Help us choose where to move - MN or CA?

September 14, 2005 10:41 AM

MN / CA or bust! My SO has received a job offer that could have us moving from Boston to either St. Paul or LA - our choice. I have job leads in both places, but we just can't decide where to go! Both cities seem to rock, but their (perceived) drawbacks make me hesitate.

We're East coasters, young professionals, no kids, two cats, with careers in media/technology. We like farmers
markets, neat little stores, coffee shops, the great outdoors. Boston has all these things for us, along with family
and a large group of friends. If we're going to leave all that for some years for career and adventure reasons then
so be it, but I'd like for it to be a good experience that suits us.

We've been weighing the pros and cons of each place as we see them, but they are so unlike one another that we have a hard time deciding. One has the good weather, but the bad commute. The other is cheaper (we can save!) and will let us have the cats go outdoors, but we're not as intrigued by its surroundings. We have some friends in LA, none in MN. MN is closer to home for the holidays. On and on it goes.

Maybe you've lived in one of these places? Or even better, both? Any observations on differences in quality of life, cost differences, and so on?

posted by kahboom to travel & transportation (62 comments total)

I've been in LA for a little over five years (moved from Chicago, where I'd been for about seven years). I loved it for the first couple of years (yay, warm weather!), then suddenly hated it for a couple of years (boo, Beverly Hills trophy wives with breast implants and SUVs and cell phones blocking traffic EVERYWHERE!), then reached a funny state of acceptance/fondness in the past six months or so.

The two things that I miss the most living in LA are autumn and a sense of urban centrality. The change of the seasons does exist here, but it's very subtle -- and when you've lived your entire life with your internal calendar linked inextricably to things like leaves falling, crisp winter air, the glory of the first warm day of spring, etc., it's genuinely unsettling to lose that.

The other thing is the lack of centralized urban/social geography. There is very little shared public space in the same way as in other major cities -- there's no Central Park (or its equivalent), most people don't take public transit, and most people don't work downtown. There are some neighborhoods where you can walk down the street to a cafe, then go to a bookstore, then go get your drycleaning, but not in the same way you'll find in NY/Chicago/Boston/etc.

On the other hand, there are farmers markets practically everywhere -- small and huge alike. And of course, plenty of great shops/boutiques/galleries/etc. There are also a ton of small neighborhood theatres/performance spaces, which I think is something people don't think of a lot in LA. (It makes sense, though -- all those actors/writers between TV and movie gigs have to do something!)

As for the bad commutes out here, it is sometimes possible to live and work in the same (or adjacent) neighborhoods, depending on your line of work and budget. I live/work in Miracle Mile, for example, and I know several other people at work who live in the neighborhood as well, but I know it's not always an option for everyone.
posted by scody at 11:03 AM on September 14, 2005

I have only had brief experiences with both places but I can tell you that St. Paul is probably one of the most well designed cities I've ever visited and for that reason alone it would probably be a more relaxing place to live. If you're young and have no kids than Minneapolis may be more interesting to you but will probably increase your commute time, thus defeating part of the purpose in moving to MN. The midwest generally suffers from a reputation of being a "fly over" over region but there are quite a number of wonderful places to live and I think the Twin Cities ranks high on that list. Look at it this way - the winters can't be any worse than Boston.
posted by quadog at 11:07 AM on September 14, 2005

I'm a Minneapolitan, born and bred, and I can't say enough good things about the Twin Cities. As far as I'm concerned, the only drawback is the weather, which you would already be used to from living in Boston. (The winters are no worse here than they are in New England - they might last a little longer, but they're certainly no harsher).

Minneapolis-St. Paul has all of the elements that you seek (farmers markets, neat little stores, coffee shops, the great outdoors), and a much better quality of life than LA (in my opinion). Depending on where you live, the commute will never be longer than 30 minutes, and you can actually live in the city without being super wealthy. The people are incredibly friendly, and it's relatively easy to meet new people (Minnesota has been known for being cold to newcomers, but I think that this has changed since the cities have become populated more and more with outsiders in recent years).

It's a very liberal place, especially in the cities. As far as jobs are concerned, it's a technology center, as there are quite a few high-tech companies here. (Though can't really compare with northern California).

Additional pluses: great theater (the Guthrie is very well-known), art museums (the Walker was just refurbished), shopping (Mall of America, if you're so inclined), great restaurants, etc.

Those are my thoughts, for what they're worth...
posted by elquien at 11:10 AM on September 14, 2005

"The other is cheaper (we can save!)" would answer the question, right there, if it were me. This gives you more options for the future.
posted by luneray at 11:10 AM on September 14, 2005

A lot of this is subjective, of course, and depends on you. As background: I was born and raised and continue to live in rural Oregon. Portland is my kind of town.

My wife's family lives in and around L.A. I have good friends from college who live in Minneapolis. I've visited both places several times over the past decade. If I were choosing, I'd choose Minneapolis, but it's not a clear winner.

To me, the worst thing about Minnesota is the weather. Having spent my entire life in the Willamette Valley, I'm used to a mild climate. Minnesota is not mild. It's snowy and icy in the winter, and the summers are hot and humid. The first time I stepped off a plane into a Minnesota August was an eye-opener. I hadn't known so much humidity was possible. (And I'm sure it's nothing compared to other places.) However, as you're from Boston, you probably have experience with similar winter weather, and who knows? maybe it's humid in Boston, too.

I like most everything else about Minneapolis; the city feels like Portland. It's a small big city, and the state seems to still cling to its agricultural roots. The land is flat, and there aren't many coniferous trees, and the locals call ponds "lakes", but these are minor. The people I've met in Minneapolis are varied (though surely not as varied as L.A. would offer) and mostly friendly.

Los Angeles has some advantages, of course: it's a cultural center, for good or ill. It's an exciting city, full of new and wonderful things. But you're right: traffic is killer. It's just an accepted fact of life, from what I can tell. And the damn city seems to go on forever. (Portland and Minneapolis both end at some point, and you reach the countryside.) My wife's parents live in San Bernardino, an hour or more outside of L.A., and it's nothing but freeways and strip malls all the way between the two towns. It seems like the weather is always the same, no matter what time of year I'm there: hot and smoggy. I don't like the climate. On the other hand, there's always something to do.

Just some random impressions from a guy who's visited both cities...
posted by jdroth at 11:23 AM on September 14, 2005

Despite the fact that LA seems to stretch on into infinity, there's a great deal of natural beauty around here. In a 2-3 hour driving radius, you will be able to reach the mountains, forest, desert, and some (relatively) pristine coastline.

Outside of that, LA has some of the best Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Mexican restaurants outside of their respective countries.

But yeah. It's a 25 minute drive to anywhere that you don't need the freeway, and at least a 40 minute drive to anywhere that you do. That's a fact of life you'll have to accept if you want to live in LA. The cost of living shouldn't hit you too much, if you're a 2 income with no kids household. You'll definitely be able to save up more in MN, but you should be able to save up some in LA too, on a reasonable lifestyle.
posted by C^3 at 11:35 AM on September 14, 2005

If you would like to be anonymous, live in L.A. I don't know this personally, but most of my friends who have lived in L.A. have found it fairly isolating.

If you would like to meet your neighbors and make friends with people you meet in the co-op and start your own theatre company/have a show at a gallery/get involved in local politics...move to the Twin Cities, preferably Minneapolis, where it is very easy to make things happen.
posted by hsoltz at 11:36 AM on September 14, 2005

Hey, who said anyting about Minneapolis? The poster asked about St. Paul, which is so much cooler.

In any event, another vote for MN. Lower cost of living, good schools if kids are in your future. I moved there from California and was able to deal with the weather just fine -- I actually grew to love the winter, although that long stretch from late Feb to when it actually warms up again can be a little dull. I think the key is to embrace the winter and take up suitable hobbies like ice fishing and nordic skiing. During the summer, there's nothing like canoeing! If I were in your position, I would go for MN in a second.
posted by footnote at 11:40 AM on September 14, 2005

Background: 16 years in Minneapolis area, 7 years in Boston area, never been to LA.

Minneapolis is a fun place to be, and it sounds like it has a lot of the things you are looking for. If anything, the farmers' markets there are better than they are out here - better prices (as on almost everything else), more informal (picture pickups along the road with spraypainted signs rather than tents and fancy stickers). Cultural stuff is definitely not hard to find either - the Scandinavian hegemony is not nearly as strong in MSP as it used to be, with a strong influx of Russians, Hmong, Latinos, and many others. Additionally, there are strong neighborhood personalities in Minneapolis and St. Paul themselves, less so if you're living in any of the suburbs.

You don't say if you've been to Minneapolis yet? Plains, cows, and corn do not completely surround the cities. It's not Iowa (joking). Within an hour or so you can be on the rivers, at any of a number of lakes, hiking, skiing, etc. If by great outdoors you wanted desert, well, there aren't any of those.

As a couple other people said, weather's the only real drawback I can come up with, but it's really no worse than Boston. The summers are beautifully hot, not blistering, and usually not humid. Winters have been milder since I left, with less snow, and a longer-lasting but not as intense cold. The city is gorgeous when it snows. And there are so many trees! Everywhere!
Oh and the public transportation is not so hot, especially compared to Boston, but I hear the same about LA. The bus system in the city proper is decent, but nothing like having the T at your doorstep.
posted by whatzit at 11:44 AM on September 14, 2005

My wife and I loved St. Paul, weather and all. I wouldn't hesitate to move back if the opportunity arises. Since I haven't been there in a few years, I'll keep my comments focussed mostly on something that I don't think has changed much, the weather. The winter will be harsher than what you are used to in Boston, since the presence of the ocean protects Boston from the full onslaught of the New England winter. It will be colder for longer in St. Paul, although there may not be as much snow. What snow does fall tends to last all winter long, so you have plenty of time to indulge in your favorite winter snow sports. As a New Jersey native, I found the winters to be invigorating (no, really) and the summers to be wonderful. If it ever got humid, it was only for a few days, not the weeks long stints of disgusting summer weather I was used to.

Regarding commuting, you can live on the west side of St. Paul and be roughly equidistant from both downtowns. We were fifteen minutes from both downtowns. Rolling into Minneapolis for a Friday night out was hassle-free.

Hope these data points help.
posted by mollweide at 11:46 AM on September 14, 2005

Another vote for St. Paul. It's a great town and so much cleaner than LA. Less crime, more "homey." Minneapolis isn't a bad town either, but St. Paul just has that attitude Garrison Keillor likes so much.
posted by BradNelson at 11:47 AM on September 14, 2005

I guess I should expand on something that some of the comments have touched on...Minneapolis and St. Paul, while collectively known as the Twin Cities, are very different cities.

Minneapolis is known as the liberal, hipper city, while St. Paul is very true to its Catholic roots (though the Grand Ave. area has lots of great restaurants and shops). St. Paul is more residential, with lots of quiet neighborhoods, while Minneapolis is more urban. Downtown Minneapolis has a lot of nightlife, while downtown St. Paul is pretty much dead after 5:00 (though it is being revitalized). Which city you choose to live in (or near) should definitely play into your decision, because they have very different personalities.
posted by elquien at 11:51 AM on September 14, 2005

Once you've become accustomed to the glorious California weather, it's hard to imagine living anywhere else. You should be the one going out to meet the snow in the nearby mountains, rather than having it come to you between your driveway and your shovel.

I'd pick "friends in the same city" over "closer to family (but presumably with some distance still)" any day of the week, but that's probably just reflective of my own biases and upbringing. Also, if there's something about the LA area that "intrigues" you enough to consider moving out here, then it's better to get the adventure out of your system now while you can, rather than later on in your life when you maybe can't.

That said, judging from the strong campaigning for the Twin Cities area in this thread, it does seem like this is one of those decisions where you really can't go wrong either way, especially since you didn't mention any major dealbreakers for either city. If both options "rock" as you say, then you can simpify things by just drawing a name at random and go with it. They're both great choices, right?

Watch out for all the banana-flinging monkeys hanging out in LA though. They'll cleverly rope you into meetups if you're not careful.
posted by DaShiv at 11:51 AM on September 14, 2005

Lived and grew up in LA, love Boston, visited Minnesota.

For all the above reasons, I would recommend Minnesota. LA is fun to visit, but it sucks for a lot of reasons (traffic, smog, people spread out too much, no seasons at all) to live there. You already have friends there, so you will already have excuses to visit. Live in Minnesota, save your money, and when the winters get too long, visit LA. My 2 cents.
posted by dness2 at 11:54 AM on September 14, 2005

One of the things that struck me when moving from Boston to the Twin Cities is the lack of decent public transportation. There is a bus system but I found it to be fairly limited and unwiedly. It's nothing like the T. Unless you want to live downtown, work downtown and essentially never leave one city, you really need a car.

I also think that generally, the winters here are worse than in Boston, although it's possible that I hit a string of mild winters when I was there. Winter starts early, ends late and is long and gray. If you don't mind driving in the snow, you'll probably adjust. The summers are warm but not nearly as humid as the east coast. Spring and fall are about a day each.

On the other hand, St. Paul has a fantastic farmers market and has easy access to plenty of "great outdoor" activities. (Check out exploreminnesota.com if you're interested.) It's much cheaper than Boston. It's also much more casual - it's quite common to see people in fancy restaurants or at shows in jeans and sweatshirts.
posted by undertone at 12:02 PM on September 14, 2005

Grew up in St. Paul, now live in Seattle, and I miss Minnesota a lot. My husband is from LA, though, and he has made me realize that it's not all enormous freeways and loneliness out there, that people are real, and you can find a neighborhood there, etc etc.

Still, if I were you...Minnesota, hats off to thee. Even in Seattle, we miss our convenient MN commute, the restaurants, our wonderful friends, the neighborhoods. It's an easy sized area to get a grasp of. (We actually lived in Mpls when we moved, but the cities border each other.)
posted by GaelFC at 12:02 PM on September 14, 2005

Besides the weather, one of the other big differences is geography. If you want to take a vacation trip somewhere, Los Angeles will give you an entirely different set of options than St. Paul. Baja Mexico is just a short hop away, and LAX has tons of direct flights to all sorts of international destinations, especially to Hawaii or other parts across the Pacific. Flying out of Mpls will most likely require changing planes somewhere, adding to your flight time and the cost of the trip.

If you're only thinking about flying back to Boston to visit, I would guess that the LA-Boston route has more cheaper options than the Mpls-Boston route has, even if it's farther away.

I've never lived in either city, but I have relatives in both, and even though I think that St Paul is a lovely town, for me, it would be LA, hands-down. The weather, the easy availability of endless different restaurants (real Mexican food!) the proximity to the Pacific, and the cultural options make it the clear winner, if I had to choose. You say you have friends in LA, so that's an added plus.

On preview, what DaShiv says about the monkeys.
posted by ambrosia at 12:03 PM on September 14, 2005

Re: getting out of town, from ambrosia's comment.

Minneapolis-Boston is usually $200-300 round trip. NWA is the standard route, because its a hub. ATA is much more awesome service-wise, also usually cheaper. They have both direct flights to/from Logan and ones that stop over in Chicago-Midway.

International flights from Minnesota are no more expensive than from Boston, going west towards Europe. Depending on the flight plan it can add a couple hours though. LAX is certainly a better portal for Asia, though NWA has direct flights and flights through Seattle (their Western hub). Europe's best option is Iceland air, imo. Personally, I liked being halfway between the two because both the East and West coasts were equally accessible!
posted by whatzit at 12:10 PM on September 14, 2005

Chiming back in to agree that (as mentioned upthread) LA can be very isolating (even though in general people are very friendly), I think in part because it's so decentralized and so car-oriented. I definitely made a few friends when I first moved here, but it's honestly taken years to feel like I've built a decent-sized social circle/support network.
posted by scody at 12:45 PM on September 14, 2005

I live in Duluth (2hrs N of the Twinkies). people have mentioned Mn as being flat. That depends a lot on where you are. Along the lake Superior north shore it is not so flat. There are mountains, not huge ones, but they are there.
There are plenty of outdoor things to do, quickly.
Re: public transportation. it is not great, but they are working on it. Light Rail is being built here and there.
You have access to WI, IA, SD all pretty quickly, and before people scoff, there are some wonderful places in each place.
(+ a few hours from Lake Superior which is a fantastic body of water), The Mississippi river...

I would choose MN
posted by edgeways at 12:55 PM on September 14, 2005

I lived in Los Angeles for a while. I would do (almost) anything to go back there. I enjoyed living in LA even though I couldn't drive. This is despite growing up in London which has public transport to the hilt.

Why? Ambrosia and C^3 have it down. Cliché though this may be, how many places are there in the world where you can ski and surf in the same day? California has that... and in just a few hours from LA you can be by some of the world's most amazing coastline; a decent mountain or two; and some astonishing desert. (People criticise LA for not having seasons, but living in England I've had my fill of seasons!)

While I respect the accounts of others who said they found LA isolating, I have many friends there and - oddly - enjoyed my social life far more there than in stinky, smoky London. You just need to steer clear of the fake, shallow, acquisitional wannabes... but that's easy enough.
posted by skylar at 12:57 PM on September 14, 2005

If I were you, I'd pick Minneapolis, as it really is a great city in many ways, and you will save money. But if I were me, I wouldn't. I lived there for eight years and simply cannot stand the weather. It sounds so trivial, but it really isn't. The weather influences everything. For example, friends. I noticed that people in MN tend to isolate in the winter. It is just too damn cold to feel like going over to visit a friend.

How cold? Without exaggeration:
- I used to repeat a little mantra to myself, "I can't possibly get permanent frostbite damage just going from the parking-lot to the office." It helped me withstand the literal pain that freezing wind causes in January in St. Paul.
- I would often get into my truck and find myself sitting on a rock-solid bench. My ass would have to melt its way into the seat on the way to work. This has the effect of ruining vinyl seat coverings, since they shatter and split.
- It was so cold that you often could not hold the steering wheel without gloved hands.
- Minneapolis (not sure about St. Paul) tickets and tows sometimes without any notice during snowstorms. More than once, I had my car towed away from a non-emergency-route. They'd post the signs at 8:30am, after I'd gone to work, and tow a couple hours later. That was $140 each time, plus a lovely visit to the impound lot, where I sometimes got to dig my car out of a snow drift with my hands.
posted by Invoke at 1:19 PM on September 14, 2005

Well, you nailed the number one disadvantage of LA: the commute can suck. If you can live close to your job, however, that's easily mitigated. It might be worthwhile to do some research on the locations of your prospective jobs, which neighborhoods you'd like to live in, and the layout of the city. If you can manage to find a location that gives both you and your SO a short commute, that's one disadvantage gone.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:30 PM on September 14, 2005

I'm from Minnesota...I think the main things you need to think about are big city vs. small city, and the weather.

Now, I've been to LA a few times to visit friends, and I really dislike it. It's massive, and it seems like everyone has to drive 40 minutes one way just to hang out with their friends. It seems to have all the annoyances of most other big cities (pollution, crime, expensive) but without a very good public transportation system. There's so much emphasis on cars there...especially having nice cars. I wouldn't really want to live in any big city for a long amount of time...but LA is at the bottom of the list as far as big cities go.

So yeah, I'm biased. Some bad things about the twin cities:
-Bad public transport here too...they're trying, but there's also funding cuts all the time.
-Maybe this is changing, but there's a tendency for people to hang out here forever. People leave, but they usually come back. Many people stay connected to their high school friends forever. These are the kinds of walls you might have to break through...
-weather...I'm so acclimated I don't even think about it, really. There doesn't seem to be as much snow around anymore.

Some good things:
-Lots of cultural things to do. Many theaters, art museums, etc.
-Lots of cultural diversity as well, and this is only going to increase.
-Overall, we have really good schools if you're thinking about kids.
-Even though Minneapolis and St. Paul are different, they're also right next to each other! So you can enjoy the best of both.
-Maybe winter is bad, but spring, summer, and fall are lovely. I would take winter over 100 degree summer days in a heartbeat.
posted by jetskiaccidents at 1:34 PM on September 14, 2005

Minneapolis (not sure about St. Paul) tickets and tows sometimes without any notice during snowstorms. More than once, I had my car towed away from a non-emergency-route

Non-emergency routes also get plowed during a snow emergency. They don't post signs. They expect you to know the rules.
posted by cnelson at 1:37 PM on September 14, 2005

MN has already been pretty heavily represented here, so I won't pontificate upon its many splendors (yes, I am a native). However, I should note that my SO, who grew up in Virginia, often complains about something that hasn't been mentioned here yet: if you go to Minnesota, you will probably not be able to see the ocean for a long, long time. For some people who have grown up near it, living by an ocean is sort of psychologically vital--I'm not sure how else to describe the phenomenon.

Anyway, take your predilection for oceanic enjoyment into account when you make your decision. LA has it. MN doesn't.
posted by voltairemodern at 1:38 PM on September 14, 2005

Not only will you not see the ocean, you will have to adjust to people saying that they are going to the "beach" and meaning that they're going to a little strip of sand on a lake. On the plus side, Lake Superior is about as close to an ocean as a lake can get.

Invoke - you forgot about freezing nose hairs. That's a special first time occasion, too.
posted by undertone at 1:54 PM on September 14, 2005

What makes LA great is what a lot of people commented about as being bad. It's big, diverse and offers a little bit of everything. I have never been to Minnesota, so I have no valid opinion of what it is like.

No offense meant to jdtoth's family but San Bernadino isn't LA and is one of the more miserable places in all of California.

I am spoiled to live on the Westside of Los Angeles and I can walk to everything I need, including multiple ethnic markets, a couple farmer's markets, huge mega markets, authentic restaurants from every continent, an two independent movie theaters, the list goes on.

There are an insane amount of completely different neighborhoods to live in. Some people, understandibly, find this overwhelming, while others see it as exciting.

What I find to be most common with people who live here vs people who visit here is that people who move here often say that they can't believe how much they like living here. People who visit often say that they couldn't imagine leaving here because they only see little bits and pieces of what the city has to offer.

When it's time to get to nature, the beach is a border, the Santa Monica Mountains are twenty minutes away and packed with hiking trails and even waterfalls.

In short, LA is not one place, it's many different neighborhoods and that's what I like about it.
posted by jonah at 1:55 PM on September 14, 2005

Ever see the borg ship on STNG? Picture yourself there, except you are in LA. Pretty cool, huh? Lotsa other borg to mix, mingle, and spend hours at a time in traffic with! Wow, a real methane, soot, and carbon monoxide atmosphere! With proper costumes, LA could open a "Borg USA" theme park. Prepare to be assimilated.
posted by buzzman at 2:00 PM on September 14, 2005

p.s. I have supported LA a few times on Ask MeFi before:

here, here, here,
posted by jonah at 2:03 PM on September 14, 2005

p.p.s. If you do decide to move to LA, be prepared for friends and family to tell you how much it sucks to live here. You will hear that most from people who either have never been here or have spent one weekend in LA.
posted by jonah at 2:12 PM on September 14, 2005

Jonah's take on the difference between living LA and visiting LA is spot-on. I used to hate visiting LA -- my take on it was that it felt like the last hour of a bad acid trip: everything was weird and you wanted it to stop. Lving here really is an entirely different thing -- it's still weird, but in its own goofy way that I've come to totally enjoy.

And yeah, you can't beat being within a few hours of mountains, desert, canyons, and beaches. Sure, it takes some driving to do, but you really can get out of the city and enjoy pretty incredible natural wonders with ease, year-round. I never considered myself a very outdoorsy type (and I grew up in Wyoming and Colorado!), but I've really discovered the joys of kayaking, hiking, etc. out here.
posted by scody at 2:17 PM on September 14, 2005

buzzman writes "Prepare to be assimilated."

Actually, I find it to be the most diverse place I've ever lived. Racially, ethnically, culturally, linguistically, economically, politically, whatever. It's definitely one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the country, if not the world. I'm not sure where you got the idea that everyone here is identical.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:39 PM on September 14, 2005

St. Paul.

Disclosure: Living in MN, only have visited LA, currently on a work trip to Florida.

More than anything else, I truly love the four distinct seasons. Life refreshes itself every few months and I could not live without it. Besides, you have to make lemonade out of lemons, so do what everyone else does in Minnesota: learn to enjoy winter sports: Snowshoeing, Ice fishing, hockey, XC & downhill skiing, broomball, curling, you name it.

While I'm in Florida right now, and I dig going to the sandy beach, I'm jonesing for the fall colors, the brisk evenings, football under the stars, fires, pumpkins, the first snow...

Enough will summer! Bring on fall!
posted by unixrat at 3:19 PM on September 14, 2005

Grew up in Brooklyn, NY, lived in Boston/Cambridge for 2 years, have lived in Minneapolis and just over it's edge for 25 years.
I'll keep it simple - Recruiters say it is difficult to get folks to come to the Twin Cities (think weather, which isn't as bad as they think) but even more difficult to get them to leave. which fits from my experience.
posted by judybxxx at 4:21 PM on September 14, 2005

A friend of mine and her fiancé moved to Minneapolis from LA about a year ago. She wasn't happy in LA for a variety of reasons, but they are now moving away from Minneapolis. Two major reasons she cited to me: a) cold. Last winter was apparently mild, and she's from Tennessee, where they do get the odd chill, but still, she said that after LA it was horrible to deal with. And b), probably more significantly, she just found people in Minneapolis and St Paul to be very passive-aggressive, which she had a hard time dealing with.

(No slur intended on all the Minneapolis-dwellers who frequent MeFi; I'm sure none of you are passy-aggressy at all...)
posted by littleme at 4:51 PM on September 14, 2005

(disclosure: lived in LA 10 yrs, never been to MN)

Everyone bitches about the shallow shallow people that the industry (the entertainment industry) brings to LA. But they seem to ignore that *the entertainment industry is IN LA!* This means that even the local community theater shows are sprinkled with professional actors and little corner coffeeshops can house professional bands. You can see the biggest film blockbusters before anyone else in the country and go to movie premiers, if you're a celebrity-stalker. Or you can find tiny limited release films showing locally, and have access to big-screen showings of tons of vintage films. Concerts also span the gamut from alll day amphitheater shows to tiny 50-people artists-in-residence concerts.

And yeah - beaches, skiing, restaurants, diverse ethnicities, hiking, kayaking, aquariums, proximity to Santa Barbara, San Diego . . .

I'd be miserable without LA if I hadn't moved to San Francisco.
posted by synapse at 5:06 PM on September 14, 2005

I lived in St. Paul for the first eighteen years of my life, so here are my thoughts, sorry if I'm just echoing others:

1. Winter is looooong. The cold you get used to, you just have to dress for it (hats, gloves, scarf), and there are more sunny days and fewer dark damp days than in many other places. But it goes for seven months. Something to think about. Get a car with a good heater and four wheel drive.

2. People are nice, but often reserved. They will often make an effort to make you feel welcome and they'll be super friendly and helpful, but if you are looking for a bunch of rollicking wild partyers, well. . .

3. Minneapolis has all the culture you need, literally ten minutes away. You will not be short of things to do.

4. Public transit sux.

5. Schools in St. Paul are quite variable - if you have kids, find them a good magnet school.

6. There are still neighborhoods where a big house with a big yard is affordable - in the city. Don't move to the suburbs, they are extremely white bread.

7. Diversity is increasing thanks to many waves of immigrants from Africa and Southeast Asia.

8. The great outdoors - hiking, canoeing, lake superior and fifteen thousand other lakes - are all within a few hours. There are deer in the city sometimes and you can get to a state part in half an hour.

9. Politics - the cities vote democrat. The suburbs vote republican. It's a swing state.

10. Garrison Keilor will eventually become funny to you if he is not now.
posted by mai at 6:00 PM on September 14, 2005

Well, sorry to offend any natives. My closest LA experiences were living in Monterey for a year, and using LA as a fly in / fly out transfer point. The entire city looks like a metal circuit board from the air, as if it were a modern version of the fabled San Andreas tar pits, waiting for the unsuspecting to fall in / move in and be trapped.
posted by buzzman at 8:35 PM on September 14, 2005

For the non-Angelenos: San Andreas Fault, La Brea Tar Pits.
posted by DaShiv at 8:59 PM on September 14, 2005

The poster asked about St. Paul, which is so much cooler

huh? ... if you have 3 kids and are pushing 40 something.

i dunno - i've lived in minneapolis on and off for the last 20 years. if your job offer in LA pays enough for you to live in santa monica/venice etc.... i'd say definitely go get LA out of your system.

the twin cities are a tough nut for newcomers... it takes a long time to develop a "crew" here - friends and family are the best thing about this landlocked city.

if the dough is good in LA go - if it's a little tight - i think you'll enjoy the twin cities as well, but would recommend LA as the first choice.
posted by specialk420 at 10:00 PM on September 14, 2005

Littleme is right. People can be way too passive here. It's like a disease. "Minnesota nice" is actually saying things like, "oh, that's interesting..." to something that you don't agree with.

But..uhhh..yeah...you should totally move here! hah.
posted by jetskiaccidents at 10:19 PM on September 14, 2005

Born in Berkeley, 4 years in Chicago, 2 in Brooklyn, 8 and counting in LA. Wouldn't give it up for the world, thank you very much.

Los Angeles is exactly what you make of it. Your neighborhood can become your identity. My friends all live in a five minute driving distance, and many live right on my block. I made a conscious decision to put my energies into my neighborhood when I started to settle in here, and ever since then, it's been great. I loved Chicago and Brooklyn for all the reasons everyone talks about -- public transit, walking everywhere, going from dry cleaners to bodega to boutique on the same block -- but if you find the right place, you can do that in LA too. If you want to pretend you live in a suburb, try Glendale. If you want to live at the beach, or in a high rise, or next to a mall, then Santa Monica, Downtown (yes, people live there now), or Fairfax. I can't speak for Mn., but Los Angeles is adaptable and maleable. Considering you say you're intrigued, then go LA.
posted by incessant at 11:12 PM on September 14, 2005

I'm a native Angelena, but I made a few visits to the Twin Cities when I was at the Iowa Writer's Workshop. What amazed me about Minneapolis was how clean it was downtown (my last visit was eleven years ago, so I have no idea if this is still the case). I liked the Twin Cities much better than Iowa, but I guess the decison would be which kind of superficiality you find more tolerable: plastic or Babbit (from Sinclair Lewis' novel). Would you rather have the unpredictability of earthquakes or the regularity of subfreezing winters?
posted by brujita at 2:35 AM on September 15, 2005

if you do move... seriously consider living in minneapolis... i would recommend a great neighborhood with good st. paul convienence like seward - the wedge and kingfield both have their pluses but are less convienent to st. paul (but closer to the great walker art center)
posted by specialk420 at 5:56 AM on September 15, 2005

Never been to St. Paul but would pick it over L.A. without even looking. Unless cold weather is a drawback (which for my wife's arthritis, it is).

I lived in L.A. for 3 years, and scody describes it perfectly- it's a love-hate kind of place.
posted by Doohickie at 6:47 AM on September 15, 2005

Yet another vote for the Twin Cities- living in Minneapolis right now, moved from the burbs as soon as I got the chance. I also lived in Pilly for a year, and thought it was awesome, but Minneapolis is so totally the shit I will probably never get over it. We have a ton of down-to-earth, extremely real, intelligent, articulate, and interesting people everywhere you go. Given your situation I would recommend moving to Minneapolis- it seems much more in line with the kind of situation you're in.
The other splendors of the city have been discussed above, so I'll mention one more drawback- outsiders I've met have typically experienced a great deal of frustration when navigating in/through/around the cities. Indeed, Minneapolis is quite confusing when compared to a well-designed and logical city like Philly. Although if you like grids, we have two of them. The city just doesn't pay much attention to them. You'll figure it out.

I hereby propose that you notify us of your decision, and if you decide to visit/move to Minneapolis, we should have a MetaFilter Meetup to welcome you to your new home, and show you Bostonians that we midwesterns know how to fucking party!
posted by baphomet at 6:56 AM on September 15, 2005

Is this a job at CaptionMax?
posted by joeclark at 7:02 AM on September 15, 2005

To balance out my hurrah for LA comments, here's a few things that are not great about where I live:

* LAUSD - The city school system is pretty bad, look at places in the south bay or pasadena for public schools, or consider the charter, magnet, or if you are rolling in dough, private schools.

* Dirt - Beyond the general city grime in some places, there seems to be a fair amount of dirt/dust in LA. We are in a desert after all and there isn't a ton of moisture to keep the fine stuff from floating around.

* Housing prices - Depressing

* Too many music fans - The good shows sell out quick

I'm one of those people who adapted to traffic, so I don't let it get me down. Before you say that I'm crazy, it really does happen. I had a friend who moved here from Santa Barbara (he lived in Wisconsin before that) and I told him that there comes a point where you just factor traffic in and go for it. He told me a few months after he moved here that when I told him that originally, he thought I was absolutely insane, but then he just realized that he had come to the point where he enjoyed the time in the car to himself, listening to the radio and thinking.

I am a strong proponent of short commutes though, I don't understand the logic of people who drive an hour and a half or more every day to and from work. The reasons most often given are that you can afford a house further away from the work centers, but it's not worth it to me. I'd rather have a smaller place in a better location.

I've rambled, if you want any specific advice on neighborhoods, my email is in my profile.

Essentially, when I moved to LA, I thought I would be here 3 years max. After 1 year I was in Santa Monica one day and I realized that I really like living here. It has been over 6 years now and I haven't found a compelling reason to leave yet.
posted by jonah at 8:22 AM on September 15, 2005 [1 favorite has favorites]

Oh, wow. First reaction - I love you guys. You make it seem like we can't go wrong either way. Too bad you can't move to MeFi, it is so friendly and well educated there. Kind of far from the beach, though.

It looks like LA is more likely at this point due to job considerations, but if that does pan out, it'll have my SO working downtown and me in Irvine. The thought of that commute shakes me to the core. Should I prepare for 1.5 hrs in my Civic both ways even if we live 'tween the two? I don't even know if there are any cool communities between the two - everything I know of the OC leaves me feeling a bit cold. Maybe Long Beach or Seal Beach would be good?

Another worry about LA is our cats. They really don't do well as indoor cats (fighting, breaking stuff, peeing just to be little furry bastards), but I doubt that we'll be able to let them out in LA(?).

If we go to MN, we'll likely live in Minneapolis and she'll commute to St. Paul - we drove it during what you'd call "rush hour" during a weekend visit, and compared to Boston traffic snarl it was a cinch. We dig what we've seen of Uptown, and we also liked the Seward neighborhood. Still, most of the "twinkies" lies unexplored by us. Baphomet - if we come to MN, we'll definitely throw down with y'all.

The fact that I've never been to LA makes that a little scary and more of an adventure at the same time. I'm pretty convinced that we'd enjoy either. The trick is finding the right things to decide by and figuring out how to weigh them...

The Outdoors: LA and MN both have great options for outdoor fun
Culture: Both have scads of neat things to do at night, theater, art, coffee shops. LA is "more different" than MN for us, which is a plus.
Travel: Both have advantages and disadvantages as hubs to other airports. St. Paul is closer to home for vacations. LA has much cooler destinations to drive to.
Commute: LA is beastly. Ghastly. Got it. This is a major major drawback for me. I walk to work today in 30 lovely minutes. I could drive in 5. Adjusting to hours on the freeway will be tough, I'd imagine.
Work: would be the same in either place for us. Moot.
Cats: better off in MN
Housing: we could get more house for the money in MN
Savings: our money would go further in MN, no doubt
X-factor: LA. No doubt.
Ocean: LA

We'll keep thinking, and I'll let you all know what we decide. :)
posted by kahboom at 8:33 AM on September 15, 2005

Nope, not CaptionMax. Why, are they hiring? :)
posted by kahboom at 8:34 AM on September 15, 2005

oh IRVINE? I just moved from there. 1.5 hour commute EACH WAY from downtown IF traffic is moving. This will suck the life out of you. Long Beach is still 45 minutes from Irvine if traffic is moving. And while all those towns have pockets of niceness, they are mostly urban suburbs with the occasional oil refinery (lots of platforms off those coasts) and will make you wonder why on earth you wanted to come to LA. There are no town centers, you will be driving everywhere (to the store, to the restaurants, to the parks), and your family unit will be the center of your life. People get used to it, but most people don't choose it.
Unless you're a surfer, whereupon you'll be in heaven.
Cats -- depends on where you live in LA. You can do the indoor/outdoor thing, but coyotes are everywhere and nibble at dawn and dusk especially, so letting them go outside unsupervised is unwise and letting them outside during coyote hours is not loving.
LA and culture/travel -- LA has Lots of options, BUT unless you live within 10 miles of said options, it all requires hours of driving to get there. Rush hour in LA is 24 hours a day. So, from the beach, the mountains are always at least 2 hours away; from OC, Santa Monica or Pasadena are also about 2 hours away; etc. This means that weekend day trips can be cool, but you don't pop over every night of the week, and you can easily find yourself doing these things once a year tops. If you choose LA, choose a place to live that is close to the options you like best, because otherwise you will spend your weekends on the road too. THE SAME GOES FOR FRIENDS. If you are more than 20 miles from your friends, you will not be dropping by very often, unless you love your car.

PS. The Irvine area is actually a nice cocoon to live in, if one doesn't have to leave it for work and can afford it. But it sounds like that's not an option for you. The same caveats about travelling for entertainment and friends apply though. This is a lot of the reason I'm happy to be elsewhere.
posted by dness2 at 9:09 AM on September 15, 2005

Wow, Irvine is close to SOUTH Orange county, whereas Downtown is in Mid-to-North LA County. I can almost guarantee that you will hate your commute to the point of regretting you moved to LA and then all the little things you don't like will fester into big things. (see my other comments, I'm generally pro-LA, but this is a long (mile wise and time wise) commute.

What industry are you in?
posted by jonah at 9:22 AM on September 15, 2005

I work as an Information Architect, my gf is in Public Broadcasting...

Yeah, the commute for even a halfway point would suck, it would seem in LA...
posted by kahboom at 10:45 AM on September 15, 2005

Sigalert is a pretty good place to watch traffic, you can get an idea of freeway speeds at different times of day:

Sigalert Los Angeles

Keep in mind that you still have to drive to and from the freeway, adding 10-15 minutes depending on where you live. You will find that in LA, freeway proximity is a good thing.

Culver City has major NPR studios, as well as a lot of large media companies and it's convenient to the westside as well as downtown LA. You may look at jobs and housing around there, it's sort of like a suburb in the middle of the city.
posted by jonah at 11:27 AM on September 15, 2005

That sigalert site is fantastic. I feel like such a voyeur, reading the accident response as it happens. There goes my productivity for the rest of the day. :)
posted by kahboom at 11:59 AM on September 15, 2005

Bg Rig Reportedly Leaking Fuel
This is a Semi Ovr Turned----Reporting Party at Callbox is Saying Its "jet Fuel " Spilling
Regarding-Called Fire to Advise this is Jet Fuel They Said They Know About It
Late Entry, Driver Did Refuse Ambulance Required X2
Palmdale So Chief 97 Advise this is Jet Fuel Spilled Not Injuries
Transportation Management Center Copies Sigalert 10-39 Media
Cal Transition Needs Lots of Absorbant for Jet Fuel Please Advise ETA
posted by kahboom at 12:01 PM on September 15, 2005

One option you might want to consider if you move to LA and are a Civic driver is getting a natural gas Civic - it'll enable you to use the carpool without additional passengers.
posted by forallmankind at 8:51 PM on September 15, 2005

it seems like there would be many more opportunities for you in los angeles and as an information architect, surely you wouldn't be limited to irvine for work.

go for broke while you're young and enjoy l.a. there will be plenty of time later to settle down somewhere else if you don't like it.

i can't explain it - los angeles is just fun.
posted by centrs at 9:33 PM on September 15, 2005

Ever see the borg ship on STNG? Picture yourself there, except you are in LA.

Funny that you mentioned that. I've heard that the Borg is named for a certain college residence hall that is (where else?) in the greater LA area.
posted by PY at 11:42 PM on September 15, 2005

Given what you wrote about where your commute, I would choose the Twin Cities. You do NOT want to spend a major chunk out of your day stuck in your car. If you like being around bodies of water, remember that one of MN's nicknames is "land of 1000 lakes"--the Lakers were originally based in the Twin Cities
posted by brujita at 4:46 AM on September 18, 2005

10,000 lakes.

/nitpick
posted by mai at 8:43 PM on October 3, 2005