If your city became too expensive for you to live there...

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by kool maudit

Too late (good ol' Montreal...).

But Montreal is one of the cheapest cities in Canada isn't it?

[MolsonExport]

Vancouver-->Montreal (1990s)
The former's real-estate prices were soaring; the latter was the best value for big city living.
It was very hard to leave on account of the beautiful scenery, wonderful outdoor lifestyle options, and abundance of hot Asian girls. Fortunately, these foregone aspects were compensated by Montreal's urban fabric, culture, and abundance of hot Québecoise girls.

[LouisianaRush]

If I had to leave Baltimore I would move to Kansas City, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or Richmond.

[Centropolis]

chicago is also the perennial midwestern option, but my significant other isn't moving back after becoming accustomed to mild winters over the past 3 years. i also hate chicago in winter and thus am a little baby.

perhaps if zika and a warming climate pushes us out of what has become an upper south climate...not sure i want a memphis climate...although we pretty much already have one. kudzu has arrived and is growing over railyards here in st. louis, and sub-tropical canna bulbs overwinter in the ground.

[Jonesy55]

If at all possible buy a place rather than renting then you can't get priced out by real estate soaring in value and rents shooting through the roof.

[niwell]

This isn't too unrealistic a question for me if I ever decided I need to buy property that isn't a condo / stacked townhouse. The likely choice would be Hamilton, which for now is still relatively affordable and offers similar amenities to Toronto, and of course is increasingly connected to the city. Of course I don't expect these deals to last forever.

Failing that I think my only other choice in Canada would be Montreal. My French needs a LOT of work to get a job where I can recreate my current standard of living though.

I have been toying with the idea of working overseas for a few years lately while I'm still not tied down (preferably take an unpaid leave of absence). Of course this isn't necessarily cheaper, but my top choice at the moment would be South Africa after visiting some friends living there. If you are working as an expat it's incredibly cheap, moreso in Johannesburg over Cape Town due to wage differences. But I think that would be my first choice anyways.

[Agent Orange]

Tough question. Two things I moved to my adopted city for: a) proximity to mountain wilderness and the climate, and b) decent city life. If I got priced out of Denver (which is not unlikely at this rate), I don’t think there is another city of its size and quality with equal proximity to wilderness and a desirable (to me) climate. Seattle and Portland are obvious substitutes, but neither is cheaper than Denver. So I would have to choose whether nature or built environment is more important.

For comparable access to nature and decent climate, I’d probably consider Spokane-Coeur d’Alene, Boise, SLC (maybe), and a few Montana towns (Bozeman, Missoula). For quality built environment at a discount price, I’d be looking at some of the Midwest/Rust Belt towns that are currently affordable, like Cincinnati, Buffalo, and Pittsburgh. Philly and Chicago are clearly great cities, but I don’t know that they’re significantly cheaper than Denver.

Finally, I'm very intrigued by Manchester, NH. I’ve never been to NH, but from Google Maps, Manchester looks promising. It seems to have a great, if small, historic core and it seems that it hasn't been overly-gentrified yet. The proximity to both Boston and the White Mountains might allow me to get both my city and mountain fix pretty easily.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Finally, I'm very intrigued by Manchester, NH. I’ve never been to NH, but from Google Maps, Manchester looks promising. It seems to have a great, if small, historic core and it seems that it hasn't been overly-gentrified yet. The proximity to both Boston and the White Mountains might allow me to get both my city and mountain fix pretty easily.

i've always been intrigued by portland, maine, myself. you have proximity to mountainous parts of new england, boston, and a relatively wild seacoast, of course. new england feels damned good in summer.

also, i've always thought that sacramento was a bit of a sleeper, very overlooked outdoors-type city with reasonable weekend type proximity to the sierras, coast range, coasts/beaches (santa cruz, etc), and of course SF.

SF/Bay Area casts such a massive shadow over Sacramento. It's interesting to think of what Sacramento would have been like had it been along the coast where Eureka, CA is around 300 miles north. It would have been an interesting pacific northwest/nor-cal hybrid, perhaps.

[chris08876]

You'd have to get a better job or figure out a way to make more income. Thats if, you really care about your city. Sometimes the drive to live somewhere is more than enough motivation to seek a higher income. I think if people chose to live in a certain city, it should go along with a career. Example being somebody who chooses NYC because they know that in 5 years time, they can reach the level where they can be comfortable. Also consider city living based on dual income, because down the line. most get married. But if not, no city in the U.S. as a whole outprices people. Even in NYC, you can get a good deal. Don't expect SoHo or UWS, but if you look, even Manhattan can have some good deals.

Seattle's a good choice Centropolis.

[Lipani]

I'm currently living in London and definitely won't stay longer than a couple years, partly due to the cost of living. If I stay in Europe, Barcelona or Alicante would be my first choices; maybe somewhere in the Marche province in Italy as well.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i've always been intrigued by portland, maine, myself. you have proximity to mountainous parts of new england, boston, and a relatively wild seacoast, of course. new england feels damned good in summer.

also, i've always thought that sacramento was a bit of a sleeper, very overlooked outdoors-type city with reasonable weekend type proximity to the sierras, coast range, coasts/beaches (santa cruz, etc), and of course SF.

SF/Bay Area casts such a massive shadow over Sacramento. It's interesting to think of what Sacramento would have been like had it been along the coast where Eureka, CA is around 300 miles north. It would have been an interesting pacific northwest/nor-cal hybrid, perhaps.

Sacramento and Portland are good options. I don't like that Sacramento doesn't get four seasons, though. But I suppose a quick trip to the Sierras during winter could help with that.

[strongbad635]

Probably Sacramento. It's like a miniature Denver, without the crappy winters and trees that are dead for 8 months of the year.

[MayDay]

I don't see that happening anytime soon in Cleveland - certain neighborhoods are starting to get pricier, including where I live but it's still very affordable. If anything, I'd have to move to an adjacent neighborhood. If it *had* to be a different city, I think less expensive and close by (I wouldn't want to be too far from my family) would mean Akron or Youngstown but they're too small for my taste.

[10023]

It depends what you do for a living, but incomes tend to be higher in more expensive cities as well, at least outside of a certain range. There are certainly places cheaper than London where I could go, but when you're talking about NY or SF as the cheaper alternative... well, I guess it's all relative.

As Steely said, Chicago is a great bargain in that it offers big city amenities and there are good positions to be found in most industries (finance included, and there are only a few American cities outside of NY that can claim that), while being pretty affordable.

[hauntedheadnc]

My city is already too expensive for anyone who has to work here. I mean, if you come from outside with a lot of money already it's a steal. To someone making Atlanta or DC money, $330k, the average price of a house in Buncombe County, is a bargain.

But that's no bargain when you consider that the average job in Asheville pays a pittance. The top three occupations in Asheville are office and administration positions, paying an average of $14.61/hour; food preparation and servers, paying $9.08/hour; and sales, paying $11.75/hour.

Consequently, my partner and I have been looking into Raleigh, Durham, Norfolk, and Richmond.

[fflint]

Several people mentioned Sacramento, and I considered it myself but eventually ruled it out. Thanks to ongoing migration from the Bay Area, the 'city' parts of Sacramento--the urban core and neighborhoods immediately adjacent--are increasingly expensive. The more affordable parts of the region are older, deteriorating postwar suburbs and the newer, treeless outer suburbs in flood-prone areas that were hit hardest by the repossession crisis. Urban and streetcar-suburban Sacramento was a bargain up until about a decade ago, but not today.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Detroit bears absolutely no resemblance to anywhere in New York.

Then you obviously have no idea what the city looks like, don't argue this, it's not worth it.

[Centropolis]

detroit is more kansas city than new york.

[maru2501]

there's always somewhere to cheap to go in chicago as long as you have a bulletproof body suit

otherwise a shack in new orleans

[Derek]

Comparing Detroit to New York? Lol


I love living in Portland, but if I had to move somewhere cheaper I'd move to Chicago. I can't think of any other cheap-ish cities I'd want to live in.