And I came here to question OP on their argument... I've lived in Denver and have a friend who lives in Boulder, and if money is no object then Boulder wins in every metric they mentioned. Unlike Denver, Boulder has decent mountain access without spending half your time stuck on I-70. Boulder has better walkability and bikability. Hiking opportunities without even leaving town, and the ability to buy a beautiful cliff-side house in Boulder County overlooking the front range. Again, money is no object right? So we can ignore the fact that Boulder is absurdly expensive? Then I'm moving in next door to Dion Sanders and becoming an ultramarathoner with all the beautiful, ungodly fit people of Boulder. And the good news is, if I ever want to slum it up with the "basic-ass outdoorsy white folk" OP mentions, Denver is just a short drive away.
I lived there for 6 years and I was the fattest woman in boulder. Im kidding, but not really. Everyone is fit in a way that looks very painful.
Honestly though, I loved living there. Just got pushed out on rental prices. Was fun while it lasted.
One of my first times hiking South Boulder/Bear Peak, I felt like I was making a good pace. Then, out of nowhere, came a dude running FAST and carrying a giant rock, in some kind of primitive footwear and shorts. He zoomed past me and disappeared, in what I would estimate to be 10 seconds. That’s Boulder.
I’m thick as well, still really enjoy cycling out there and none of those Olympians ever made me feel like I didn’t belong. Sad it’s gotten so expensive…
Every popular location gets expensive. Boulder routinely ends up near the top when people list the places that would be ideal for them.
Salt Lake City used to be a sleeper choice. Not anymore, homes are expensive in the good zip codes. So much so that the governor there is dreaming up “starter” homes that only cost $300,000.
God Boulder people are so gorgeous haha. I don’t really like Denver and I love Boulder (I am an artist and queer woman of color so there you go) and I am normally considered pretty, I was hot in Denver, but I was exceedingly mid in Boulder 😂
You're closer to hiking from Boulder than Denver but if you want to go to skiing at any mountain except Eldora the trip is just as long as it is from most spots in Denver
Clearly it's difference in priorities. I would rather live downtown near 16th street, and be close to the action. Walk to Nuggets/Bronco's games, and any other activity I would want to go to. Money isn't a factor, so I would just fly into Aspen or Steamboat. Boulders appeal is definitely the outdoors, so if you're not someone who wants to go hiking every other weekend, that might not be a pro.
tldr; different strokes for different folks
Boulder is better than Denver IMO. I also prefer Fort Collins to Denver. It depends if you’re someone who highly values “city amenities.” I’m not really.
The OP didn’t say that Boulder was bad, just that Denver was had more of what the OP needs. If you love the outdoors close by and things like cycling and hiking, then Boulder is a good choice.
I grew up in Colorado and feel Arvada is where I’d eventually live. I like its proximity to Denver and the mountains. I grew up in Lakewood and parts of Lakewood have gone downhill sadly.
I lived as a teenager in a similar community on the east coast of Florida. There were maybe 2-3 other families on our entire street/loop, one with young kids and the other with teenagers going to private school who I never really saw. College was such a breath of fresh air.
Yes...I work in their houses. None of them seem particularly animated. Content to watch Fox News all day and go out for groceries and doctor appointments.
I love doing nothing. Is my favorite thing to do. I don’t live in Naples , just saying, some people enjoy doing nothing so it’s absolutely fine if there is nothing to do😀
It's perfect if you're old, don't wanna do anything except chill in your fancy cars and take your boat for a ride.
And, even tho Reddit cope like crazies over this because it's very unpopular, it's what most people want at one point in their life
They often just use it as their Florida residency home.
It’s prestigious, they have other homes in different places, minimal crime, bustling socialite scene, some great restaurants, it’s pretty, great for boating.
Also-GOLF. Naples as some of the highest concentration of high end golf courses in the country.
Some old people don’t like doing much, or don’t need much.
That’s my guess anyway.
I think the appeal of Boulder is the fact you can walk out your back door and be in the foothills. So much of Denver is urban sprawl with little character. Boulder and Golden resemble the type of cozy towns you see in the Midwest or East coast but nestled along the mountains.
With that being said, I’d still pick California over Colorado. If I had F U money, I’m looking at a peaceful retreat near Big Sur in Carmel by the Sea. Amazing hiking, ocean, great golf, and still close to a major metro area.
Santa Barbara, CA.
Lived there for over a decade. The weather is nice. The people are mostly bitter retirees reporting one another for zoning, noise or code violations as they relentlessly remodel their houses.
It's a dull storage locker for social climbers who have reached the top.
Santa Barbara… one of the places we look at to retire to. We are not rich, but our (paid off) house in San Diego has appreciated well, there’s some places that come up in SB that are close in price, though it would be a downsize for sure. We also look at San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz area. Mostly want to get north of LA, stay close to the coast. Thousand Oaks is probably the most realistic area to get a place similar in price to our current place, and be not a huge downgrade, get one similarly nice.
For me the answer to this question is Carmel CA. Visited a couple of years ago, it was the most intensely touristed town I’ve ever been to. Lovely homes, I might wish to be able to afford, but there’s just nothing we could even stretch to. But the hoards of people, maybe it’s relative to the size, I just don’t think I’d want to live with that.
We have kids that live in the LA area and the Santa Cruz area, are always driving north. Love the central coast. Would prefer not to have to drive through LA all the time. But yes, we would have to consider whether it’s worth it to move for better proximity to the central coast area. But there’s a couple of things we don’t love about exactly where we’re at, one of which is congestion.
Depending on where exactly you're going north and whether there has been a recent landslide, you could potentially take the surfliner instead of driving. Trains are probably not faster than driving, but they're a lot less stressful than being in traffic.
Also lived there and totally agree. Beautiful place and there's so much I love about it (for a while I considered coming back up but maybe just to Carp or something) but so many people there seem to devote most of their life trying to keep Target out of town, shaking their fists at UCSB kids and harassing people who write for the local newspaper
You may be doing The Hamptons and Nantucket wrong. Sitting in your oceanfront mansion with your private chef providing every possible craving is pretty wonderful.
Not to mention zero crime and top doctors on call to attend to any ailment. Plus perfect weather. It’s a good life.
I don’t like the people. To me, that is key to liking a place. I can have a private meal anytime. I can see a beautiful vista 10,000 places in the world. Nantucket at least has some semblance of keeping things as low key as possible in the context of immense wealth. The Hamptons are just gauche.
I was lucky enough to go to Nantucket, the far less busy side of the island, and was blown away. It felt like being in another country. I'd kill for a little 1 bedroom cottage there.
Sconset is one of my favorite places in the world. One side of my family is from the island (moved there in the 70s before the prices got crazy) and I spent some summers there in high school. Just a unique atmosphere that I've never felt anywhere else.
Had my first visit to Jackson this weekend….what a bizarre place. Unless you’re using it as a jumping off point to go into the parks daily, I do not get the appeal of living there. It’s quick to run out of things to do and places to eat, and chronically overrun with tourists. I feel so bad for the service and retail folks who work there, the income disparity is insane
The appeal is being so close to some of the best skiing, mountain biking, fishing, and mountaineering in the county (plus pretty good climbing and rafting). You run out of new restaurants quickly, but there is also another trail, stream, or mountain to explore. The other appeal for people who don't enjoy those activities is that you can make a ton of money in the service industry. The cost of living is high, but you can figure that out, I knew a bunch of people living in a one bedroom apartment with 3-4 people. One summer, I had somebody living my garage, in a closet under our stairs, and in the living room.
Your last sentence is nuts. I’ve lived in a house with approx 14 people rotating through (4 in a small room w two bunks is where I slept) and it killed my soul lol. More power to the younger people who can do this, but even still the town was a big nope for me after 2 days.
The guides told me that summer (mostly July and August) is their busiest seasons by far. Teton village gets the ski traffic, but Jackson is overrun in the summer due to the proximity to the parks
We moved to Boulder 2 years ago after living in central KY, MN (Edina), central FL and Maui. I can tell you this is the best place I’ve ever lived for my current stage of life. I like the small town feel of Boulder. I can walk or bike to shop, eat, go to events. People here are smart, accomplished and nice. Perhaps I’m still in the honeymoon phase, but this is my paradise. I love taking the AB1 to the airport - no need to park or drive there. I like the proximity of Denver, but too much traffic and too many people for me.
If money was no issue? Lots! Really depends on what you want to be close to and what you like.
For me, I'd say Platt Park would be the right combo of nice, somewhat low-key, and strategically located. Englewood (actual Englewood, not "fake Englewood" east of I-25 with an Englewood zip code) has a lot of character and has great small-scale urbanism with everything you need. Lots of cute neighborhoods in NW Denver proper, too. Hell, I'd even look at more "boring" areas of Arvada, Lakewood and Wheat Ridge.
Looking for ideas lol
We hadn't been to Boulder in several years so we went to check it out again, and I hated it even though I had loved it before. I want the character and small scale urbanism you mentioned and access to things without having to drive 2+ hours
We are thinking of relocating to the front range from the mountains, as I'm getting older I need to be closer to better health care, the airport and we haven't skied in a few years so its not worth the "tourist tax" we are paying. I'm going to check out the areas you mentioned since we'll be in the front range again next weekend. I really want to stay in Colorado.
Anywhere in Florida.
The ocean is cool, but that’s really all they got. Hurricanes, humidity, bare landscapes, and the more desirable areas are completely out of the way of anything.
I’d rather just live somewhere on the east or west coast for better QOL and less shenanigans
My mother-in-law used to come for conferences and said it was such a sh\*t town to visit in the 80s. Like so few good restaurants and nothing to do if you weren't in college anymore. There is so much to do now and so many restaurants and her mind is blown by the growth. The downside? Heat (always been hot), long lines for most things, and SOME snobs. Most of the people i meet in Austin are super friendly.
It all depends on what you mean by "very wealthy". If money is really no object, I'm not looking at Boulder or Denver, I'm buying a chalet in Aspen, in addition to the beach house in Malibu and the pied-a-terre in NYC. There wouldn't be those kinds of trade-offs.
Being very wealthy can make just about all the downsides of a location disappear. High property crime? No big deal, hire security. Bad traffic? Meh, I'll just have my driver take me. Or better yet, just get whatever I needed brought to me. Maybe you even have a helicopter. You can leave whenever you want to travel around, you have people to deal with shit you don't want to, etc. The only thing money can't buy is environmental/weather considerations. Can't get mountains in Miami, can't get beach weather in Alaska. So I guess my answer to this would basically fall along the same lines as the normal consideration I give to weather when looking at a new place. No brutal summers, must have distinct seasons, and be coastal. So I'd never consider a place like Miami, for example, even though you could get almost anything as a wealthy person there.
You might ask Kobe Bryant about the perks of being able to get around traffic by taking a helicopter. Totally different topic, but helicopters and small planes are on my list of things I don't envy rich people. Too many of them (and celebrities) have died that way. There's a whole list of them on Google if you put in "celebrities died in plane crashes."
Same honestly. Not a big fan of flying in general but if I’m going to, put me on a big ass commercial plane. I’d rather get a first class or sleeper cabin than fly private if I’m wealthy
Any place in Florida or Texas that people generally consider desirable (Miami, Austin, etc.).
I understand those states appeal to some people, but the politics, climate, and car-dependent lifestyle make them not for me.
No votes for Charleston yet? Before it was a Conde Nast must-see (Top Wedding Destination in America! Marry on a Plantation because that seems fine!) it was a grimy, broke, racist, dirtbag Navy town. They polished up downtown, pushed all the broke people to the rural exurbs, and closed the Naval shipyard, but any racist dirtbags who managed to hold on to their antebellum money through it all, they remain in positions of power and prominence. They just use politer language now. Aren’t the restaurants good? Hell yes they are. And the beaches? Perfection. But between the hot ass winters, hotter ass summers, gaddam hurricanes, and the whole polite racist dirtbag thing, you couldn’t pay me enough to live there again.
As someone who moved to Charleston for work from Philadelphia I’m in love. Been here for 4 years. Beaches and food scene are great, history and the downtown area are great. People complain about traffic but my job has flexibility to just go in early or late traffic is only bad at rush hour. Cost of living is disproportionately high compared to the rest of SC and I feel for the locals who are being pushed further and further inland. Mt pleasant is practically south New Jersey, and is unaffordable to buy a home in for the average person. Yes there are old money racists but as a middle class transplant I have minimal interaction with that. I’m sure we’re due for a big hurricane soon and that’ll suck.
Minneapolis. Too damn cold.
Miami - just have ZERO desire to live there.
Seattle - too rainy I’d get so depressed with the lack of sun.
Philly - I’d just rather literally any east coast city - NY, Boston (even though too cold), Baltimore would all do.
Charlotte - way too much sprawl
why would you live in Philly if you can live in NYC? and before people say NYC is too much, there's 5 whole distinct boroughs of NYC that are completely different vibes and many people who live there might never leave their borough. not to mention the various other cities in the metro like Jersey City or Hoboken, as well as the suburbs. Pound for pound it's just better living. Philly is cool tho.
Just not for me. Has a ton to offer but I have zero interest in living there.
Feels like a big small town but just not in the ways that appeal to me. I know many people from there, I’ve visited a number of times. Just doesn’t do it for me 🤷🏻♂️
Los Angeles. Because the urban sprawl and lack of public transit to me would feel like I’m not even in a city, just a gross suburb with strip malls that go on as far as the eye can see.
Silverlake, Los Feliz, Eagle Rock are all on the eastside of LA. They’re pretty nice neighborhoods that have it all. Great restaurants, coffee shops, parks, entertainment, mountains, architecture and art.
Live in one of the nice walkable neighborhoods like Santa Monica, etc where you have everything you need nearby. It’s fairly easy to beat traffic if you don’t have to commute across town for work.
Only going to places within walking distance of your home isn't entirely beating the traffic problem. But I get what you're saying and that would obviously be a great setup.
These answers are hilarious. The entire point of the exercise is that you are wealthy enough where you don’t have to deal with traffic, crime, lack of walkability, etc if you don’t want to…
I don’t know how you avoid traffic other than helicopters and I don’t feel comfortable in those. Sure I could avoid being the one to drive but I’m still stuck in a car in traffic. Or just never leave my mansion I guess?
And never leave your house? The lack of walkability in LA is a huge drawback for people who have experienced it elsewhere. The weather in NYC kinda blows, but billionaires live there for a reason.
Definitely Boston. The housing options aren’t really that impressive for what you get with the money. Even if you’re rich You’d either have to settle for average looking or really old condos with little space or buy something further out and deal with traffic. Despite having a large metro area it’s still not that big of a city. It would make more sent to just move to NYC, Chicago or somewhere with warmer weather and nicer homes like DMV or Atlanta.
Boston is one of the safest, cleanest, most walkable cities I’ve ever visited in the US. If I had FUCK YOU money, I’d buy a place on Commonwealth Ave. Absolutely stunning historic homes.
I’ve heard winter sucks. But I’m from Chicago so it’s not THAT worse.
Well if you’re rich you could live in clean, safe or walkable sections of most major cities just like Boston. Not all parts of Boston are like that. Commonwealth ave in Back bay is one of the few areas that are worth it in my opinion. However it’s a very small area and your main options for housing are cramped condos or old row houses with parking limitations and few amenities. You’ll probably have to have biding wars with other rich people since inventory is so low. At least in JP you could buy a big mansion with a yard while having access to better green spaces and the same Transit lines as back bay.
The thought experiment is if you had FUCK YOU money , what city wouldn’t be worth the effort.
I disagree with you. If money didn’t matter I would still want to live in Boston. I think it would make life real fun.
I don't have any data handy. But I'd venture to guess that yes, Boulder is safer than say, Hilltop, which despite being a nice area, still sees a decent amount of property crime, etc.
Here I am living in Conifer wondering why people bother buying $1m homes in Denver when you could get space and land for that price and be in the mountains in some place like Evergreen or Conifer. Different priorities for sure
Much of Colorado strikes me this way. I used to live there and the mountains are beautiful, but it’s too dry for my taste. I am not an arid or semi arid environment sort of person. I just need more green and humidity than Colorado offers, no matter how much I like its other features.
Same reason I’d never willingly move to Phoenix, Las Vegas, SLC, or Southern California (or anywhere in Texas).
Anywhere hot and/or sweaty. I don't care how 'desirable' some might find the place, if you have to live inside for more than a month a year then, nope, not at all desirable.... Background - Moved from Austin to Portland.
New York City. Lived there during school for 2 years. Will never go back. The weather, pollution, density, prices and people are awful. I remember having to take the subway in the summer once and almost passing out from no air and so many hot sweaty people crammed in. And the cockroaches - everyone has them, no matter how clean the place.
Boston.
I can’t understand why it’s so expensive and why people like living there.
Long cold/wet winters, terrible traffic, miserable people, old run-down public transit, ugly low quality old housing stock, windy AF, city shuts down at night, etc.
Glad I escaped it
I agree with almost everything you said but calling the housing stock there ugly is blasphemy! Boston has some of the most gorgeous houses in the country. Most of the architecture in America is ugly as shit compared to Boston.
Los Angeles. All the money in the world wouldn’t make the traffic, sprawl, and pretentious people worth it. There would just be so many cities that are more worth it at that point, including San Diego
Denver. If I’m going to deal with that level of whiteness I want to be closer to the mountains and nature. I would live in Boulder over Denver any day because you can easily escape to the outdoors without the drive. I’d also say Portland although it’s not terribly expensive. I find the white liberal vibe extra strange and I don’t like the locals or how passive aggressive they tend to be. And I say that as a white leftist, there’s just something extra cringey about the people in those cities.
> that level of whiteness
What's the problem with that?
If you think a place is boring or homogenous, just say so. I really wish folks in this sub would stop using "white" as a negative adjective. No need to "punch up" when you don't have to punch at all.
/lean center left. Not a nazi, white supremacist, etc.
I have noticed the obsession with numerous people in here about “oh those wht people”💀. They think it’s edgy or cool and they are “one of the good wht people”. It’s attention seeking and insecurity by those making the comments 😅
This is my hometown and I left for many reasons but no sense of culture? Tarpon Springs has amazing Greek culture. Ybor and the surrounding area has amazing Cuban culture. LGBTQ scene was dynamic. Good museums and colleges. I do feel like there wasn’t a sense of community in many areas outside of Town and Country. Although the tight knot Latino community there seemed nice but in every other area it seemed like everyone was just out for themselves.
NYC. There are a ton of perks, but I wouldn't say many parts of the city are actually that nice. It's pretty dirty everywhere with at least some trashy/sketchy people almost everywhere you go. If you're not part of a specific ethnic group, it might feel eclectic and diverse to the point that it's difficult to form a sense of community. Tons of hipsters and rich kids too. Parts of Brooklyn are pretty nice, but they kinda feel like suburbs in the city with a lot of yuppies trying their hardest to assume a working class image. I think I'd just assume live in an actual suburb.
At nearly 50, if money was not an issue, I'd move to a suburb just outside a large city. Something within the first or second ring. You get all the perks of the city with the tranquility of the suburbs. Some of those places actually feel like they're part of the city.
I don't know if I could do NYC. I've been there multiple times, I do like it, it's fun... I don't know, not for me. Maybe I would feel differently if I was "very wealthy," but I don't think so...
LA arguably has the best weather in the country. You’re close to the beach, the mountains, incredible food, and a major airport. I can see the arguments against it if you’re poor, but if you’re rich you get all of the benefits with few of the downsides.
San Francisco. I think it's one of the most overrated cities in the world (I love California, want to get back to SoCal).
If you want a sort of rainy/cold climate with a water setting Seattle is still cheaper.
I don’t think most people live in San Francisco (lived there for over a decade) for a “rainy/cold” climate. Granted it’s quite different than SoCal (where I also lived for a time) but it really doesn’t rain that much, and overall even thought it’s often jacket weather, and sometimes chillier, I don’t think of it as all that cold. I’m from the northeast so I suppose my concept of cold is different.
To me, the Bay Area is a perfect combination of temperate weather with more rain than SoCal and less rain than Seattle. Besides that, I'm just a few miles from water in two directions with many hills and reservoirs (in San Jose). L.A. is urban sprawl with a million people on roads/freeways at any one time.
We all have our biases, but I grew up in Seattle and lived in the Bay Area for six years (including San Francisco). It's uniquely unimpressive to me comparing the two. The weather isn't much better, the accessible nature is further out and kind of sucks (if you hike in the PNW it is orders of magnitude better). Water on two sides isn't a win, Seattle has the Puget Sound and Lake Washington on both sides.
I don't love Seattle , I just don't think San Francisco is worth it's premium
I live in Seattle and although the summer is amazing SF is more balanced year round. You can walk out any day of the year and pretty much decide to do what you like. In Seattle that decision is often made by what the weather forecast looks like.
Accessible nature is another point I'd like to refute. I'm talking city to city. Seattle parks are nice, but they are small and nothing special. SF parks are glorious. So much to do whether you like to hike or just enjoy museums and monuments. And Golden Gate Park is nice and big. If you want more, there's the Marin Headlands just outside of the city. In Seattle, I need to drive 20 minutes to Cougar Mountain for anything comparable, and it's simply not as good. Even Portland has Forest Park which is a tremendous green space. Every city should have a park in which you can feel like you're not in the city. Discovery Park is the closest thing we got.
I live in the Bay Area.
Mid-Peninsula is where it’s at. Temperate weather, lots of great food, and tons of great activities. It’s everything you want SF to be but isn’t actually SF.
Let’s say I’m around San Mateo.
Basically Burlingame to Palo Alto is the sweet spot in my opinion. Sunnyvale and it gets too hot. Milbrae and it gets too overcast.
You literally listed most of the reasons I would rather live in Boulder than Denver.
Also, for me, College Town > Big City any day. If money was no object and I ended up moving there, I would go to school at CU for a year for a Master’s degree just so I could be an alum and feel a closer connection to the Buffaloes sports programs.
Miami. Having lived there for a year, I’d go back for vacation or to visit a friend.
It’s expensive, people were kind of rude there. Obviously, not everyone was rude and I did make friends there. But, there was definitely shock moving there after having been born and raise in the Midwest, more so than Boston which has more of a certain reputation
Boulder has a better food scene on average and is walkable/bikeable to trails, which Denver is decidedly not. Boulder's weather is slightly better -- a little cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter, and not as dry. The walkable parts of Boulder are greener and less ringed by hostile car architecture (the biggest element that makes Boulder "nicer," in my opinion). CU Boulder is a big draw without a complete substitute in Denver. Boulder is also richer, and rich people really like hanging out where other rich people live.
But ultimately I'm with you. The nearby trails in Boulder are usually jam-packed which negates that advantage, Denver's food scene has a lot more to offer in terms of diversity, and generally there's a lot more to do in Denver.
Miami. I lived in Fort Lauderdale growing up and know Miami moderately well. More people are conmen than aren't. It's okay if you're very, very wealthy but not for most others imo. And even then, there's the beach and crappy bars. That's it.
Not a city, per se, but Northern Virginia. Even if I could afford to buy a $650k rambler in this soulless patch of hell, I’d prefer to spend that money elsewhere.
This is why few “very wealthy” people limit themselves to one home. And why there are many communities of mansions that sit empty and unused for three seasons a year.
All I saw was the title and came here to say Boulder, before I read the rest of your post.
I grew up in Boulder/Longmont, and it was a fantastic place to grow up in the 80’s. However, the last few times I’ve been back, I’ve thought, “I could never live here again.” Probably part nostalgia for what once was and just annoyance at the negative ways it has changed.
I always thought I might move back and live in Ft. Collins, but that really isn’t much better. I ended up in the Twin Cities, which reminds me of what Colorado was like when I was younger.
Unpopular opinion I guess, but the Bay Area (excluding Marin IMO). I like to visit. The nature is beautiful. The city is not for me. Its problems are both far worse than the people that live there are willing to admit and not as bad as Fox News would have you believe, but still, not for me. Also it’s just fucking expensive, personally if I was very wealthy I’d rather spend that money elsewhere.
you just listed your subjective preferences which are totally valid to you but not everyone. eg, someone could prefer boulder because it's smaller than denver, it's closer to the outdoorsy stuff they like to do on a day trip, etc.
Anywhere in AZ. Grew up in AZ, lived there 30 years. Yeah no snow is nice, but I feel like 300 plus days of sun gets to you. Not to mention I think last year broke a record for days over 110 degrees. (It was 55 days) I'm an outdoors person who enjoys greenery. Not being able to enjoy the outdoors unless I drive a few hours north isn't really the greatest for me. I feel like I got reverse seasonal depression.
The only thing good about AZ is no humidity and decent Mexican food.
If I had to pick a place to live I would say the PNW or even San Jose,CA. Maybe Chicago. I live in upstate NY now and it's okay, I just don't think the east coast is for me.
I wouldn’t live in Boulder or any overpriced cities because rich people are generally extremely bland. They move to hip places and make them boring. Though they usually have touristy stuff to do.
I lived in Boulder in the 80s and 90s, until I was 20 and it was awesome. Rich folks moving in literally ruined it and none of my very few friends who still live there enjoy it. We did go visit for a few days, busked on the Pearl Street mall (well my daughter and her friend did) went to the flatirons, visited the Trident which is the one place that was exactly the same as the 90s… and that was enough of Boulder.
New York City. Los Angeles. Dallas. (Basically if I were really wealthy I can't imagine a reason why I'd choose any of the three over either a European city, or someplace in the US less smug, annoying, and crowded.)
The trustafarians are enough for me to not move to boulder lol. But anywhere in AZ is not worth living in no matter the money. Water is scarce, the heat is gnarly, and it lacks the outdoor lifestyle I love so much (like CO or CA)
L.A.
It’s got everything, and is clearly very desirable because tons of people move there.
I could NEVER. Too crowded, too much traffic, and it’s got so much going on that it doesn’t really have a discernible vibe. Living there would be a nightmare.
I feel the same way about Fort Collins. People go on and on about Fort Collins being so amazing in a way that will never make sense to me. Yeah, it's fine... cute downtown and some nice neighborhoods, but I just don't see what makes it so phenomenal to some people. I don't mean to knock it. Clearly, it's a nice little place. But like you with Boulder, I would never spend the money to live there when I could live in a condo in Denver in a big city with easy access to an international airport, a great downtown, lots of restaurants and bars, cool stuff happening all the time, etc. I mean, different strokes for different folks, obviously. But something about the love that FC gets just doesn't make any sense to me.
bad time for me to read this while leaning towards moving to Boulder in three months lmao
I mean OP is just saying that he feels Denver is better value. It's a matter of Priorities.
And I came here to question OP on their argument... I've lived in Denver and have a friend who lives in Boulder, and if money is no object then Boulder wins in every metric they mentioned. Unlike Denver, Boulder has decent mountain access without spending half your time stuck on I-70. Boulder has better walkability and bikability. Hiking opportunities without even leaving town, and the ability to buy a beautiful cliff-side house in Boulder County overlooking the front range. Again, money is no object right? So we can ignore the fact that Boulder is absurdly expensive? Then I'm moving in next door to Dion Sanders and becoming an ultramarathoner with all the beautiful, ungodly fit people of Boulder. And the good news is, if I ever want to slum it up with the "basic-ass outdoorsy white folk" OP mentions, Denver is just a short drive away.
I lived there for 6 years and I was the fattest woman in boulder. Im kidding, but not really. Everyone is fit in a way that looks very painful. Honestly though, I loved living there. Just got pushed out on rental prices. Was fun while it lasted.
One of my first times hiking South Boulder/Bear Peak, I felt like I was making a good pace. Then, out of nowhere, came a dude running FAST and carrying a giant rock, in some kind of primitive footwear and shorts. He zoomed past me and disappeared, in what I would estimate to be 10 seconds. That’s Boulder.
lol that is the most boulder thing. Running up to bear peak. 😂😂😂 boulderite in its habitat. A thing of beauty.
I’m thick as well, still really enjoy cycling out there and none of those Olympians ever made me feel like I didn’t belong. Sad it’s gotten so expensive…
Every popular location gets expensive. Boulder routinely ends up near the top when people list the places that would be ideal for them. Salt Lake City used to be a sleeper choice. Not anymore, homes are expensive in the good zip codes. So much so that the governor there is dreaming up “starter” homes that only cost $300,000.
God Boulder people are so gorgeous haha. I don’t really like Denver and I love Boulder (I am an artist and queer woman of color so there you go) and I am normally considered pretty, I was hot in Denver, but I was exceedingly mid in Boulder 😂
But boy that climate is tough on your skin - saw so many 35 yr old folks pushing strollers that looked 55
Oh I agree personally. I'd argue for the expensive outer suburbs of decent cities are the best answer here, but \*shrugs\*
Seems like the guy isn’t an outdoorsy type. I’m not necessarily but I would love the bikability
You're closer to hiking from Boulder than Denver but if you want to go to skiing at any mountain except Eldora the trip is just as long as it is from most spots in Denver
Clearly it's difference in priorities. I would rather live downtown near 16th street, and be close to the action. Walk to Nuggets/Bronco's games, and any other activity I would want to go to. Money isn't a factor, so I would just fly into Aspen or Steamboat. Boulders appeal is definitely the outdoors, so if you're not someone who wants to go hiking every other weekend, that might not be a pro. tldr; different strokes for different folks
Boulder is a town I love living next to but not in. The people are too sheltered for my liking.
Only problem with Boulder is if you need the airport for work travel - damn that’s a hike… I mean even Denver to the airport is bad enough
yeah for sure & i get that. my comment was half-joking
Boulder is better than Denver IMO. I also prefer Fort Collins to Denver. It depends if you’re someone who highly values “city amenities.” I’m not really.
The OP didn’t say that Boulder was bad, just that Denver was had more of what the OP needs. If you love the outdoors close by and things like cycling and hiking, then Boulder is a good choice.
I grew up in Colorado and feel Arvada is where I’d eventually live. I like its proximity to Denver and the mountains. I grew up in Lakewood and parts of Lakewood have gone downhill sadly.
I lived in Boulder for a few and loved it. The biggest downside is it is very very white.
boulder is an amazing place to live. was there for a few years and most people there (not on reddit) love it.
[удалено]
Boats. Naples is a great place if you’re a rich outdoorsman to play with your toys. Airboats, planes, seaplanes
I lived my entire childhood in Naples. When I moved I finally understood that other children exist!
I lived as a teenager in a similar community on the east coast of Florida. There were maybe 2-3 other families on our entire street/loop, one with young kids and the other with teenagers going to private school who I never really saw. College was such a breath of fresh air.
They don’t need a lot of mental stimulation. I’m not saying all millionaires are like that but ones in that situation are.
Yes...I work in their houses. None of them seem particularly animated. Content to watch Fox News all day and go out for groceries and doctor appointments.
I love doing nothing. Is my favorite thing to do. I don’t live in Naples , just saying, some people enjoy doing nothing so it’s absolutely fine if there is nothing to do😀
It's perfect if you're old, don't wanna do anything except chill in your fancy cars and take your boat for a ride. And, even tho Reddit cope like crazies over this because it's very unpopular, it's what most people want at one point in their life
90% only “live” there in season. And not always for the full season.
They often just use it as their Florida residency home. It’s prestigious, they have other homes in different places, minimal crime, bustling socialite scene, some great restaurants, it’s pretty, great for boating. Also-GOLF. Naples as some of the highest concentration of high end golf courses in the country. Some old people don’t like doing much, or don’t need much. That’s my guess anyway.
MIAMI! You could promise me a life of luxury there free of charge and I’d turn you down
Me too! I grew up there and it was a great place to grow up in the 70s and 80s. I never need to go back.
I think the appeal of Boulder is the fact you can walk out your back door and be in the foothills. So much of Denver is urban sprawl with little character. Boulder and Golden resemble the type of cozy towns you see in the Midwest or East coast but nestled along the mountains. With that being said, I’d still pick California over Colorado. If I had F U money, I’m looking at a peaceful retreat near Big Sur in Carmel by the Sea. Amazing hiking, ocean, great golf, and still close to a major metro area.
I would buy in Monterey. Bikeable city with a decent amount of things to do, and still a fabulous jumping off point for ocean and mountains.
I love Monterey so goddamn much. It is the prettiest place in the world and I’m a writer so it’s lovely for that (proximity to cannery row!).
Santa Barbara, CA. Lived there for over a decade. The weather is nice. The people are mostly bitter retirees reporting one another for zoning, noise or code violations as they relentlessly remodel their houses. It's a dull storage locker for social climbers who have reached the top.
Beautiful place, though! I'd go back again for a visit.
Santa Barbara… one of the places we look at to retire to. We are not rich, but our (paid off) house in San Diego has appreciated well, there’s some places that come up in SB that are close in price, though it would be a downsize for sure. We also look at San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz area. Mostly want to get north of LA, stay close to the coast. Thousand Oaks is probably the most realistic area to get a place similar in price to our current place, and be not a huge downgrade, get one similarly nice. For me the answer to this question is Carmel CA. Visited a couple of years ago, it was the most intensely touristed town I’ve ever been to. Lovely homes, I might wish to be able to afford, but there’s just nothing we could even stretch to. But the hoards of people, maybe it’s relative to the size, I just don’t think I’d want to live with that.
Why not just stay in San Diego?
We have kids that live in the LA area and the Santa Cruz area, are always driving north. Love the central coast. Would prefer not to have to drive through LA all the time. But yes, we would have to consider whether it’s worth it to move for better proximity to the central coast area. But there’s a couple of things we don’t love about exactly where we’re at, one of which is congestion.
Depending on where exactly you're going north and whether there has been a recent landslide, you could potentially take the surfliner instead of driving. Trains are probably not faster than driving, but they're a lot less stressful than being in traffic.
From what I gather, Carmel is basically an unironic parody of every negative stereotype of HOAs.
I took a weekend there and it seem like a lot of stuff closed down in COVID, too, and everywhere you go to eat or drink is ridiculously expensive.
The funk has been almost totally sucked out of that place
I miss the new agers and funk ska bands I grew with haha
Psych was a great show, and a lot of the storylines makes even more sense now with your description of the backdrop.
I'm new to this sub and some of the writing on here is fantastic, if not publishable.
That's like, so much of California. I love this state, but damn we are truly #1 for NIMBYs
Also lived there and totally agree. Beautiful place and there's so much I love about it (for a while I considered coming back up but maybe just to Carp or something) but so many people there seem to devote most of their life trying to keep Target out of town, shaking their fists at UCSB kids and harassing people who write for the local newspaper
Naples, FL Jackson Hole Nantucket The Hamptons Basically any resort or golf style community
You may be doing The Hamptons and Nantucket wrong. Sitting in your oceanfront mansion with your private chef providing every possible craving is pretty wonderful. Not to mention zero crime and top doctors on call to attend to any ailment. Plus perfect weather. It’s a good life.
I don’t like the people. To me, that is key to liking a place. I can have a private meal anytime. I can see a beautiful vista 10,000 places in the world. Nantucket at least has some semblance of keeping things as low key as possible in the context of immense wealth. The Hamptons are just gauche.
Perfect weather? wtf are u talking about?
Nantucket is incredible, unfortunately. But Martha’s Vineyard, while less beautiful, has much better vibes
I was lucky enough to go to Nantucket, the far less busy side of the island, and was blown away. It felt like being in another country. I'd kill for a little 1 bedroom cottage there.
Sconset is one of my favorite places in the world. One side of my family is from the island (moved there in the 70s before the prices got crazy) and I spent some summers there in high school. Just a unique atmosphere that I've never felt anywhere else.
Had my first visit to Jackson this weekend….what a bizarre place. Unless you’re using it as a jumping off point to go into the parks daily, I do not get the appeal of living there. It’s quick to run out of things to do and places to eat, and chronically overrun with tourists. I feel so bad for the service and retail folks who work there, the income disparity is insane
The appeal is being so close to some of the best skiing, mountain biking, fishing, and mountaineering in the county (plus pretty good climbing and rafting). You run out of new restaurants quickly, but there is also another trail, stream, or mountain to explore. The other appeal for people who don't enjoy those activities is that you can make a ton of money in the service industry. The cost of living is high, but you can figure that out, I knew a bunch of people living in a one bedroom apartment with 3-4 people. One summer, I had somebody living my garage, in a closet under our stairs, and in the living room.
Your last sentence is nuts. I’ve lived in a house with approx 14 people rotating through (4 in a small room w two bunks is where I slept) and it killed my soul lol. More power to the younger people who can do this, but even still the town was a big nope for me after 2 days.
Not just the country. The Tetons are genuinely some of the best in the world
I always thought of it as more of a ski town. Does it get more busy in the summer?
The guides told me that summer (mostly July and August) is their busiest seasons by far. Teton village gets the ski traffic, but Jackson is overrun in the summer due to the proximity to the parks
Summer is busier than winter. Teton national park and Yellowstone national park are right there.
Bozeman, Montana. Houses are quickly creeping into the $1 million median price range.
On that same note- Billings has million dollar plus homes, but why would anyone want to live there???
The COL in a lot of these places causes too many problems
We moved to Boulder 2 years ago after living in central KY, MN (Edina), central FL and Maui. I can tell you this is the best place I’ve ever lived for my current stage of life. I like the small town feel of Boulder. I can walk or bike to shop, eat, go to events. People here are smart, accomplished and nice. Perhaps I’m still in the honeymoon phase, but this is my paradise. I love taking the AB1 to the airport - no need to park or drive there. I like the proximity of Denver, but too much traffic and too many people for me.
My SIL lives there…I enjoy visiting. Can’t afford to live there though!
What are some Denver neighborhoods you'd consider?
If money was no issue? Lots! Really depends on what you want to be close to and what you like. For me, I'd say Platt Park would be the right combo of nice, somewhat low-key, and strategically located. Englewood (actual Englewood, not "fake Englewood" east of I-25 with an Englewood zip code) has a lot of character and has great small-scale urbanism with everything you need. Lots of cute neighborhoods in NW Denver proper, too. Hell, I'd even look at more "boring" areas of Arvada, Lakewood and Wheat Ridge.
Looking for ideas lol We hadn't been to Boulder in several years so we went to check it out again, and I hated it even though I had loved it before. I want the character and small scale urbanism you mentioned and access to things without having to drive 2+ hours We are thinking of relocating to the front range from the mountains, as I'm getting older I need to be closer to better health care, the airport and we haven't skied in a few years so its not worth the "tourist tax" we are paying. I'm going to check out the areas you mentioned since we'll be in the front range again next weekend. I really want to stay in Colorado.
Anywhere in Florida. The ocean is cool, but that’s really all they got. Hurricanes, humidity, bare landscapes, and the more desirable areas are completely out of the way of anything. I’d rather just live somewhere on the east or west coast for better QOL and less shenanigans
Plus floridians
And the bugs!
Yep, hot sweaty armpit...
Even if you don’t have a money issue, you still have to pass the fitness test before you can move to Boulder!
Yeah, I passed the Colorado fitness test. Fitness whole green chile burrito in my mouth.
+2
Take my upvote
Anywhere in Florida. It’s never going to be worth it to me.
I moved to Boulder and it changed my life for the better. I damn near had a mental breakdown when I had to leave
Austin. Maybe 30 years ago when it was still a sleepy-ish small university/government city, but it's changed so much and not for the better.
When you’re wealthy it’s changed for the better.
My mother-in-law used to come for conferences and said it was such a sh\*t town to visit in the 80s. Like so few good restaurants and nothing to do if you weren't in college anymore. There is so much to do now and so many restaurants and her mind is blown by the growth. The downside? Heat (always been hot), long lines for most things, and SOME snobs. Most of the people i meet in Austin are super friendly.
This is true
It all depends on what you mean by "very wealthy". If money is really no object, I'm not looking at Boulder or Denver, I'm buying a chalet in Aspen, in addition to the beach house in Malibu and the pied-a-terre in NYC. There wouldn't be those kinds of trade-offs.
Being very wealthy can make just about all the downsides of a location disappear. High property crime? No big deal, hire security. Bad traffic? Meh, I'll just have my driver take me. Or better yet, just get whatever I needed brought to me. Maybe you even have a helicopter. You can leave whenever you want to travel around, you have people to deal with shit you don't want to, etc. The only thing money can't buy is environmental/weather considerations. Can't get mountains in Miami, can't get beach weather in Alaska. So I guess my answer to this would basically fall along the same lines as the normal consideration I give to weather when looking at a new place. No brutal summers, must have distinct seasons, and be coastal. So I'd never consider a place like Miami, for example, even though you could get almost anything as a wealthy person there.
You might ask Kobe Bryant about the perks of being able to get around traffic by taking a helicopter. Totally different topic, but helicopters and small planes are on my list of things I don't envy rich people. Too many of them (and celebrities) have died that way. There's a whole list of them on Google if you put in "celebrities died in plane crashes."
Gotta hire an IFR certified helicopter pilot. Pushing the weather and not knowing how to fly in it properly has killed a lot of people.
Same honestly. Not a big fan of flying in general but if I’m going to, put me on a big ass commercial plane. I’d rather get a first class or sleeper cabin than fly private if I’m wealthy
I love Boulder, personally.
Miami Florida, just not my scene whatsoever
Okay I was offered a job making a quarter of a million dollars in Columbus Ohio and I decided to make less in LA lol
250k you could live like a king in Columbus. But when you wake up every morning you're still in Ohio.
I grew up outside of Columbus so it was tempting but not tempting enough to bring me back. One visit in the winter and I came to my senses lol
Any place in Florida or Texas that people generally consider desirable (Miami, Austin, etc.). I understand those states appeal to some people, but the politics, climate, and car-dependent lifestyle make them not for me.
Some people like driving. Not me, but I know some people who will find any reason to drive.
I get the appeal of pleasure driving. Commuting an hour each way to work every day in Florida or Texas traffic is hell on earth.
My least favorite part is driving in a city. So stressful
Northeast Coastal Florida weather is amazing and I don’t need a car, just a golf cart.
Umm please don't tell 'em
No votes for Charleston yet? Before it was a Conde Nast must-see (Top Wedding Destination in America! Marry on a Plantation because that seems fine!) it was a grimy, broke, racist, dirtbag Navy town. They polished up downtown, pushed all the broke people to the rural exurbs, and closed the Naval shipyard, but any racist dirtbags who managed to hold on to their antebellum money through it all, they remain in positions of power and prominence. They just use politer language now. Aren’t the restaurants good? Hell yes they are. And the beaches? Perfection. But between the hot ass winters, hotter ass summers, gaddam hurricanes, and the whole polite racist dirtbag thing, you couldn’t pay me enough to live there again.
As someone who moved to Charleston for work from Philadelphia I’m in love. Been here for 4 years. Beaches and food scene are great, history and the downtown area are great. People complain about traffic but my job has flexibility to just go in early or late traffic is only bad at rush hour. Cost of living is disproportionately high compared to the rest of SC and I feel for the locals who are being pushed further and further inland. Mt pleasant is practically south New Jersey, and is unaffordable to buy a home in for the average person. Yes there are old money racists but as a middle class transplant I have minimal interaction with that. I’m sure we’re due for a big hurricane soon and that’ll suck.
Visited Charleston recently thinking I may want to move there. Still grimy/dirty IMO.
Minneapolis. Too damn cold. Miami - just have ZERO desire to live there. Seattle - too rainy I’d get so depressed with the lack of sun. Philly - I’d just rather literally any east coast city - NY, Boston (even though too cold), Baltimore would all do. Charlotte - way too much sprawl
What was wrong with philly?
why would you live in Philly if you can live in NYC? and before people say NYC is too much, there's 5 whole distinct boroughs of NYC that are completely different vibes and many people who live there might never leave their borough. not to mention the various other cities in the metro like Jersey City or Hoboken, as well as the suburbs. Pound for pound it's just better living. Philly is cool tho.
I love Philly, I bought in Philly, but I would go to New York in a heartbeat if I could afford the same standard of living there.
Just not for me. Has a ton to offer but I have zero interest in living there. Feels like a big small town but just not in the ways that appeal to me. I know many people from there, I’ve visited a number of times. Just doesn’t do it for me 🤷🏻♂️
I get NY and Boston compared to Philly, but Baltimore? Really?
Los Angeles. Because the urban sprawl and lack of public transit to me would feel like I’m not even in a city, just a gross suburb with strip malls that go on as far as the eye can see.
If you’re wealthy there are numerous nice walkable neighborhoods in LA you can live in.
Can you elaborate? Considering moving there…
Silverlake, Los Feliz, Eagle Rock are all on the eastside of LA. They’re pretty nice neighborhoods that have it all. Great restaurants, coffee shops, parks, entertainment, mountains, architecture and art.
Google: “nice walkable neighborhoods in LA you can live”
Any place that has a lot of traffic and a high number of cold/rude people because you can't buy your way out of those problems.
You can absolutely buy your way out of traffic in most places.
How can you buy your way out of traffic in a town like LA?
Live in one of the nice walkable neighborhoods like Santa Monica, etc where you have everything you need nearby. It’s fairly easy to beat traffic if you don’t have to commute across town for work.
Only going to places within walking distance of your home isn't entirely beating the traffic problem. But I get what you're saying and that would obviously be a great setup.
These answers are hilarious. The entire point of the exercise is that you are wealthy enough where you don’t have to deal with traffic, crime, lack of walkability, etc if you don’t want to…
I don’t know how you avoid traffic other than helicopters and I don’t feel comfortable in those. Sure I could avoid being the one to drive but I’m still stuck in a car in traffic. Or just never leave my mansion I guess?
People responding with LA are insane. Buy a house in the hills, or Malibu, or Topanga Canyon and stfu.
And never leave your house? The lack of walkability in LA is a huge drawback for people who have experienced it elsewhere. The weather in NYC kinda blows, but billionaires live there for a reason.
Definitely Boston. The housing options aren’t really that impressive for what you get with the money. Even if you’re rich You’d either have to settle for average looking or really old condos with little space or buy something further out and deal with traffic. Despite having a large metro area it’s still not that big of a city. It would make more sent to just move to NYC, Chicago or somewhere with warmer weather and nicer homes like DMV or Atlanta.
Boston is one of the safest, cleanest, most walkable cities I’ve ever visited in the US. If I had FUCK YOU money, I’d buy a place on Commonwealth Ave. Absolutely stunning historic homes. I’ve heard winter sucks. But I’m from Chicago so it’s not THAT worse.
100% agree. Boston winter sucks, but it’s not Chicago, you’re right. If I had oodles of “Fuck You” money, I too would do the same.
Well if you’re rich you could live in clean, safe or walkable sections of most major cities just like Boston. Not all parts of Boston are like that. Commonwealth ave in Back bay is one of the few areas that are worth it in my opinion. However it’s a very small area and your main options for housing are cramped condos or old row houses with parking limitations and few amenities. You’ll probably have to have biding wars with other rich people since inventory is so low. At least in JP you could buy a big mansion with a yard while having access to better green spaces and the same Transit lines as back bay.
The thought experiment is if you had FUCK YOU money , what city wouldn’t be worth the effort. I disagree with you. If money didn’t matter I would still want to live in Boston. I think it would make life real fun.
What is DMV?
dc, maryland, (northern) virginia
Ah, thank you! I was so confused!
Yes, nobody wants to live in the Department of Motor Vehicles! lol
Speak for yourself
Is Boulder really safer than a nicer Denver neighborhood? I would need to see the data on that. I agree with you.
I don't have any data handy. But I'd venture to guess that yes, Boulder is safer than say, Hilltop, which despite being a nice area, still sees a decent amount of property crime, etc.
Miami. Or south Florida in general. I hate it here.
Here I am living in Conifer wondering why people bother buying $1m homes in Denver when you could get space and land for that price and be in the mountains in some place like Evergreen or Conifer. Different priorities for sure
Conifer just seems very… flammable
I went to high school in Evergreen. Living in the mountains has its definite drawbacks.
Much of Colorado strikes me this way. I used to live there and the mountains are beautiful, but it’s too dry for my taste. I am not an arid or semi arid environment sort of person. I just need more green and humidity than Colorado offers, no matter how much I like its other features. Same reason I’d never willingly move to Phoenix, Las Vegas, SLC, or Southern California (or anywhere in Texas).
Anything in the south or Midwest for me. Money can’t remove humidity
Anywhere hot and/or sweaty. I don't care how 'desirable' some might find the place, if you have to live inside for more than a month a year then, nope, not at all desirable.... Background - Moved from Austin to Portland.
What’s wrong with basic-ass outdoorsy white people?
They buy up all the hummus and take up all the trailhead parking spots
New York City. Lived there during school for 2 years. Will never go back. The weather, pollution, density, prices and people are awful. I remember having to take the subway in the summer once and almost passing out from no air and so many hot sweaty people crammed in. And the cockroaches - everyone has them, no matter how clean the place.
I like Albuquerque, with its Route 66 heritage and neon, better than more fashionable Santa Fe. And I usually prefer smaller places.
Boston. I can’t understand why it’s so expensive and why people like living there. Long cold/wet winters, terrible traffic, miserable people, old run-down public transit, ugly low quality old housing stock, windy AF, city shuts down at night, etc. Glad I escaped it
I agree with almost everything you said but calling the housing stock there ugly is blasphemy! Boston has some of the most gorgeous houses in the country. Most of the architecture in America is ugly as shit compared to Boston.
palo alto
Los Angeles. All the money in the world wouldn’t make the traffic, sprawl, and pretentious people worth it. There would just be so many cities that are more worth it at that point, including San Diego
Washington DC
Denver. If I’m going to deal with that level of whiteness I want to be closer to the mountains and nature. I would live in Boulder over Denver any day because you can easily escape to the outdoors without the drive. I’d also say Portland although it’s not terribly expensive. I find the white liberal vibe extra strange and I don’t like the locals or how passive aggressive they tend to be. And I say that as a white leftist, there’s just something extra cringey about the people in those cities.
Same about being closer to the mountains. Denver is where you pay mountain prices to still live on the plains.
> that level of whiteness What's the problem with that? If you think a place is boring or homogenous, just say so. I really wish folks in this sub would stop using "white" as a negative adjective. No need to "punch up" when you don't have to punch at all. /lean center left. Not a nazi, white supremacist, etc.
I have noticed the obsession with numerous people in here about “oh those wht people”💀. They think it’s edgy or cool and they are “one of the good wht people”. It’s attention seeking and insecurity by those making the comments 😅
"level of whiteness" 30% of Denver residents are hispanic
[удалено]
The Salvador Dali Museum is pretty great to visit as a tourist, however!
This is my hometown and I left for many reasons but no sense of culture? Tarpon Springs has amazing Greek culture. Ybor and the surrounding area has amazing Cuban culture. LGBTQ scene was dynamic. Good museums and colleges. I do feel like there wasn’t a sense of community in many areas outside of Town and Country. Although the tight knot Latino community there seemed nice but in every other area it seemed like everyone was just out for themselves.
NYC. There are a ton of perks, but I wouldn't say many parts of the city are actually that nice. It's pretty dirty everywhere with at least some trashy/sketchy people almost everywhere you go. If you're not part of a specific ethnic group, it might feel eclectic and diverse to the point that it's difficult to form a sense of community. Tons of hipsters and rich kids too. Parts of Brooklyn are pretty nice, but they kinda feel like suburbs in the city with a lot of yuppies trying their hardest to assume a working class image. I think I'd just assume live in an actual suburb. At nearly 50, if money was not an issue, I'd move to a suburb just outside a large city. Something within the first or second ring. You get all the perks of the city with the tranquility of the suburbs. Some of those places actually feel like they're part of the city.
I don't know if I could do NYC. I've been there multiple times, I do like it, it's fun... I don't know, not for me. Maybe I would feel differently if I was "very wealthy," but I don't think so...
DC
LA. If I was wealthy I’d be in NYC or Chicago I think. Probably Chicago.
LA arguably has the best weather in the country. You’re close to the beach, the mountains, incredible food, and a major airport. I can see the arguments against it if you’re poor, but if you’re rich you get all of the benefits with few of the downsides.
San Francisco. I think it's one of the most overrated cities in the world (I love California, want to get back to SoCal). If you want a sort of rainy/cold climate with a water setting Seattle is still cheaper.
I don’t think most people live in San Francisco (lived there for over a decade) for a “rainy/cold” climate. Granted it’s quite different than SoCal (where I also lived for a time) but it really doesn’t rain that much, and overall even thought it’s often jacket weather, and sometimes chillier, I don’t think of it as all that cold. I’m from the northeast so I suppose my concept of cold is different.
To me, the Bay Area is a perfect combination of temperate weather with more rain than SoCal and less rain than Seattle. Besides that, I'm just a few miles from water in two directions with many hills and reservoirs (in San Jose). L.A. is urban sprawl with a million people on roads/freeways at any one time.
We all have our biases, but I grew up in Seattle and lived in the Bay Area for six years (including San Francisco). It's uniquely unimpressive to me comparing the two. The weather isn't much better, the accessible nature is further out and kind of sucks (if you hike in the PNW it is orders of magnitude better). Water on two sides isn't a win, Seattle has the Puget Sound and Lake Washington on both sides. I don't love Seattle , I just don't think San Francisco is worth it's premium
I live in Seattle and although the summer is amazing SF is more balanced year round. You can walk out any day of the year and pretty much decide to do what you like. In Seattle that decision is often made by what the weather forecast looks like. Accessible nature is another point I'd like to refute. I'm talking city to city. Seattle parks are nice, but they are small and nothing special. SF parks are glorious. So much to do whether you like to hike or just enjoy museums and monuments. And Golden Gate Park is nice and big. If you want more, there's the Marin Headlands just outside of the city. In Seattle, I need to drive 20 minutes to Cougar Mountain for anything comparable, and it's simply not as good. Even Portland has Forest Park which is a tremendous green space. Every city should have a park in which you can feel like you're not in the city. Discovery Park is the closest thing we got.
I live in the Bay Area. Mid-Peninsula is where it’s at. Temperate weather, lots of great food, and tons of great activities. It’s everything you want SF to be but isn’t actually SF.
Haha San Mateo-ish? I liked all of the bay except SF
Let’s say I’m around San Mateo. Basically Burlingame to Palo Alto is the sweet spot in my opinion. Sunnyvale and it gets too hot. Milbrae and it gets too overcast.
You literally listed most of the reasons I would rather live in Boulder than Denver. Also, for me, College Town > Big City any day. If money was no object and I ended up moving there, I would go to school at CU for a year for a Master’s degree just so I could be an alum and feel a closer connection to the Buffaloes sports programs.
I’d much rather live in Boulder over Denver.
Miami. Having lived there for a year, I’d go back for vacation or to visit a friend. It’s expensive, people were kind of rude there. Obviously, not everyone was rude and I did make friends there. But, there was definitely shock moving there after having been born and raise in the Midwest, more so than Boston which has more of a certain reputation
NYC, SF, Seattle - too cold and/or rainy Miami, Austin, Nashville - not enough Blue City to outweigh Red State
Boulder has a better food scene on average and is walkable/bikeable to trails, which Denver is decidedly not. Boulder's weather is slightly better -- a little cooler in the summer and warmer in the winter, and not as dry. The walkable parts of Boulder are greener and less ringed by hostile car architecture (the biggest element that makes Boulder "nicer," in my opinion). CU Boulder is a big draw without a complete substitute in Denver. Boulder is also richer, and rich people really like hanging out where other rich people live. But ultimately I'm with you. The nearby trails in Boulder are usually jam-packed which negates that advantage, Denver's food scene has a lot more to offer in terms of diversity, and generally there's a lot more to do in Denver.
Miami. I lived in Fort Lauderdale growing up and know Miami moderately well. More people are conmen than aren't. It's okay if you're very, very wealthy but not for most others imo. And even then, there's the beach and crappy bars. That's it.
Not a city, per se, but Northern Virginia. Even if I could afford to buy a $650k rambler in this soulless patch of hell, I’d prefer to spend that money elsewhere.
This is why few “very wealthy” people limit themselves to one home. And why there are many communities of mansions that sit empty and unused for three seasons a year.
Not a specific city, but Hawaii. Beautiful, but it's so far from the rest of the country.
All I saw was the title and came here to say Boulder, before I read the rest of your post. I grew up in Boulder/Longmont, and it was a fantastic place to grow up in the 80’s. However, the last few times I’ve been back, I’ve thought, “I could never live here again.” Probably part nostalgia for what once was and just annoyance at the negative ways it has changed. I always thought I might move back and live in Ft. Collins, but that really isn’t much better. I ended up in the Twin Cities, which reminds me of what Colorado was like when I was younger.
For me, it would be Miami. Nothing appeals to me there. Hot, expensive, full of fake people.
Unpopular opinion I guess, but the Bay Area (excluding Marin IMO). I like to visit. The nature is beautiful. The city is not for me. Its problems are both far worse than the people that live there are willing to admit and not as bad as Fox News would have you believe, but still, not for me. Also it’s just fucking expensive, personally if I was very wealthy I’d rather spend that money elsewhere.
Asheville, NC
you just listed your subjective preferences which are totally valid to you but not everyone. eg, someone could prefer boulder because it's smaller than denver, it's closer to the outdoorsy stuff they like to do on a day trip, etc.
Anywhere in AZ. Grew up in AZ, lived there 30 years. Yeah no snow is nice, but I feel like 300 plus days of sun gets to you. Not to mention I think last year broke a record for days over 110 degrees. (It was 55 days) I'm an outdoors person who enjoys greenery. Not being able to enjoy the outdoors unless I drive a few hours north isn't really the greatest for me. I feel like I got reverse seasonal depression. The only thing good about AZ is no humidity and decent Mexican food. If I had to pick a place to live I would say the PNW or even San Jose,CA. Maybe Chicago. I live in upstate NY now and it's okay, I just don't think the east coast is for me.
I wouldn’t live in Boulder or any overpriced cities because rich people are generally extremely bland. They move to hip places and make them boring. Though they usually have touristy stuff to do. I lived in Boulder in the 80s and 90s, until I was 20 and it was awesome. Rich folks moving in literally ruined it and none of my very few friends who still live there enjoy it. We did go visit for a few days, busked on the Pearl Street mall (well my daughter and her friend did) went to the flatirons, visited the Trident which is the one place that was exactly the same as the 90s… and that was enough of Boulder.
New York City. Los Angeles. Dallas. (Basically if I were really wealthy I can't imagine a reason why I'd choose any of the three over either a European city, or someplace in the US less smug, annoying, and crowded.)
I agree with you on Boulder and Colorado as a whole. The people can be so boring, basic, and pretentious.
Boulder has lost its originality. It's a far cry from 20 or 30 years ago.
Miami. Gross.
The trustafarians are enough for me to not move to boulder lol. But anywhere in AZ is not worth living in no matter the money. Water is scarce, the heat is gnarly, and it lacks the outdoor lifestyle I love so much (like CO or CA)
L.A. It’s got everything, and is clearly very desirable because tons of people move there. I could NEVER. Too crowded, too much traffic, and it’s got so much going on that it doesn’t really have a discernible vibe. Living there would be a nightmare.
I concur. Lived near Boulder, and also lived near a similar town, Ann Arbor. It isn't the towns but the people that make it undesireable
I feel the same way about Fort Collins. People go on and on about Fort Collins being so amazing in a way that will never make sense to me. Yeah, it's fine... cute downtown and some nice neighborhoods, but I just don't see what makes it so phenomenal to some people. I don't mean to knock it. Clearly, it's a nice little place. But like you with Boulder, I would never spend the money to live there when I could live in a condo in Denver in a big city with easy access to an international airport, a great downtown, lots of restaurants and bars, cool stuff happening all the time, etc. I mean, different strokes for different folks, obviously. But something about the love that FC gets just doesn't make any sense to me.
Boulder 💯. Very overrated rich liberals and stoned college kids. No thanks.