Would you rather like in NYC, LA, or SF on $100k?

I'd live in Jersey City and commute. Lots of geighs.

NYC. As long as you can pay your rent, the opportunities are endless.

Would I rather like what?

El Lay

NY, so I wouldn't have to drive. Live within a mile of the office.

Fo you want a car? LA if yes, NYC if no.

If you like to drive, warm weather and everything spread out - LA. (downside - traffic, difficult to make friends)

If you don't want/need a car, easy to meet people and do anything/everything - NYC (downside - crowded, expensive)

SF - No

NYC is expensive..but the best choice. If you move to Jersey, Brooklyn, Queens, etc. the commute is longer but you can get a much better living space for your buck. $100 000 is not exactly chump change but wont go far on Manhatten rent

You can't afford to live on $100,000 anywhere near San Francisco or in NYC proper.

Sf is beautiful. Laca is crowded. Both are 20 minutes from disaster (fire or earthquake). NYC is your best bet. Why are you sick of Dallas? Recently number 7 on the boomtown list. Construction everywhere

Not true R9! I live in the best neighborhood in downtown, Jersey City (Paulus Hook, right across the Hudson from NYC) and pay 3K/month for a 2BR, 2BA (you can get a smaller/cheaper place). Manhattan is 5 mins away via Path train or Waterway ferry. I can still shop, dine out and travel abroad with left over income. Now, living in a similar place in Manhattan would cost a couple thousand more - which is why a lot of people live in Paulus Hook, Grove Street, Newport (best areas of downtown Jersey City) or Hoboken with a fast/easy commute to NYC for work and play.

SF is ugly and cold. It's also filthy. There are a few highlights, but for the most part, the architecture is just hideous. Block after block of houses built right to the street creating mile upon mile of concrete canyons. The techies are insufferable. I've been there for a major earthquake and that threat is real. Despite all of this, the place is way too fucking expensive.

Your choices are NYC and LA. Except for both of them being massive, they could not be more different. Just choose whichever one you prefer.

This comes down to how you feel about hot weather versus how you feel about cold weather.

You “might” find a decent place to live in LA for 30% of your take home pay; but you’ll almost certainly need a car - and Los Angelenos look down on poor rides.

A car isn’t necessary in NY, but you’ll probably need a roommate to control expenses.

San Francisco’s is lovely to look at (from afar); but otherwise is the worst of both worlds.

You’re youngish and will probably want to meet lots of people. If you can’t afford to live and work in one of LA’s very few walkable neighborhoods (most are near Santa Monica Blvd); move to NY.

A lot depends on your priorities - but LA is the only one of these choices where you could potentially live comfortably on 100K.

Forget the Bay Area. I know this based on first hand experience -b/c I live in Silicon Valley and make just over 100K. Like many of my colleagues, I have to work overtime, and regularly do a 2nd delivery job to bring in extra money, and I have fully covered health insurance from my employer.

Tons of new development all along the Hudson River coast on the Jersey side. You could live in a nice place and take a ferry to work in Weekhawken, Union City, Edgewater, etc.

Don't forget north end of Hoboken. Incredibly fast trip to midtown.

If you like nature, the Jersey side is nice as you can keep a car and drive down the shore, west/north to the woods.

If you aren't afraid of black people there are new luxury lofts in Newark.

Don't move to Newark or Journal Square!! Cheap, but GHETTO! Journal Square isn't necessarily dangerous (a lot of Indian people), but depressing as hell. Newark is dangerous. Walking through Penn Station to catch the train is scary even with all the cops. Forget outside.

If you don't want a roommate in Manhattan, or live in the other boroughs (Brooklyn, Queens, Long Island), or live in nice parts of downtown Jersey City or Hoboken -- move to LA.

Do you have friends in any of the cities? That can help the decision even more than the usual factors...unless you're a super social extrovert who can form a new group of friends in a few weeks.

What is it that you do for a living?

LA on that salary.

Can't comment on New York City (although at 42 the city seems "too much" for me) now.

I live in SF now and your salary will get you roommates in some house (likely barebones, no updates) and I am talking like 3 or 4 roommates. People are introverted and not clicky and the only people you will make friends with are coworkers, so consider if you want to be friends with your coworkers.

LA will get you a decent neighborhood, possibly your own place, and despite what many consider to be "showbiz" LA you can still be a regular joe there fairly easily. Tons of different industries and lifestyles there. Best weather and most attractive men (although I'd admit NYC men have an edge about them).

If you're working in downtown LA, at least you'll have the benefit of somewhat decent public transit from just about anywhere you choose to live.

People in LA look down on people without cars.

R11 - you spend half of your take home pay in rent and you think you live well? You are delusional. And you don't even live in NYC.

I would say LA, but that depends on the commute.

R23 OP could like along the Red Line somewhere and get a feel for LA until he finds his groove (and/or a higher paying job). Different hoods have different vibes. From Downtown LA to North Hollywood, pockets of gays along the Red Line. I worked downtown for 5 years in the mid 2000s while living in Hollywood. Took the Red Line and people truly were amazed when I told them that LA had a subway system.

But R24 is right. Anyway, the point of dealing with the Red Line was to avoid traffic. It really is horrible. Still you'll need a car for socializing and exploring.

100k in nyc doesn’t go very far. You could live in a nice place in Harlem for 2 grand a month and have an easy commute to midtown though, and plenty of money left over for going out.

This is a temporary thing right? LA sounds doable too, so base this on what you’re looking for. A very urban, four season (and cold winters) environment or the warmth and Hollywood existence of LA

R25 - Yes! The 2K left over every month (after utils/food/trans) is more than enough to enjoy NYC. OP would have even more than that.

If you are photogenic, I'd move to LA, stop by the corner drugstore and have a malted every day after work (changing into a tight sweater, if possible). With a little luck, you'll be "discovered" and can make motion pictures, rake in the dough, and live anywhere you want!

Would you rather LIKE in... Oh, dear!

If you love Mexican verga head to LA. For some rice go to SF. NYC has both plus more so I would go there.

R11 - I think you have to define 'enjoying' - spending half your take home in rent is ridiculous. And again, you don't live in NYC, you live in Jersey.

R31 has clearly never been to LA or SF. Both are teeming with both and have been for the last, oh I don't know, 2 decades minimum? Actually these days the only cock you'll want in SF is the young white tech bros.

SF is finally celebrating youthful beauty that doesn't involve beards, tats, otters, and other undesirables in the rest of the world. Despite what the anti-norm queens tell you in SF, they are finally enjoying eye candy that truly is eye candy.

LA still has hotter models and overall body consciousness. It's very similar to Dallas in that regard but isn't populated by hillbilly and Texas hicks with delusions of grandeur.

R32: If you need more than 2K per month in fun money to enjoy New York, then it is not enough for YOU. I enjoy New York just fine with 2K fun money.

Move to LA. Northeast and mid-Atlantic are too cold in winter. The winter sun is bleak and low in the sky. And winter never ends.

OP: You have varied feedback and perspectives now. Let us know your final decision.

2k fun money? Rent boys I imagine.

R34 - you're being disingenuous or you're not saving that much. I would be scraping by.

If you put enough into a 401(k) to maximize your savings and any employer match (and at your age, you should); pay FICA tax, income tax, state tax and local income tax, you’ll have, at best, $5,500 a month take home to spend one one of three of most expensive cities in the US.

Rent will take at least 1/2 (depending on whether you want roommate(s)), and, if not included, utilities will take more - especially in NY (but again no car necessary).

Still, if you luck into the right location, you could generally live better, slightly more cheaply in LA.

High Pitch Eric rents a room in NYC for only 600$ a month. He shares a toilet down the hall with others. I swear I'd be capable to do something like this for 2 years so that I could invest my money rather than fritter away hard earned cash on rent

Northern Silicon Valley is not SF. It's generally dull and tiresome w. lotsa traffic, assholes and expensive rent. SF and some other areas in the region have their charms, but they're all a decent ride from the valley.

Find a sugar daddy.

R40: Shares a toilet.? Ew!!

I’ve seen those shared bathroom hallway apartments on StreetEasy, usually not as cheap as $600 either. Also “kitchenettes” are popular and they still charge $1800 and up for those places. I’d much rather live far away and have a long commute than deal with that.

Congratulations! You are very fortunate to be where are. That being said, I would definitely choose L.A. New York is too cold, San Francisco is way too expensive and foggy, L.A. is sunny and warm.

New York is where Id rather be ...

OP's here's my current cashflow (for a single frugal person) =====================================================

Salary ..................................................$8,333 per month Payroll taxes and deductions.......($2,833) per month Rent.....................................................($3,000) per month Utilities, Internet,Netflix/Cable...($800) per month Groceries and eating out...............($800) per month Transport............................................($200) per month Savings and miscellaneous.............($700) per month Damn, it's a hard life in the big city.

$100,000 isn't going to get you much in those cities. Those are probably the three most expensive cities in the U.S.

R47 you spend $800 a month on utilities? I pay my own heat (rare in nyc) and my electric/heat combo is never more than $200 and that’s with central air running often. Cable and internet can’t be more than $200 and Netflix is twenty bucks. What are you spending it on?

Unlike others, I think $100,000 is more than enough to live in Manhattan. It just depends on HOW you live. I only make $74,500 a year, pay $1,825 for a studio in Hell's Kitchen, eat out at restaurants (not every day but at least 2 or 3 times a week, mostly because I hate to cook), go to movies and Broadway shows, and just live a fairly decent life in the city on my own. Now, granted, it helps to not be overwhelmed with things like a lot of credit card debt and I can walk to work because my job is here in Midtown, so I save a lot on transportation, but my point is that if I can do well on my salary here in the city, someone making what OP does should be able to do that much better. Maybe he wouldn't be able to get an apartment in SoHo or TriBeCa but who the fucks needs that -- there are plenty of other nice neighborhoods in the city from which to choose. So all of this "Oh, you won't get much in Manhattan on $100,000!" is just a lot of nonsense in my opinion.

LA. Buy a sexy car!

Choose NY.

Supplement your income by broadcasting on Chaturbate.

The north Silicon Valley is NOT San Francisco.

Go for the warm climate (LA). I wish I had. Too late now.

The warm climate is overrated. NY is much better than LA. Traffic and sprawl are two of the things that make LA awful.

NYC no question. Live in LIC

This guy is from Texas. He already has a car surely and won’t be able to deal with a closet sized stuff and half fridge you get for under 2 grand in New York. Go to LA

You will be renting in the outskirts in NYC..... you couldnt afford to rent anything in SF let alone buy unless you had several roommates. You could rent something in the valley or Pasadena it your took LA, or maybe Hermosa bch and live by yourself. If you like to drive, Id Saymgo for LA. When I got transferred when I was working years and years ago I always got a large cost of living boosts in salary. Most companies worth working for do those sort of things..............

R50. Exactly! Some posters are trying to discourage the OP from moving to NYC. And it is a tedious/waste of time explaining yourself, so live and let live!

R46, the word is "stay."

Rhymes with "hay."

NYC is nice if you can afford it. It's also really challenging to get around. It really depends on your rent.

[quote] It's also really challenging to get around.

????!

^That must've been for LA. NYC is the easiest city to explore/travel.

Pasadena and Hermosa are expensive. The Valley is more expensive now too. NYC is the best option.

Come on R50, on what planet if he going to find a habitable apartment for under $2K/month anywhere in NYC unless he stumbles onto some sort of remarkable deal. If you pay $1850 in HK, you're paying much much much less than market rate.

Jersey City has its charms, but it's not Manhattan and too often feels like you're outside the window looking in. You still have to worry about catching that last PATH train or ferry at night too.

You don't need a car in LA. If you are close enough to where you work or can metro to work, then you can rely on Lyft and Uber and the occasional Zip. The good thing about LA is that it's not an island or peninsula. So if you live in a gentrifying area you're just one neighborhood over. Not on the other side of a river. London has a similar vibe in that regard.

And the weather.

[quote] You still have to worry about catching that last PATH train

The PATH train runs all night.

But how frequently does the PATH run after midnight?

R68> Every 40 mins.

Well, if R50 is correct (and would be willing to mentor me a bit if I moved), I would choose NYC. I'm a Yankee who doesn't mind (much) winter weather, but I care a lot about cultural attractions. I would love to have that kind of access to some of the greatest museums, theatre and such.

R70: NYC definitely!

Get rent control in L.A. ..pay a finders fee

100k goes farthest in LA, that’s plenty really.

I'd make R50 find you a habitable apartment for $1850/month.

And then after he slays the dragon ....

Bitches - it's CLIMATE, not weather!!

NYC has more interesting people..ed Koch had rent control in Manhattan

I'd move to Philadelphia or Chicago. Forget those cliche cities.

R77> Philadelphia sucks.

northern silicon valley, wtf is this? If you like hot weather for outdoor activities move to LA. NY and SF is dead.

L.A. is more convenient to Palm Springs, where you'll end up as soon as you age out of the LA scene.

You could commute from Palm Springs where homes are cheaper then retire ...I used to sleep at the office in little rooms with beds for the grinding employees.

Don't move into a flood zone in New Jersey. Or Brooklyn for that matter. Or lower Manhattan.

SF isn't an option since you make peanuts AND anyway the job is not IN SF.

LA seems the best bet because 100K is peanuts in NYC.

100K peanuts for New York? I make less than half that and do fine.

R83 he doesn’t want to come here and live a life of struggle. He’s just bored in Texas and wants some fun. Nyc is only fun if you have money. Sure you can get by but it’s not what someone used to Texas would enjoy.

R83 - what is your rent and in what neighborhood, please. Obviously details are important in this thread.

[quote]Sf is beautiful. Laca is crowded. Both are 20 minutes from disaster (fire or earthquake). NYC is your best bet.

Except for the jet planes plowing into tall buildings causing them to collapses under their own weight killing thousands of people. But yeah, other than that so safe.

Ever notice people on the east coast always predict the end of the world happening to California when it happen in their own backyard.

[quote]You can't afford to live on $100,000 anywhere near San Francisco or in NYC proper.

Such bull. San Francisco would be tougher, but one can easily live just fine in NY off 100k. Not living in luxury of course, but not struggling at all either.

R87 on what monthly rent in what neighborhood?

And how long have you lived where you live, r83?

LA. Downtown is revitalized and the lofts are quite nice. You can live comfortably on 100K.

Go to L.A., OP, and buy Ileana Douglas's bungalow. She needs a buyer!

LA for the weather and proximity(beaches, desert, mountains).

Which city LA vs NYC is best for “free” stuff. Events, gatherings etc.

Oy - Some people on here have been watching 'Million Dollar Listing: New York' too much. Just do a search on Zillow. There are apartments in Manhattan "proper" for $2100 (small studio) to $7500 (penthouse). Example of Chelsea apartments at link. You can do a similar search on other popular neighborhoods in Manhattan.

R93 I live in nyc and know how little you get for under 2500 a month in Manhattan below 120th street. Even in the “cheaper” neighborhoods like hell’s kitchen or kips bay, you’re getting a tiny closet.

OP is coming from Texas and hasn’t indicated it’s always been his dream to live in nyc. Without that kind of desire, how likely is it he wants to live in a crappy place? And on 100k, after taxes, he won’t be able to afford much more.

Well yes, you aren't going to have a ton of space r94. It's Manhattan. No one is telling OP he can get some killer penthouse apartment. But there are plenty of options in the 2-2.5 range in Hell's Kitchen, you can afford to live alone without breaking your budget.

If you start looking in the outer boroughs or Jersey, your money would go even further and get you more space and you would still have easy transit to Manhattan.

The fact is, you can live perfectly fine in NY on 100k.

R95 but this isn’t some hypothetical conversation, it’s about the best bet for OP. Unless there’s something that he’s especially drawn to about NY, his better bet is LA.

[quote] Yes, I know, they’re all prohibitively expensive and on my salary, I won’t exactly be living it up, but which would you choose and why?

So, the OP knows all the cities are expensive and he won't be living it up. That has been argued to death.

In answer to his question: I choose NYC because I don't want a car/hate to drive, love the museums/theater/dining/nightlife options and the changing seasons.

WTF? nightli - fe = nightlife

r98 It's because you inserted all those /slashes/

LOL - Thanks R99! I know I did not see that before submission.

You can buy a house is the LA area. Your salary is too low for NY and SF. Plus, Southern California is nice, pleasant weather.

100K minus 33% taxes is 73 and 2.5k x 12 is 30k on just rent.

Notice the people questioned about how fab NYC is - where they live, how long, on what rent, dont fucking ANSWER THE QUESTIONS.

[quote]100K minus 33% taxes is 73 and 2.5k x 12 is 30k on just rent.

30% of your salary on rent is considered normal. That is a fine budget, not considered overly taxing.

for a crappy studio in a shitty neighborhood? enjoy!

Kind of similar situation, so I hope OP doesn't mind me piggy backing: but New York, Chicago, Atlanta? (for roughly same salary, 100k give or take a few thousands for area salary adjustment)

R104> Look at Zillow before you talk bullshit.

R105> You already know what you're going to get here. NYC is way too expensive for you (which is bullshit)....You can buy a mansion in Atlanta... Chicago?

What exactly do you expect people to say r105?

Obviously Atlanta and Chicago are significantly more affordable, but it depends on you, and whether the difference in cost of living is worth it to you personally.

LOL. Those are come ons R93

The apartments don't exist or they're not really for rent. Brokers list them to get leads.

Sure R109.

r107 r108 mostly looking for idea on the area itself. I'm kind of an introvert and don't make friends easily unless others initiate the conversation.

I've heard Atlanta is gay friendly (and of course NY) but not sure of Chicago.

NY tempts me because of Broadway and the draw of that being close by (also have cousins in Jersey and somewhere in NY whereas I don't know anyone in either Chicago or atlanta)

You would be renting in NY. In LA, you could buy a home. Financially speaking, LA is a better deal for you.

[quote]You can buy a house is the LA area.

This is a serious thread, stop with the jokes.

[quote]I've heard Atlanta is gay friendly (and of course NY) but not sure of Chicago.

Pretty much every city is "gay friendly". Tons of gays in Chicago of course. The gayborhoods are Boystown and Andersonville.

New York and Chicago are both significantly more "urban" than Atlanta, which is a sunbelt car-focused city. If that is important to you.

Don’t waste your time in Atlanta - ugly, trashy, suburban, redneck - or Chicago - knock off version of NYC. Spend the money and do NYC - life is too short to spend it on imitations. You can always step down to Chicago when you are ready to settle down. But few ever regret living in NYC at least for a while.

R111: Gay men are friendlier in Atlanta (at least that was my experience when I was down there in 2012). Gay men are hotter, but bitchier in New York and much more materialistic. However, you do have much more things to do in NY and your family are close by. It was easy for me to meet men in both cities (I am introverted also). I attended a few groups at the LGBT Center and went to dinner and clubs with the group afterwards. Also, there are gay men in most offices/sectors in NYC. They will help you come out of your shell.

I can't speak for Chicago. However, the winters sound brutal.

R115 is right. You only live once. Don't settle. Go to the best, then check out the rest. There is a reason why NYC is the most popular city in the world.

R109 is right, and brings up the important point of how much a broker costs in the city. Frankly if OP does come to nyc he should find a no fee luxury place, and you can find those for around 2800 in fidi or Murray hill (they’ll advertise as 2500 but that’s including one month off the first year). If the move is temporary, and he’s fine not saving, that’s the best way to do New York. Native New Yorkers know where the rent stabilized buildings are but they’re usually not very well maintained and not worth it for someone here temporarily.

I still think LA is a better fit for someone from Texas.

NYC because as soon as my 95 year old mother in law croaks it, we get her house in Queens. It’s not Tribeca or Williamsburg, but it’s a free house, so our costs will go down dramatically. And face it DL Moldavians, you’d kill for a free house in NYC.

These are the options? You can’t even scrape by just $100K a year in those areas. You can have a comfortable lifestyle in Philadelphia, for that sum.

Definitely knock SF off your list. It's impossible now, filthy and over-priced in the extreme.

LA is probably your best bet on 100k a year, but you might be able to squeak by in NY, too. Where in LA is the office?

I grew up in SF and moved to NY 18 years ago and have never regretted it. It's an amazing place to live and I have every intention of living here for the rest of my life.

But coming from Texas, you're going to experience culture shock.

We are not terribly friendly. In TX the cashier at the supermarket will engage you and have a conversation. The only conversation the cashier in NY will be having is with the cashier next to her. You're more of an inconvenience to her than a valued customer. Strangely enough, in a short period of time this will not bother you.

Speaking of supermarkets, get used to buying your groceries in tiny, crowded stores with high prices and terrible selection. Seriously consider having your groceries delivered. Many people never turn on their oven, using it instead to store pots and pans, or in some cases, shoes.

Your neighbors will not be friendly. When I first moved here I would have pleasant small talk with my neighbors while in the elevator, walking the dog, etc. Nowadays everybody has their face in their phone. Get used to being ignored, even by the building staff, except during the months preceding Christmas. Then they're your best friend.

If you think it would be fun to (fill in the blank) be prepared for the fact that 10,000 other people have the same idea and got there ahead of you. I got turned away from a 1940s film noir from Spain at MoMA because it was sold out...at 5 in the afternoon... on a Thursday.

Commuting on the subway is utter hell. In the summer, you'll learn to stay away from an empty subway car. At best, it's un-air conditioned. At worst, there's a homeless person who has made the air unbreathable...or a pile of vomit...or a body.

But I would commute a hundred years on the subway rather than do one month on the Central Expressway.

Broadway has sold its soul to the tourist trade, as has much of the city. They're everywhere, like roaches, travel in packs, and walk five abreast, slowly, whenever you're trying to get somewhere.

On the plus side, when friends realize you have no spare bedroom and that they'll have to sleep on the couch, their visits will be short...or they'll stay in a hotel...or stay home.

Love R122! Very accurate. Also, the city vibe is like a caffeine. I can't get enough of it. Intoxicating.

Agreed R122 has captured it

Dallas will start looking a whole lot sweeter once you see how little your rent money will get you in NYC. Expect to get an apartment the size of your current master closet.

R125: Yawn. Who gives a fuck when you're in the greatest city in the world? All you do at home is fuck and sleep. The rest of the time, you're at work or have a social life. Nobody moves to NYC to be a homebody. I moved from a 3 BR home in Philly to renting a room in The Village years ago and loved it!

LA for sure. You will have a pretty cushy life on that salary. Downtown is changing for the better and the scene in DTLA is so much better than even a year ago. Living here is truly addicting, barring the traffic, of course. But I'm honestly not that opposed to traffic around here. I'm originally from a midwestern city where everything was incredibly spaced out and long commute times were just part of my routine.

Unless you desperately want to live in NYC, I vote that you move to LA.

Every person I know who moved from NY to LA moved back to NY.

r129 He's not lived in NY or LA before. OP, LA is very similar to Dallas but with world class amenities and actual character to each neighborhood. Bonus: Very little/no humidity.

I moved from a 6 room floor through in Brooklyn, shared with 1 person, to a 9 room bourgeois apartment in Berlin all to myself. Then I got a deal on a 5 room in the old city of Geneva. The boiler plate NYer boosterism of R126 is so depressing. All you do is fuck and sleep at home? Sad.

Most of the world's middle class enjoys a guest room, dinning room, study, we entertain, relax, have friends to visit and visit them in return. There is NO convincing argument that NYC is the greatest city in the world because there are probably about 50-100 wonderful cities around the world, all with their own charms, with people living in normal homes on normal professional salaries.

R131: You just don't get it. There is so much to do in NY, every day, all hours, that you don't have a lot of time to be at home and that is the way New Yorkers like it.

As for your 2nd paragraph - None if those 50-100 super cities are featured in practically every movie, TV show or song. I don't care to convince you. Just speaking from my experience as you are yours.

By "New Yorkers" - I am talking about Manhattan. Not the "other" boroughs.

LA. I live in the Bay Area and I've lived in New York. There's so much money in Manhattan that it's become weirdly sterile. If I were moving to SF right now, I'd move to Oakland, which isn't quite as overrun by tech bros and their money. Other possibilities include Daly City, Pacifica, Brisbane, Burlingame.

But, really, LA is the most livable at $100K. Interesting restaurants, great weather, the beach, easy weekends in the mountains or Vegas.

There are lots of people who feel the way R122 does but I’ve also seen so many people burn out on NYC after a year or two. Being born and raised here I never felt quite that level of enthusiasm myself, though this city gives me a feeling none other has.

A LOT of what is fun to do in this city and that keeps you from spending time in your tiny apartment takes money though. Happy hours are more expensive here, groceries are more expensive, take out is more expensive. I’m much happier in my outer borough big one bedroom than i was in my tiny Manhattan studio but this is also an age thing.

Some of us like nice things and like to be surrounded by nice furnishings, art and amenities. This idea that your home is merely a place to sleep and have sex is ridiculous to anyone beyond their early 20s. Frankly, it shows a lack of maturity and motivation.

But if that's the way you want to live your life, then who am I to judge....

[quote] A LOT of what is fun to do in this city and that keeps you from spending time in your tiny apartment takes money though

THIS.

If you don't have the cash, you'll spend a lot of time walking around the city (which is nice, at the beginning) watched wealthy people actually do things (not so nice).

R136: Thank You.

OP and R111 have heard from all sides/opinions and will make their decisions. I wish them the best!

If you think New York is bad, stay away from the big Asian cities r131. They put New York to shame in terms of having lots of people living in a small land area. But that is the principal behind urban living, everyone having big personal lodgings and individual cars is a waste of space.

principle*

SF. Seriously. Would love to live there.

I like to visit San Francisco but I would never want to move there. It is even more expensive than New York with a lot less to offer as city.

The gay men pool is deep and wide in NYC. Lots of hot and/or interesting people.

OP back again. Thank you all for such awesome and thorough advice, which really gave me a lot to think about.

I’m heavily leaning toward LA. Although it’s very expensive relative to Dallas, it’s no where near as pricy as NYC, and I think I can live much better there.

Also, I already spend a fortune on all organic groceries here. I can only imagine how costly trying to live off a fully organic diet high in fruits/vegetables must be in NYC.

I have NOT been impressed with the gay guys in LA though. It seems like dating is much better in NYC.

Thanks again everyone!

If organic fruits and veggies are your thing, then definitely California over New York, most fruits and vegetables are grown in California, so the whole farmer's market thing is more readily available.

Enjoy your move.

Don't tell anyone but you can get a one bedroom in Vallejo or Mare Island for $1,300 a month and take the most beautiful commuting ferry route in existence to SF. Sure, it takes an hour but it is gloriously beautiful and decompressing.

I'd work in SFO and live in Walnut Grove. BART makes it easy to do so.

Half of datalounge could move here and be comfortable.

[quote]I'd work in SFO and live in Walnut Grove. BART makes it easy to do so.

Walnut Grove? In the Delta? There's no BART station near there. Did you mean Walnut CREEK?

Not much difference, I'd say.

Don't even think about finding a relationship in NYC or LA. They don't exist, even if you're gorgeous.

r151 because the scene in Dallas is simply thriving, right?

r144 oh, the farmers markets in LA are amazing. Seriously. And don't forget the plethora of ethnic grocery stores, which often are even cheaper for organic produce than most regular grocers.

If your company's office is in Downtown LA you're set. The area is booming right now with great restaurants and nightlife. You can still find decent apartments there that will work with your salar.y. and you won't have to worry about a commute. You don't even have to worry about a car as you can take the subway from DTLA to everywhere....the beach, the valley, train service to Pasadena. Weather out here is great,

Downtown LA is just convenient enough of a commute from the east side of the city, giving you many more options of neighborhoods. It is technically doable to live without a car, but if you already have one then I say just bring it and find an apartment with a parking space. Yes, the trains are fine, but your life is significantly more advantageous when you've got a car here.

[quote]Walking through Penn Station to catch the train is scary

R149, yes, Walnut Creek -

I disagree with R122. I've lived for extended periods in both New York City and in the SF Bay Area and spent a lot of time in L.A. The east and west coasts are extremely different.

In New York, people are friendly, but not courteous.

In California, people are courteous, but not friendly.

Don't confuse the two things.

You can make friends much more easily in NYC. People are piled on top of each other there. If you are not very social, you cannot survive there. At the end of six years in California, you may well find that you have made few friends and the ones you did... all came from NYC.

[quote] In New York, people are friendly, but not courteous. In California, people are courteous, but not friendly.

R122 here. Well stated. You are correct. I mis-characterized it.

On a different note, I happen to like living in a small space, so a one-bedroom apartment for my partner and me is fine. I love not having to worry about things like roofs, gardens, shoveling snow, and so on. We updated our 650 square foot apartment and it's very comfortable. Yes, it would be nice to have a second bathroom and a second bedroom, but I'm not going deep into debt to do it. But we have friends in New Jersey who love tending to their garden and wouldn't dream of apartment living.

For me, one nice thing about NY is that, if you find a quiet apartment, it can be your sanctuary in a frantic and hectic city. We're half a block off Broadway on the Upper West Side but, when I close the door, it's quiet. After a day of work and a trying commute, it's nice to have a place to recompose oneself, still knowing that the city awaits.

I have always lived in under 600 square feet so I find more space wasteful. Living room, galley kitchen, bathroom and bedroom with 3 closets. Not sure why anyone needs more. But I understand people get used to more and can’t imagine less - especially in US. In Japan, my space would be decadently large.

R160 what you just described costs around $3000 in Manhattan

OP, how convenient that your company is located in the top three U.S. gay cities and that you can choose any one of them.

r160 I am like this myself. I had a 3 bedroom 2.5 bath in Florida. I am single and live by myself. In the rare exception I have company over (either for a get together or extended visit), I realized I ate in the living room while watching tv when i get home from work, then surrender to my bedroom at night. And at times I even slept in my comfy couch in the living room.

when I moved for work, I decided to try out staying at studios and 1 bedroom apartments.

I really haven't missed the extra space...at all

R126 and some other New Yorkers on this thread sre delutional. Paris is the most popular city in the world followed by London. Look at the stats, boyz.

Don't let any Bay Area folk tell you that living anywhere but the City is equivalent to having a San Francisco address. Cross any bridge or any tunnel and you might as well be back in Dallas to any gay man living anywhere in the City. You may move elsewhere, but you will move to the City within 6 months and gladly pay a small ransom to do so.

LA men are not geographically as isolated since cars and driving are to be expected. Plus there are many pockets of gay communities in many areas in LA. It's that big and diverse. Not everyone is a WeHo clone, a Silverlake hipster, or a beach laidback artist or mainstream guy. I also find gay men in LA tend to blend in with others more, unlike in San Francisco where being a specific gay cliché with matching clique defines people for life.

Don't know much about NYC other than it seems to be as diverse as LA but even more amped up. Gays tend to be ambitious and don't settle unless it is to give in to the realities of living in NYC. Seems like everyone is looking for something better tomorrow than what they had today. Except of course it is for their apartment and current rent - they'll hold on to that for as long as possible.

LA is much closer to what you really want. Folks from Texas really seem to like it because it's got the **sparkle** of Texas but the **Hollywood** address.

And all the freakish plashtic facesh.

People who live in San Francisco mistakenly call it "the City."

Hee hee hee heee! It is a rather provincial town, isolated on a peninsula, with horrible parking and a lot of cliquey provincial inhabitants.

It does seem that Texas people like LA. Closer to what they are used to. Warm weather, space, car based.

[quote]Don't let any Bay Area folk tell you that living anywhere but the City is equivalent to having a San Francisco address. Cross any bridge or any tunnel and you might as well be back in Dallas to any gay man living anywhere in the City.

There are no bridges or tunnels between San Francisco and the "north Silicon Valley."

R169 But there are posters who have mentioned OP could live the life he seems to seek in SF by relocating to Vallejo (2 bridges away) and Walnut Creek (bridge and tunnel away).

Walnut Creek is a nice if bland little bit of Suburbia that is at least a 45 minute Bart ride away from the city. If you are working in Silicon Valley, add another 45 minutes to an hour on to that commute. And Vallejo? Puhleeze, you might as well just live in Sacramento.

Move to Poughkeepsie, the last stop on the Metro North trains from Grand Central. You can pick your toes.

USE F CARDS, too.

NYC, LA and SF are America's premiere cities. Boston is the only other one that comes marginally close.

The rest are just full of ghetto niggers, white liberals and horrible other people.

Uh, Muriel, we have a problem...

Oh, dear.

I cannot stand NY. Silicon Valley killed SF. LA, and even southern California, is much nicer.

You will definitely want to buy a car, if you move to LA county. I think you should factor in a mortgage and down payment too. This is the deal. With your salary you can buy into the LA housing market, which pretty much holds it value. Fix it up over time. Do not splurge on a car, get a reliable one.

If you can get pass the gross racist bullshit of r173's post, you are also confronted by the idea that New York, LA and god even SF..are not full of "white liberals"? Nothing about posts makes sense.

Anyway, that is what the FF button is for.

r176 actually, maybe not a bad idea. have you thought of condo living, OP?

What about San Diego? I moved down from LA a few years ago Love it!

NY is much easier to meet people. LA traffic is hellish.

R179 has comprehension issues.

Sf has crappy weather

SF weather is the worst,

Check out Leasebreak.com for deals on apartments. I got a small studio in Cobble Hill, Brooklyn for $2100. You can find bigger/cheaper places farther out.

I make $110k and live well.

So consensus is SF is out. I think the “LA is courteous but not friendly and NY is not courteous but friendly” was the best summary comparison of the two. You can live in your nicer apartment in LA without friends or in a dark apt in NY with friends.

R183, SF is cool and prone to fog, but if you think that's "crappy weather" you have no idea what weather gets like. SF doesn't get blizzards, hurricanes, excessive summer humidity or temperatures below freezing. You don't need air-conditioning to live there, nor do you run up heating bills in the winter. You can go outdoors without having to worry about it all year round.

Now, Chicago has crappy weather.

That said, until the cost-of-living goes down, I think OP should head to LA. Between the techbros and rich Chinese investors, SF isn't really affordable.

SF weather sucks. I turned on my heater the other day.

The whole you don't need air conditioning schtick is overrated. Just remember to pack a jacket (no, not light) whenever you leave the door all year. Forget carefree summer clothes unless you are able to enjoy being outdoors from 10-2 from April to October, which in a town with an average rent of 3,000+ is highly unlikely M-F. Sa & Su you will be sharing that space with a gazillion other people so enjoy crowds and traffic.

Oh yeah and the cold weather is why the city has huge a high fat slob and uggo rate. And no, their personalities do not make up for it.

Everything about SF is bland and boring. I would live in NYC, LA, Miami, Chicago, DC, Philly, or Boston before moving to SF.

Let’s see: Freezing snow and slush filled winters where you can’t be outside more than a few minutes and sweltering humid summers where the air is unhealthy to be outside vs having to put on a fleece to go outside in 55-75 degree weather. NO - SF has better weather than NY.

And if SF is full of fat slobs and uggos, please don’t leave the city because you would be shocked how fat and ugly the other 90% of the country is.

I get the SF hate - but let’s not get completely delusional. With enough money, SF is a very nice place to live - which is why people have always flocked there.

R189 Is the typical of the San Francisco delusional mentality. People may have come here because it was a nice place to live 40, 30, 20 years ago.

Fast forward to 2018 and the only reason people come here is MONEY. They are techies who can make 6 figures as a 20something. They are immigrants who can live here without fear of persecution either back home or in Kansas or Mississippi somewhere. They are gay men who can be fat and ugly and have personalities as toxic as Drano who would never cut it in LA, NYC, Miami, or even Dallas like OP (men there have standards).

Me: I'm only here for the money. I'm making more money here in my industry than I would anywhere in the nation. I'll further humblebrag that I bought my condo 5 years ago yesterday (same as Madonna's birthday so I'll never forget) and it has already doubled in value. Outside my door? Car break-ins, needles, strong arm robberies, encampments (and yes we live in a NICE neighborhood). Oh and traffic, more luxury apartments being built, public transit become more crowded, less amenities as businesses cannot pay people enough to live in the Bay Area and make a profit, etc. etc.

Life is hard in the Bay Area in 2018. Fortunately I am in my 40s and had the chance to live it up in my 20s and 30s in LA where life in the sun included many beautiful men. I'll duke it out here for a while with my partner, make and save even more money, and hightail it over to Palm Springs when we can leave this all behind.

I agree that San Francisco men tend to to be as good looking as some other cities ( DC is the same way I'd say), but that is because the city attracts well educated professionals, not shallow himbos who who can't hold a conversation about anything real.

R191 Further delusional San Franciscans. "I must be elite because everyone around me must be elite." LOL.

Yeah, head down to the corner of Castro an 19th and look at all the well educated professionals living on the sidewalk there.

OP should really knock SF off the list.

The last time San Francisco was nice was in about 1981. AIDS took its toll. And what AIDS didn't finish off the homeless did. Then came the tech boom and the place is just too expensive to really enjoy. Plus the weather is complete shit. I swear I would prefer Chicago where I would have a guaranteed summer. San Francisco has damp fog and then more fog.

The tired old NYC vs SF battle is endlessly entertaining.

San Francisco isn't even in the equation really. It is a dirty third world place with shitty weather.

r195 honest to god, it really is. there's more life in the streets in fucking Nashville.

I would rather like OP to display basic literacy.

R194 Only because San Franciscans continue to insist on the dialogue. Myself included because I am surrounded by these self-aggrandizing delusionals.

Talk to anyone in NYC or LA or (even Chicago or DC) and it's evident no one gives two thoughts to SF beyond "what a 'cute little city'...."

SF was gorgeous and wonderful as late as the late 80s, even with the AIDS crisis. But now it is a total dump. Between the homeless problem, which is severe, all the street filth and garbage (and the stench) and the dot-comsters who have taken over what's left and made it unaffordable, it's a nightmare. Unfortunately, the outlying areas that once were lovely, like Berkeley, parts of Oakland, Orinda, Lafayette, Walnut Creek - those are all becoming outrageously-priced shitholes, too.

OP, R192, has already said he's leaning heavily toward LA. You, on the other hand, should leave the Bay Area. We natives can't stand people like you who are here just for the money and constantly bitch about everything without being aware that you're part of the problem--rich types driving up housing prices and making it unaffordable for anyone whose primary focus isn't money.

R198, The OP's question was about the three cities. And while San Francisco, itself, isn't big, the Bay Area, as a whole, is 6 million people. More to the point, it generates an insane amount of wealth. Many of the richest people in the world live in the Bay Area. It's third (right after NY/NJ and LA metro areas) in terms of contribution to the US GDP.

So, no, it's not some minor little place everyone ignores. It does have a major housing shortage, which in turn leads to a major homelessness problem.

LA. Nobody wants to live in NY anymore. Not even in the giant rats.

Probably SF....

L.A. is a cultural waasteland and really quite ugly in many areas *think FREEWAY ONRAMP), and I'm burnt out on NYC. 10 years was enough.

Only reason to live in NY is if you could hire Steve the former model from million dollar listing to be your broker but he only sells high end ...if I won the lottery I would buy there just to meet that hunk of spunk

NYC but not Manhattan. Try Brooklyn, Queens, or NJ. SF is impossible and LA’s commute and driving costs are too much.

Haha San Franciscans' provincial NIMBY /MABA "MAKE THE BAY GREAT AGAIN" attitudes reveal themselves again.

R201 The OP wasn't asking about GDPs and whatever other elitist humbraggery San Franciscans/Bay Areans/whatever contribute.

San Franciscans are such hypocrites. "All these money-hungry techies are driving out the people who should be here..." yet they focus on where they rank on GDPs and how well-educated ($$$) they are.

These are the personalities you encounter here. The techies are actually upfront about their self-indulgence.

Nyc experience

La simple life

Ny smart, la pretty

Is that a haiku?

There are all the subcultures* in southern California to plug into. I don't know what anyone is talking about. The big one is going to the BEACH. Also, southern California is a large region, so there is MORE to do.

*Sports, art scene, theater and films, Museums, dining, bar hunting and THE BEACH.

R208 What about San Francisco?

R209- it’s not a sonnet, Rose.

R210- NYC has great beaches (FI, the Hamptons, Jones, Riis Beach, Asbury Park/Gunnison in NJ), and in the summer you can actually swim in the ocean without getting frostbite.

"NYC has great beaches (FI, the Hamptons, Jones, Riis Beach, Asbury Park/Gunnison in NJ)".

I need to update my New York City geography. I learn something new everyday.

OP- technically you wouldn't be living in S.F., you'd be living in the Bay Area. I also heartily endorse Oakland, but move quickly, as it's gentrifying rapidly. And organic Vegan? Gurl the Bay Area puts L.A. shame for that.

I lived the Bay Area for 10 years, and L.A. for 18. While I do like L.A. (I surf and do outdoorsy stuff all year round in warmth), if I could have the same job in the BA, I'd move back in a heartbeat. Even with mold behind your bed and in your closets.

Perhaps the ghost ship in Oakland has been rebuilt

Ah fuck it all and move to vegas

NYC gets my vote. SF would be my second choice. No to LA.

Oy, New Yawk for the lox and bagels.

Oakland. LOL.

Enjoy dodging stabbings at one of the "nicer" BART stations, being viewed with resentment and distrust by the AA population (the nice ones) and a target for crime (not so nice ones). Enjoy people dismissing you behind their fake "Oh, I hear Oakland is up and coming 'these days'" when you tell them you pay $2,500+ for your one bedroom or $600,000+ for your 1930s-1950s fixer-upper or $700,00+ flipped home just a few blocks away from a crappy street, if not just around the corner.

Also enjoy the entitled breeders who come in their with their strollers and Subarus and millennial breeder mentality that they are saving the world. Enjoy joining the online "neighborhood watch group" with them where all they do is vent about "people" (AAs) breaking into your home, stealing stuff from your front lawn and back yard - criminals (AAs) don't even need/want to break into your home these days, and driving up and down the street casing homes, cars, Amazon deliveries...

Enjoy other gay men quickly dismissing you when you tell them you live in Oakland. "Oh yeah, I need to make it over there 'one of these days' … I hear good things are happening there 'these days'"...

Also enjoy an hour commute into the City by car/bus. Enjoy all the BART cars that are packed to capacity by the time they reach Oakland as all the commuters from outlying regions have already crammed in there.

Oakland is where its happening now!

If you can afford NYC it would be the way to go. You didn’t say what your housing budget is...

Can anyone else vouch for the bad Oakland scene?

R221 Ask my former colleague. Moved out from DC, her hubby from OC, because "San Francisco/Bay Area is so progressive like us."

Whooped it up in Pacific Heights until they produced spawn. Oakland once baby popped out because it is "gentrifying."

Lived in Oakland for about two years. Commute into SF got even longer. Crime got worse. Joined said neighborhood watch group where everyone seemed to live in constant worry. Had car stolen and dumped after being wrecked at the Fruitvale BART station. Before leaving the house, would remember to "stash Airbook in between some magazines" in case anyone peered through the windows.

Waited until property value in crime ridden Oakland went up, hubby could prove himself at office to keep SF job/salary while teleworking full time, sold home, ca$$$hed in enough to pay all their law school loans, and moved to Seattle where they easily still had enough SF $$$ to buy a home within 6 months.

Its the story of SF/Bay Area transplants these days. OP could very well be one of them.

A couple of years after the real estate crash I went hunting for bargains in Oakland. There ARE some beautiful pockets of the city and some really fab Victorian houses there. There were also certain sections of Oakland where my real estate broker outright refused to take me even during daylight hours as he could not assure my safety. Oakland should be a better Brooklyn than Brooklyn, but the crime and drugs are off the hook in certain neighborhoods. The problem with the good neighborhoods is getting to a BART station and risking your life. Otherwise you have to drive and the commute is godawful from there.

New York, Manhattan! It's fabulous. I can walk to 54 and Radio City, it's just terrific! And the men....I might just snag me a hubby at the Eagle, a really crazy place!

Oakland also only has 3 gay bars for a coastal city of almost 500,000. There are similar cities in Flyoverstan that beats that.

I think all but 1 isn't even open every night.

Also unless you are Latino, over 50, a hipster, or AA (in that order) you will not fit in.

To live in SF would I need a roommate?

If you need to avoid this one!

I"m puzzled by the handful of comments that a $100,000 income will allow you to buy in LA. Buy what? Where? Temecula? I'm very fiscally conservative so I can't imagine carrying a mortgage for a $400-500K while on a $100,000 income. That 400-500K will get you a nice condo in Pasadena.

That’s why we need to know if OP is selling and has 500k for a new abode?

I wouldn’t buy until I know I like the new office and town!

Forgot to add the nice condo is a 1 bedroom if it's new or newer. You can get 2 bedrooms in the old buildings. But yeah, if he has money from the Dallas house, I can see homeownership in LA. But if not, I would shit my undies if I was making 100K and paying a 500K mortgage.

My mind was blown when I saw dumpy 2 bedroom houses listed above 400K in Lincoln Heights a few years ago. LH is tolerable for a taco run, but I wouldn't rent there much less buy. A school friend lived in LH and her mom owned either a rundown duplex or triplex. That was back in the early 90's. I bet she could get 600-800K for it now.

What do the Pasadena condos rent for? Some cities it’s cheaper to rent

Op let us know where ur going!

....

With Oakland, it's all a question of where. The hillier, the better as a general rule, but north Oakland is also fine and has been for years. Stay out of the East and West Oakland neighborhoods. You'll be able to tell, pretty easily, which neighborhoods are sketchy.

The hill rule actually applies throughout the Bay Area.

The plus side of Oakland is that the restaurant scene has gotten quite interesting and some interesting houses. Down side is the ongoing issue with crime and a not-lively downtown as a result--it's easier for people to head over to Berkeley or across the Bay. Both Oakland and Berkeley get some fog, but, overall, they're warmer and sunnier than San Francisco, but not as warm as Marin and the south bay.

If you like the outdoors, Tilden Park is great with terrific views. Lots of places to hike and bike.

You're not going to run into a bunch of crime during commute times on BART. As the city becomes more expensive, the violent crime rate has dropped--but don't leave anything you care about in your car.

R35 makes a great point

LA is the lowest rent cost

His office will be in north Silicon Valley so maybe Milpitas to live?

I live a bit east of Pasadena. My 3BR/2.5 bath townhouse would sell for around $500K and rent for around $2300, if that's any help. The same place in Pasadena would be much more expensive. Oh, and Pasadena has a lousy school system.

One thing to consider about buying in California is that you will definitely be screwed under the new tax laws with the $10K cap on property taxes and state income taxes.

No one I know likes SF anymore. Silicon Valley killed it. It is not the city that it use to be. Case in point, zuckerberg lives there.

As for NY, people hate it. They just live there bc of their jobs. Your entire salary will be eaten up by cost of living costs.

Southern California is a big region and there is a lot too do. A big place to find your little fixer upper. You will need a car. With your salary, you can have a car (reliable not fancy) and a little house.

When you are talking about really friends, you will be able to have little bbqs in your back yard in Southern California, after hikes or the beach. You know really friends. Not just work or dive bar hook ups.

Also weather is most like Dallas in LA

LA's subway is surprisingly decent and extensive (in pure miles, maybe not in terms of number of people living within "X" distance from a stop") - but you have to live and work near the train lines; and since it's so spread out and less dense than NYC, that's significantly tougher to do than in NYC.

R241 “as for NY, people hate it”? Um... no. Despite people feeling it’s not what it was, I think most people who live here actually like it a lot. It’s unique intense exciting and has an energy and an openness that don’t exist anywhere else in the US. Debate the pros and cons - but clearly people don’t hate it and don’t live here just for their job. Anyone I know who didn’t love it, left. People choose to stay because it’s a o e of a kind place. If you want to live a passive life, a yard in LA is nice. But some people prefer activities other than pool parties and BBQs.

Can you manage to open a new office in a nice city on the French Riviera?

in New York for 100K you'd have to live in Port Washington.

I was in the Oakland for the Loma Prieta earthquake in 1989 and the Oakland hills fire. Don't kid yourself that these sorts of things can't intrude on your beautiful life. They can.

I was five blocks away from the Nimitz Freeway when it collapsed. One of my friends was driving on the fucking upper deck when it all went down. She survived, but was PTSD'd out of her mind for years to come. Another friend was on the Bay Bridge when a section of it collapsed. He was stuck on that bridge for hours. How do you get a thousand cars to back up off of a structure that large? Even under otherwise good circumstances, and these were not, it is nearly impossible.

The Hayward Fault extends from San Jose, straight through the Oakland hills, through Berkeley. It is overdue for a major quake. The tunnel that contains Highway 24 was cut right through the fault. A major aqueduct that supplies the water for Berkeley, Oakland, Hayward, Fremont, etc., goes through the fault, too. What is your expensive house worth if it has no water, you can't get a drink, and you can't flush your toilet?

California can be extraordinarily beautiful and much of it has great weather. But that fucking place can turn on your in a heart beat. The big problem is, each day you are one day closer to the next earthquake and the next fire. Good luck!

If you're going to San Francisco, better get there before it is gone. The Nob Hill Theatre closed yesterday, after a 50 year run. And now North Face is on its way to Denver.

Is it true that New Yorkers brag about how many things there are to see and do in NYC, but never do them?

It's the same in LA where people will say you can hit the mountains for a morning ski and then the beach for an afternoon swim. No one's ever done it.

Someone said his commute while longer in miles was shorter in minutes as the trains are better in ny than sf

Some do jersey city across the river with views of nyc for lower costs

I’m amazed at all the people I know in LA who haven’t been to the beach in YEARS. Same for NYCers who haven’t been to theater or performances in years. Though in NYC, every day on the street is theater.

I love SF, NY, and LA, but now all I need now to enjoy life is a comfortable affordable home in a walk-able neighborhood with shops and and parks nearby as well as proximity to cultural events and music.. Trees and gardens are important to me in a safe neighborhood with attractive and interesting places to walk. Medical services and public transportation not far away are also important.

I like a change of seasons but not too extreme from too hot to too cold. I'm pretty close to my ideal now in the North Bay and a little over an hour to San Francisco. I have to drive more than I like. I can't afford SF anymore but I sure loved living there when I did and could walk everywhere.

R254, I'm down in Silicon Valley--and old-timers seem to all be retiring to the North Bay--not quite as expensive, less built up--a little more of that old Bay Area feel is still there. Well, until last year's fire in Santa Rosa.

I'm a Bay Area-to-LA transplant and I'm thinking about the North Bay too. But there don't seem to be any large gated "active senior" communities (like Rossmor in Walnut Creek or Laguna Woods Village in the OC.) I know there's a gay retirement home in Santa Rosa (that just narrowly escaped the fires) but there's not that much in the way of senior housing.

R255, yes, lots of ex-Bay Areans up here. The fires have made things more difficult but we're in recovery mode now. Lot's of rebuilding going on. Santa Rosa also suffers from the larger earthquakes, was leveled in 1906, but they are rare. I'd rather deal with earthquakes than hurricanes and tornadoes.

R256 There are active senior communities up here just not gated. Crime stats are lower here, though. Cloverdale has a Del Webb community and is a great small town that's improving all the time. Very warm in summer. There is also Oakmont east of Santa Rosa. I go to estate sales there often, it's a very beautiful community with mountain views all around and houses built to be comfortable for seniors. It could probably be compared to Rossmoor, an elderly aunt of mine lived there.

Well, it's still the Bay Area, just not the frantic, crazy Bay Area. Let's hear it for the wine country--expensive wines mean less farm land converted to industrial parks.

Don't be so sure that the North Bay is immune from the 1) expense and 2) growth that the rest of the Bay Area sees.

Housing prices are easily up $100,000-$150,000+ from where they were this time last year just before the fires. You'll be hard pressed to find anything in a decent neighborhood for less than $600,000. Keep in mind there are many bad neighborhoods in the North Bay, it is not all wineries and sunshine and roses. Lots of drugs (meth heads) and low-income farm/agro workers. Don't know about retirement communities though, but unless you plan on living exclusively within its gates you will have to deal with many urban problems (including homelessness).

Also the North Bay's infrastructure, like the rest of the Bay, was not designed for millions of people using it to commute to and from work. They've been expanding the 101, the main freeway into the rest of the Bay, but like anything here - it is behind schedule, underfunded, limited by NIMBYism, split between several counties (Marin/Sonoma/Napa) who don't necessarily share the same common goal, and more importantly is probably 5 years minimum behind in terms of effectiveness.

R260 I went to two open houses yesterday in a nice neighborhood, one in the high 500s and the other in the high 400s. Both good houses in good condition. Not that what you're saying doesn't have merit, but like anywhere, the natives know which neighborhoods to avoid and frankly, I don't think there are that many here.

Also, the lower end of the market, manufactured homes, have seen prices reduced. If you're into that type of community you can get a spacious home for under $200,000. We just sold one belonging to an elderly relative and had to cut the price from $190,000 to $170,000. It's 3 beds, 2 baths, 1400 sq ft, in a safe area close to most conveniences, and move in ready.

Also, you don't have to stay within the gates of a senior community to be safe. Oakmont is far away from any sketchy neighborhood, the nearby parts of Santa Rosa are very nice.

Yes, we have a drug and homeless problems. They are a challenge to alleviate. No where near as bad as SF though.

The highways have been a problem just because so many people have moved here in recent years, and that's in part why housing is so expensive. High demand equals high costs. It's still more affordable than other parts of the Bay Area. We have many strong debates here about growth, the no-growth advocates added to the housing shortage. We certainly need more housing but most people don't want to lose the green belts that make the area so beautiful.

r258 Actually, I have relatives in both Oakmont and the Del Webb in Cloverdale, so I'm familiar with both of them. Oakmont would be my preference, I guess, and I'm very familiar with the housing stock. Cloverdale is just too far away (although I guess it will be more accessible once they get the train running all the way up there.) But Oakmont, as nice as it is, doesn't have nearly as many facilities as Rossmoor, nor is it gated.

Clearlake is still cheap.

As a NYer, NoCal is a very attractive place to live. Love nature . But relying on a car sucks.

LA allows a little green space with easy (relatively ) access to life. NoCal is sprawl.

Nice try but the reverse is true.

I've lived in all three. New York wins easily.. It's got culture, good food, nightlife, nature, all within easy reach. I have never made a $100,000 a year. I live very well.

266 what part of nyc ?

This thread has been very informative but whoever hasn’t been posting as me, the real OP, throughout this thread is an imposter.

R267, you should be ashamed of yourself. And you’re a fucking racist, too. Because when I blocked you, that diatribe about “AA’s” in Oakland disappeared. Eat shit, bitch.

Wow some of the eldergays here seem to have mistaken OP's question.

He sounds like someone is his 30s, possibly 40s, looking for a change of gay pace/scenery.

Why anyone would think he doesn't want to live in a gayborhood/gayborhood-adjacent is beyond me. Fairly positive he is interested in spending his time singling and mingling and not buying property, much less in a retirement community so have no idea how this thread got derailed (save for the San Franciscans eager to defend their once former utopia as per their usual provincial turfist tendencies).

I didn’t write a diatribe about AAs in Oakland btw..I wrote OP would probably like to know (what part of NYC) and the post got messed up

So was it the real OP who thanked everyone ages ago and said he was leaning toward LA? I think it was after that the thread got more off-topic, but it didn't seem like a big deal since OP got the information he wanted.

It was the real OP who called me a racist but I never wrote anything racist....

If you're all done with the virtue-signalling...

[quote] SF weather is the worst,

Not if you're uninterested in a wardrobe for every season it isn't-there really are no extremes, unless you count the gloom. Carry a pocketable coat with you and you're prepared for 90% of the weather you'll experience there. I grew up there doing just that, walking and taking street cars everywhere.

You trees full of parrots can have your blasting summer heat, after a month of 90-100 degree days I'm about to drive to SF, find a cheap motel in the Avenues and live on Ocean Beach. That, at least, I can afford.

It really stinks getting your hometown priced out from under you.

Wall street Canabals are not consider a Culture. Just pure blood sadistic sociopaths and a danger to you and our DEMOCRACY.

r253 It's all about the notion of access. I used to live in Florida and rarely went to the beach. Why rush? it will always be there. then I ended up moving more in land and now wish I'd gone more often.

I'm sure those who live in LA and NY feel the same about beach/mountain/Broadway.

People in general are procrastinators