac's misconceptions about Boston: you absolutely do NOT need a car in Boston. If you want one occasionally (to go to Ikea or the beach or something), ZipCar is all over the place.

And while it's possible to be frugal in both Boston and New York, Boston's rent prices are significantly cheaper. Take a look at Craigslist (Boston, New York) to compare.


New York's a lovely place, but it's not for everyone. You have to deal with all the ups and downs of humanity being shoved in your face 24/7, which can be great, but if it's not what you're looking for, you'll hate it.
posted by oinopaponton at 6:39 AM on July 31

ROU_Xenophobe: I learnt to drive when I was 18 but it is a stress and expense I do not need in my life and I never drove again after I took the test. My husband has never learnt. A choice far more easily understood in London or big-city Europe than the US, I realise! I have dealt with this choice by taking long commutes and not visiting some places which I know to have bad transport. Driving is not in my future.

fourcheesemac and chalbe: the idea of New York is certainly appealing. It is the city I've spent the longest in in the US (about a month all up). I have friends there. I like being able to get whatever food/drink/book/thing to do I want whenever. Would it spoil me for living anywhere else again? Quite probably!
posted by wingless_angel at 6:49 AM on July 31

Any and all wildcards appreciated, keep 'em coming!

Portland, Maine. 5124km (great-circle distance) to London Heathrow (HA! Beat that, Boston!)

But honestly, if you're looking for the cultural equivalent of London or Paris in the U.S., New York is it. Personally, I find the walkability of Boston to be much, much, much more preferable, and there are a lot more colleges/universities per-capita (which gives the city a very young feel, for better and for worse). But New York has vastly more to offer. Even just geographically, Boston-proper is the size of Central Park. Throw Brooklyn and Queens into the picture and it positively dwarfs Beantown.

And I wouldn't suggest Allston/Brighton to anyone that wasn't a college student. It has a very well-deserved reputation as a college ghetto.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 7:01 AM on July 31

Most of my US friends live in NYC.

Then I wouldn't live anywhere else. Your whole social circle is already in place, so the time in the city you lose by being back in the UK or elsewhere is offset by the fact that you don't need to spend six hours finding the best/cheapest/whatever something that your friends already know about.

Also, NYC and London are connected by more airlines than (probably) any two cities as far apart as they are on planet Earth, many with multiple flights a day:

- British Airways
- American Airlines
- Virgin Atlantic
- Kuwait Airways
- Delta Airlines
- Continental Airlines
- US Airways
- with a connection: Aer Lingus, Icelandair, Air Canada
posted by mdonley at 7:02 AM on July 31

Would it spoil me for living anywhere else again?

I've been living in NYC for about 6 years now. The first thing I think when visiting other cities is how it doesn't compare to New York. This is especially true of other US cities.

(exceptions for Taipei, Taiwan, where family smiles and the food is superior; Shanghai, which is up-and-coming; London, where living expenses consist of a toe and an opposable thumb each month; and Paris, which in my mind is the culinary and fashion capital of the world)
posted by chalbe at 7:06 AM on July 31 [1 favorite]

Cambridge (near Boston) is pretty Evanston-like, except even more expensive.
posted by ignignokt at 7:35 AM on July 31

I don't drive and Boston always really sucked for me.

I think there is a huge difference between a metropolitan area where you don't technically need a car to live and a metropolitan area where you can enjoy everything it has to offer without a car. I've never needed to ask anyone for a ride in order to participate in an activity.

Astoria is awesome and it's about 20 minutes, give or take, from Manhattan. I found it convenient and livable but it's a bit lacking in green space if that's important to you.

The biggest complaint I hear from new NYers is a sense of alienation or lonliness, an inability to navigate the city, no one to give them advice. You don't have that problem. Jump in with both feet and enjoy!
posted by kathrineg at 7:37 AM on July 31

oinopaponton: fair enough, I guess. I last lived in Boston in the late 80s. And back then I had a lifestyle that made a car (actually, a truck, as I was working construction a lot) necessary. It all depends on what you mean by "living in Boston," I guess -- both how you define "living" and how you define "in Boston."

I think by the numbers, you're right, Boston is a few notches cheaper than NYC overall (but I didn't hear the OP saying money was much of an issue). Both places are absurdly expensive, no matter how you slice it. The thing is, for me, that you get much more for your money living in New York, because you get New York.

I admit to chauvinism, but I came by my chauvinism from long, long experience with both cities. I have a soft spot for Boston because it's my home town and because I spent many years there. But like chalbe, every time I come home to NYC from anywhere else (and I travel constantly for work), I am reminded how much I love the place, and how hard I would find it to leave this town for anywhere else now that I'm in my 40s and make enough money to live well here.

Of course it's all subjective. What really makes a place livable is the life you lead while living there. I agree with mdonley above -- if you already have a social world in New York, that's half the case for moving there already. And to conclude, I'll tell you another experience of mine that defies the stereotypes: New York is a far friendlier town than Boston on a day-to-day basis. We like the reputation for rudeness and attitude, but in truth, I've never lived anywhere (Austin included) where the locals were more generous to outsiders, because almost everyone here -- at least in the professional classes -- arrived as an outsider at some point.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:39 AM on July 31

but the big question is: where should I live in the US?

The big question so far unasked is: what kind of an academic is your husband? From your profile you're a librarian, so depending on your individual/combined research & work interests, DC is as much a contender as NYC.

Yeah, DC is transient in a lot of ways, but one thing that means is that it's really easy to meet other people. (And since you asked, short-term leases are ample. Compare New York's "broker" racket, where you basically have to pay--what is it, 15% of the year's rent?--as a fee to your official apartment-finder.)

It's also well-connected: NY has Newark and JFK, DC has Dulles and BWI. Amtrak connects you to NYC in three to four hours. Cultural opportunities are immense, and since the Obamanation, it's become even hipper.

The only downside (depending on your perspective) is that there are strict building-height limits, so the city lacks skyscrapers and doesn't feel urban in the same way as NY/Boston/Chicago. (On the other hand, you can see the sun almost any day and open space is plentiful.) I don't own a car either and it hasn't hampered me at all: the Metro and a bike serve me just fine.
posted by kittyprecious at 7:41 AM on July 31

There are more libraries and universities in New York, I'm willing to bet, than in Boston and DC *combined.* (I am an academic.)
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:42 AM on July 31

You don't have to pay a broker, especially not now. Rents are plummeting.
posted by kathrineg at 7:43 AM on July 31 [1 favorite]

Slightly-wild wildcard option for NYC is living on the NJ side of the Hudson River. Hoboken and parts of Jersey City are closer (via PATH train or NJ transit bus) to Manhattan than much of Brooklyn, for instance, while the rents are cheaper than living in Manhattan.

The other thing to consider is which of the 3 NYC area airports will you be doing most of your flying through? If it's Newark, that may tip the balance toward NJ, if it's JFK, you may prefer Brooklyn or Queens. If it is La Guardia, you probably want Queens.

http://www.housingmaps.com/ mashes up craigslist ads and google maps, it will let you get an idea of the market.

http://www.triptropnyc.com/ is a site made by a MeFi (soma lkzx), that estimates transit times around NYC, though sadly it does not include NJ.
posted by fings at 7:49 AM on July 31

Also, I am currently looking out the window of my downtown NYC home right now, at the broad expanse of the Hudson river, teeming with boats and ships at the moment, and the low rooftops of the West Village. I see awesome sunsets from this window every night. From the other side of the apartment, I can see New York Harbor and the Statue of Liberty. We have something like 4 million trees in NYC, big wide avenues and plazas and parks. After living in sunny Austin and gloomy Seattle, I have never ever thought of New York as deficient in sunlight or open spaces.

One other approach to this question is: how well can you afford to live in any given place? If I lived in a 5th floor walkup studio on the upper east side, I'd feel differently (I did once, for a few months, and oh man did that suck). If you can afford to live in a decent apartment, NYC really comes into its own.

Yeah it costs money to live well here. You get what you pay for. But Boston is no bargain either. Living well there costs plenty.
posted by fourcheesemac at 7:53 AM on July 31

IMHO, people in NYC and DC are way friendlier than people in Boston.
posted by mareli at 8:01 AM on July 31 [1 favorite]

kittyprecious: currently lecturing in education, but he also has a teaching background in marketing and arts marketing.

I am a librarian, but of late have been working in development at a NGO so I could go in either direction. I do hear there are a lot of NGOs (and of course the UN) in New York.

Oh - and it's not that money isn't an issue for those that mentioned it, but I am frugal and have no other debts so paying a large rent is not necessarily the death of my social or travel life. We pay $1800 US a month here in London for a 1 bedroom place before taxes and utilities, and transport for those that know it is hellaciously expensive here.
posted by wingless_angel at 8:01 AM on July 31

kittyprecious: currently lecturing in education, but he also has a teaching background in marketing and arts marketing.

I am a librarian, but of late have been working in development at a NGO so I could go in either direction. I do hear there are a lot of NGOs (and of course the UN) in New York.


You're doubling down on the case for New York right there with this list of interests.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:06 AM on July 31

I'll put in my vote for Boston. I love it here. I hate to drive and I have no trouble getting around on public transportation, and I don't even live in one of the central neighborhoods. There's plenty of stuff to do here as well - music, lectures, farmer's markets, plays. I am also a librarian partnered with an academic, and I can vouch for the incredible wealth of libraries and academic institutions here.

Personally I am not a fan of NYC, because it's always felt a tourist-y and crowded to me. When I've visited, even to places where friends live as opposed to the typical tourist areas, I've never felt like I was in a place where people actually lived. It just feels like a tourist attraction to me, though of course YMMV. If most of your friends live there, that may be the place for you.

I will also say please do not move to Princeton, NJ. I lived there for a couple of years and I found it impossible to get around in without a car, expensive, and boring. All the events are geared towards the students, so they happen at 4:30 on a Tuesday, which means if you have any kind of day job at all, those are right out. And to get elsewhere means driving. I pretty much loathed living there and moved to Boston as soon as I could.
posted by marginaliana at 8:07 AM on July 31

marginaliana, we can agree at least about Princeton. What an awful, stultifying place to live.

I know, it's like Mac vs. PC (or Red Sox vs. Yanks) to have this discussion, and it's just personal, and we'll all have to agree to disagree. I don't hate Boston, I assure you. It still feels like the place I come from.

But the crowdedness of NYC -- the "humanity 24/7" -- is a main attraction for many people, as long as you have a retreat, which is why I say it really depends on whether you can afford a nice place to live. (And at least in my case, I spend a good chunk of my time in truly remote and rural places for work, so I get to retreat to the polar opposite of NYC quite often.)

Because trust me, NYC *is* a place where people actually live. And most of us who live here, in my experience, come to feel we couldn't "actually live" anywhere else as happily. I know people who feel the same way about Boston, but it's not as common in my circles for Bostonians to be hardcore about their town as New Yorkers are.

And yes, there's "plenty to do" -- more than one person could manage, obviously -- in Boston. But the sheer range of things to do (and do at the highest level) in NYC makes Boston look like a small town. I'm an academic, and I went to school in Boston (Cambridge, actually). But just limiting things to my own particular fields of academic interest, the range of experts, events, connections, and resources in New York dwarfs Boston's offerings -- by an order of magnitude.

I've never lived in DC, although I did spend a fair bit of time there a few years back. Never appealed to me.
posted by fourcheesemac at 8:19 AM on July 31 [2 favorites]

By the way, the feeling that no one actually lives here or that it seems fake is a result of all the films and TV shows that are filmed in NYC. One of the downsides to living in NYC is that so much "escapist" media is filmed or set in our backyard.
posted by kathrineg at 8:36 AM on July 31

Metaphorically, I mean. It's not like we have actual backyards.
posted by kathrineg at 8:36 AM on July 31

If you are a typical European you will hate Boston. People in Boston are not friendly. Bostonians are in actuaility the stereotype of what people think New Yorkers are.

The only logical choice here is NYC.

And no one lives in Princeton for the nightlife. Princeton is where you have your "country home" if you live and work in NYC and Fairfield County disgusts you.
posted by Zambrano at 8:51 AM on July 31 [1 favorite]

Important point: not owning a car and being a non-driver are two very different things. Providence is my favourite city on the east coast and I like Boston quite a bit, but they are not cities that are really set up for non-drivers in the same way NYC is. It's sort of like: can you function well as a non-driver in Glasgow or Edinburgh? Absolutely. But you'll function much more easily in London. It's a better lifestyle fit.
posted by DarlingBri at 9:18 AM on July 31

Well, I'm an academic and I've lived in London, The Hague and Princeton (and other places but these have come up here) and I would recommend you looking at NYC (and the surrounding area) in the first instance and then Boston or Philadelphia in the second instance. I go to Europe up to seven times a year and it's a real hassle if you're not near a major hub on the east coast. I have no experience with Chicago, but I'm sure Chicago to Europe is perfectly doable. NYC obviously has the most options but Philly works too and it's cheaper. Philly is pretty close to NYC so there's that to consider. Boston is fine but I don't know it as well as I know NYC/Philly/NJ. You could consider living somewhere equidistant between NYC and Philly but, whilst it fits that bill, I don't recommend Princeton as it's very pricey and not very interesting.
posted by ob at 9:29 AM on July 31

Nthing the Princeton hate. I lived there for two years and it drove me batty. It's the most whitebread place, culturally and everything else, I've ever lived except for a tiny village in Yorkshire, and it's more car-centric than Texas. Given your criteria, it's a bad fit.

I lived in Jersey City for a couple of years before that and it and Hoboken would potentially meet your criteria. A lot depends on how much stuff you have; if I didn't have a lot of physical possessions, I would rather live in a tiny place on Manhattan and reduce my commute time to all sorts of interesting activities.
posted by immlass at 9:46 AM on July 31

Seconding (thirding?) Philadelphia. I have never owned a car here and get by just fine. You can take the regional rail from Center City directly to the airport in less than 30 minutes, and there are many carriers with direct flights to Europe. My husband is European and whenever his friends come to visit they always comment about how much they like Philadelphia and they're surprised that they've never heard more about it. Also, the cost of living is very reasonable and there are dozens of colleges and universities in the area. I would suggest at least coming for a visit!
posted by jrichards at 9:48 AM on July 31

Hard to pass up New York City, but if you do skip NYC, I would suggest considering Chicago long before you consider Boston.

Boston is small, boring, insular, the people aren't very nice, and the transit isn't near as good as people say.

Chicago is a rough town but it is also incredibly interesting. There are countless little coffee shops, diners, bars, and other independently owned businesses, which seems to be on the decline even in New York. The EL is not a perfect transit system, but that and the bus will get you most places. I lived there four years, traveled the whole city, never owned a car. Borrowed one from a friend on one occasion. Chicago is also a city of neighborhoods, dozens of them, so if you are giong to be there for just a couple of years, it lends itself to finding your own little niche. You'll get attached.

Bottom line, while I've known several people who hated living in Boston (and New York) I've never met anyone who didn't love Chicago.
posted by kensington314 at 10:00 AM on July 31 [2 favorites]

Also chicago is cheaper than Boston and NYC.
posted by kensington314 at 10:01 AM on July 31

I grew up 45 miles from NYC, lived in Boston and London, and currently live in DC. Even though I think NYC's the obvious choice here, living in Boston felt the most similar to living in London. It might have been because I take the subway and Metro more often in New York and DC, whereas I usually walked or took buses while I was in Boston and London. I think this made me appreciate the openness of these cities more than the ones that I'm constantly going underground to traverse.

Also I wanted to suggest a really unrealistic wild card just because: New Orleans. There are no direct flights, it's in a backwards state, and the academic community doesn't compare to any of the other cities. That being said, it's a cultural and culinary behemoth of American cities, it has a superb nightlife (and no last call), and if you live in the French Quarter or Marigny, or along Magazine street, you will have no need for a car. It's also much cheaper.
posted by jalexc at 10:03 AM on July 31

As for airports, you won't be flying out of LaGuardia if you're going to Europe. Live downtown in Manhattan and you are 45 minutes away from either EWR or JFK by efficient public transportation.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:28 AM on July 31

Wow, did Boston steal you guys' lunch money or something? There are nice people here, I promise! Lots of them!

New York sounds like it might be a better fit for you since you don't seem to be worried about money (and can therefore actually enjoy living there rather than dying a thousand deaths every time you pay $2 for a subway ride), but you should definitely come up to Boston for a visit that's longer than a day. It's just 4 hours away.
posted by oinopaponton at 10:33 AM on July 31 [1 favorite]

I think there's a difference between Evanston and Chicago proper though when it comes to transport. Sure, you can take the el or Metra into the city from Evanston but you won't be as connected to transport when you're at the end of the line up in Evanston. Sure, there's local buses within Evanston but it will take you a while to ride the el into the heart of the city. If you decide to live in Chicago check out a few neighborhoods that are more convenient transport-wise in addition to Evanston.

I live in Chicago without a car and function fine. The only time I wish I had a car is when I need to buy a lot of groceries but there's always grocery delivery (Peapod) or iGo/Zipcar. I usually get my groceries on my bike.

I can't speak to NYC or Boston because I haven't lived in either but I suggest thinking about which place you feel most comfortable in. Having a social network in place would be a big plus for me. O'Hare Airport is incredibly well-connected (I would assume more so than Boston, but I don't know for sure) and the el runs right into the terminal so unless that extra hour of flight time is a deal breaker I wouldn't let airports sway you too much.
posted by Bunglegirl at 10:37 AM on July 31

It's actually $2.50 now, but locals don't pay by the ride. We buy a monthly card. And for me, that works out to about a buck and a quarter a ride, since I ride the system several times a day.

As a native of Boston, I know what people mean about the attitude, though. There is a hardness to native Bostonians who have stayed there that I really have *not* found in NYC to anywhere near the extent of the stereotype. Of course there are nice people there, but a lot of people I know, and myself, would agree that on average, everyday interactions in Boston are tinged with more rudeness than in NYC.
posted by fourcheesemac at 10:39 AM on July 31

According to CNN Money's Cost of Living Calculator, using a salary of $50,000 in Manhattan as a baseline, you'd only need $30,169 to maintain your same standard of living in Boston and $25,614 to live in Chicago.
posted by HotPatatta at 11:16 AM on July 31

I like Boston, but having the option to catch the subway 24/7, I can't stand the fact that Boston's train lines shut down at certain times of the night.

re: NYC's comparison set of cities

+1 fourcheesemac
posted by tomorama at 11:20 AM on July 31

San Francisco isn't actually that bad without a car. However, the area surrounding it is pretty terrible without one. But if you don't leave the city that often, you could get by with a Zipcar rental or something like that.
But living anywhere on the West Coast adds at least an extra four hours onto OP's flight time to Europe. Nthing New York and its environs, as just about every airline flies out of there and you can find some great bargains and far more flexibility in scheduling.
posted by Oriole Adams at 11:22 AM on July 31

I lived in Boston for four years, moved to NYC for six, and now I'm back in Boston (Somerville actually) and have been here for about a year and a half. I feel conflicted about which place is a better place to live, but here's what I know:

Wow, did Boston steal you guys' lunch money or something? There are nice people here, I promise! Lots of them!

I don't deny that this is true: there are a lot of nice people in Boston, for sure. But really, this is a cold city (in both ways, ha). The general vibe is that people are really not that interested in you and find it strange if you talk to them. People are not quick to interact with you or help you out. New Yorkers are definitely generally nicer, in my experience, and I attribute that to the same thing fourcheesemac says about everyone coming from other places--New York is a city of immigrants. And it is a global city: Boston is definitely a New England American city. It is strangely provincial (considering how much of a reputation it has globally and how many people are here from the rest of the world as well). Again, these are generalizations but you really can feel it if you live here.

Also, it's important to note that Boston is a far more segregated urban area than New York. Significantly more segregated. This has always and will always bug me.

Boston has a higher standard of living. I don't care what you New Yorkers say, you get more for your money here. I have a washing machine in my basement. Oh yeah, I have a basement. I'm paying much less in Somerville than I paid in Brooklyn, and I was living on the "wrong" side of Prospect Park, not in some schmancy area like Park Slope or Williamsburg. Food, drink, and the usual amenities are for the most part cheaper across the board.

What fourcheesemac said about cultural stuff/activities/etc.: yes. No need to repeat this other than to say that I agree emphatically with what was said and how it was said.

The public transportation in NYC is better (although it can frequently be very frustrating, and after being to Tokyo and Singapore it makes me cry for the state of public transportation in the U.S.). Boston has some really frustrating gaps. Somerville to Brookline or J.P.? Or, for that matter, J.P. to Brookline? It's retarded. It's way easier--proportionally speaking--to get from, say, Morningside Heights to Astoria, or Park Slope to Midtown. Point being, it's easier to get to the interesting places you may want to get to in New York (not that there aren't interesting places that are harder to get to in NYC via public transportation). Granted, New York is bigger so these things take longer, but...New York is bigger.

Depending on where you are going, flying out of Boston can be more expensive, but for locations in Europe--U.K. especially--I don't think it'll make as big of a difference. But other flights you'll have to transfer at a hub in NYC or Chicago or D.C. first.

That's my take. Hope it helps!
posted by dubitable at 12:35 PM on July 31 [1 favorite]

Oh, and I grew up near D.C. and have been there a fair amount since I left the area. I don't particularly like the place, but it has a lot of great culture too, and I would argue that it is definitely an international city in a way that Boston is not. Maybe that's just a byproduct of the government being there and so many diplomats and embassies and whatnot. Lots of great food. The museums are amazing, beat the pants off of Boston and I think tie with NYC. Generally better air transport hub I believe, although again, for the locations you are interested in, maybe not.

Some reasons I don't like it: climate is sort of meh to me, it feels crime-y (but don't take my word for it, anyone got stats?) and sort of run-down, you are a second-class citizen as an American there at least, and it's also segregated. Just don't like the feel, can't put my finger on it. But I don't know it like the other cities so take my cons with a grain of salt.
posted by dubitable at 12:42 PM on July 31

One last thing: I totally agree that NYC simply feels more integrated (or less segregated) and more international than Boston, overall. I really notice that when I come back to NYC from almost anywhere in the US other than the Bay area.
posted by fourcheesemac at 1:25 PM on July 31

CNN Money's Cost of Living Calculator

OK, um, weird that it lists DC under Virginia.
posted by kittyprecious at 1:36 PM on July 31

Just to chime in on the "cost of living in NYC" part: I've lived in Astoria, Queens, NYC for about 4 years, and while the rents are a higher than they are where I grew up (in an urban suburb between NYC and Boston), living expenses (groceries, haircuts, car repair [yes I own a car here], etc) are SIGNIFIGANTLY cheaper than they were back home.

When people say "omg, living in NYC is SOOOO expensive", they're talking Manhattan, and to a lesser extent, rent costs. I do tend to price-shop, but even the super convenient supermarket right off the subway isn't THAT expensive. (But I still go to the cheaper one a block past my apartment, further from the subway.)

Also, I took public transportation from Astoria to JFK airport at 6AM a couple Saturdays ago, and it took around an hour. I was very pleasantly surprised. My flight-attendant friend (who lives in my building) told me that's about normal travel time from here to there, unless there's something that screwed up the trains bad.
posted by AlisonM at 2:46 PM on July 31

When people say "omg, living in NYC is SOOOO expensive", they're talking Manhattan, and to a lesser extent, rent costs. I do tend to price-shop, but even the super convenient supermarket right off the subway isn't THAT expensive. (But I still go to the cheaper one a block past my apartment, further from the subway.)

NU YORK: UR DOIN IT RONG!

Sorry, not trying to be snarky, that just popped into my head when I read that. I was actually applying that in reverse to what you were saying about people complaining about NYC costs and imagining it in a lolcat pic with a cat making a screamy face on the subway or something. Um, I'm just having my little bit of fun over here...er...nevermind.

Seriously though, and not to quibble, but to quibble, I think if you aren't spending some real time (and therefore money) in Manhattan you are losing out on a lot of why you should live in New York.

But hey, everyone has a different experience of the city too, so...YMMV. There's some more of my semi-off-topic two cents.
posted by dubitable at 3:11 PM on July 31

Oh, and I'm not sure if this is at all helpful to you coming from Astoria, but one thing I figured out after in living in NYC for a little while was that the best way to get to JFK from much of Manhattan and Brooklyn was the LIRR out to Jamaica...half an hour from Atlantic/Pacific in Brooklyn and only slightly more from Penn Station. $12 or so, I think. That made things a lot smoother, I gotta say.
posted by dubitable at 3:15 PM on July 31

One more data point: if you are flying to the UK at all often, Newark's your best bet by a mile. Continental flies cheaper and to almost every UK airport.
posted by genghis at 8:29 PM on July 31

I know you said you want to be close to Europe, but having made the flight a decent number of times, I don't find myself significantly worse for wear because of the extra 4 hours across the country after god knows how many across the Atlantic. If you're going back & forth every couple months, I'd think about trading those 8 hours for the other 3000 you'll be spending in the city. And therefore propose San Francisco.
posted by devilsbrigade at 9:21 PM on July 31

This has been great everyone, a lot of good food for thought here! I really appreciate everyone's insights. I'm really excited about it and I will definitely take a couple of trips to a few places to check them out, though New York does seem to be edging out as a winner here.
posted by wingless_angel at 2:29 AM on August 1

Ignore the earlier Pittsburgh recommendation. I just moved back to Boston (ha!) after a year there and what a crappy place! The level of the quality of restaurants is so poor that I became gunshy about trying new places. There were only a few restaurants that I would consider returning to, and I hope to never return to Pittsburgh. Read all the negative comments applied to Boston, apply them to Pittsburgh X10.

In any case, it sounds like NYC is the right place for you. I'd move to where my friends are, all other things being equal.

And for frequent transatlantic flights, the time and sanity savings of having direct flights from the East Coast would be totally worth it. Connecting flights are always such a hassle.

I'm a transplant to Boston, having lived here 15 years now, and I mostly disagree with the negative comments about the city. The founded comparisons are spot on (like DC has more museums; NYC's subway is 24h while Boston's is not; etc).

In terms of the view that Bostonians are rude, I haven't found that to be true. I think that they are more reserved. When I'm in other parts of the country, people seem overly chatty and fake during the ordinary daily interactions w/ people that you'll never see again. If you're from the Midwest or South, I can see how the reservedness of the New Englander could be seen as rude.

Of course, in any city, there are people that are rude and nasty; I don't think that there is a higher proportion of them in Boston than anywhere else.

Boston is a much smaller city than NYC (575k vs over 8M), so it's not surprising that there's just more of everything.

I'm a big fan of New York. There are some great quieter neighborhoods, even in Manhattan, that I would consider living in if I moved there. That's the great thing about the city, there's so much variety of everything. It's really amped up.
posted by reddot at 7:10 AM on August 1

Chiming in late, but I wanted to add that I grew up near Philadelphia, and like it there quite a bit, and have spent time in Boston, which is nice in its way. I went to school near NYC, and go back frequently, and currently live in the DC area, so I am familiar with all of the top 4 cities being discussed here. In my opinion, NYC is the best option for you, hands down, with DC being the second choice. I think you could do well in either place, but NYC is more cosmopolitan than DC and your friends are there. (Like NYC, the DC area varies a lot by neighborhood, so if you do wind up living here you just need to shop carefully for a place to live as different neighborhoods can have a very different "feel" and give you a very different living experience - good or bad.)
posted by gudrun at 11:00 AM on August 1

Datapoint coming a little late to the discussion: I just moved from Europe to NYC. I'm also a non-driver. My boyfriend is back in Europe so there will be many transatlantic flights. I spent some time in Philly and Chicago (my family lives in Evanston so I have spent lots of time there) before I moved to NYC and wow am I glad to be here. In those places I ached to just apply to move back to Europe ASAP. In NYC I'm too busy enjoying great things to miss it! Chicago is OK, but public transport is hellish to say the least. People who say it's OK are just used to being treated badly because they've never lived in a city with real public transportation. Once you've lived in Europe, you probably have and you are going to be frustrated. I was also frustrated because Chicago just doesn't have as much. Indonesian restaurant? Maybe one in the entire city. Philly is only one hour away from NYC and is cheap, but is crappier and the ticket to NYC costs like 90 round trip. Lame.

In NYC, yes, things are more expensive, but it's so much easier to get to Europe and maybe you'll find yourself not going there so much since NYC is great. I live on NYC on a laughably low salary and manage to live in a nice area of Manhattan where my apartment has a washer/dryer (though I have a teeeeeeeeny tiny place) and enjoy good food and great culture. I don't agree with dubitable about Manhattan though. I find myself going to Brooklyn a lot because there is so much to do there too.
posted by melissam at 1:20 PM on August 1

I don't agree with dubitable about Manhattan though. I find myself going to Brooklyn a lot because there is so much to do there too.

Oh, don't get me wrong: I wasn't saying there isn't a ton of awesome stuff going on in the outer boroughs--after all, I lived in Brooklyn and spent most of my time there.

To clarify, I was just saying that, if you don't spend some time in Manhattan, you are missing out on a lot of what makes New York so great and unique (and I was mostly making a point about cost of living--Manhattan is expensive). But I agree--the same could be said for all the boroughs: great adventures are to be found in all five.
posted by dubitable at 8:25 AM on August 2

Sorry, to clarify my earlier answers, when I said "New York" I absolutely meant Manhattan.

Having said that, if you wanted to tell us where in London you are currently living, it might give some of us more information with which to help you. If you're paying +/- £1100 per month, that probably means you're not living in SW1, so it's possible that a less expensive borough might be totally groovy for you.

Or hell, I actually like Hoboken.
posted by DarlingBri at 10:10 PM on August 2

DarlingBri: NW5, spitting distance from the North border of NW1. To be honest, I picked this spot because I didn't want to be completely surrounded council estates.
posted by wingless_angel at 10:50 AM on August 3