|
|
#81
10-15-2007, 01:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: country bumpkins vs. city slickers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Portland, OR for the win. It doesn't offer all the perks of a "big" city, but you can live in the country (no, not the suburbs, the country) and be 25 minutes from downtown, 45 minutes in heavy traffic. 1.5mm gets you a 5000 square foot house and acreage. I like bumpkins over "city slickers," because more often than not the slickers are posers, and the bumpkins are genuine. Gross generalization, but my sample size is enough to make me feel ok saying it. [/ QUOTE ] Good to know because Portland is looking like the next place I'm going to live. [/ QUOTE ] Just about anywhere's a step up from Shreveport. [/ QUOTE ] Shreveport is a huge step up from my hometown: Jefferson, TX. [/ QUOTE ] LOL, Jefferson. They never shoulda blown that dam [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img] 
|
|
#82
10-15-2007, 03:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: country bumpkins vs. city slickers
[ QUOTE ]
Medium-sized city far from either coast is obv the way to go here. There are still plenty of convenience stores and restaurants and sporting events and asian massage parlors, but the cost of living isn't ridiculous and the traffic is bearable too. [/ QUOTE ] This is a pretty good description of Denver, except possibly the traffic part. But we do have mountains nearby.
|
|
#83
10-15-2007, 04:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: country bumpkins vs. city slickers
[ QUOTE ]
I would say the same for Chattanooga. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, Chattanooga is great because it's got some of the worst pollution in the country, rains as much as Seattle/Portland, and doesn't have any pro sports teams. It also is one of the worst speed traps in the SE, so what a great place to be! I've lived in big cities and in rural towns of 800 people. On the whole, I'd prefer to live somewhere on the smaller side, mostly because I don't like people and have no desire to mingle with most of them. For me, the variety of places to eat is the biggest advantage of big cities. Having a huge variety of cuisines close is awesome, and every time I go somewhere like NYC or SF or Chicago, etc, I pretty much plan my day around where I want to eat. On the other hand, the cities that are truly great wrt variety of cuisine aren't that numerous. You've got NYC and LA, and a handful that benefit from great immigrant population, but you could count those cities on one hand, right? I'll try to cook the stuff at home and avoid the people, if I can. For me, the big city advantage of so many great and different foods is offset by the smaller city's advantages of affordability and less people. I can get 7 acres and 4 bedrooms for under $200k just outside Nashville. I prefer buying enough land to keep people away over big city advantages like restaurants, laundry (wtf?), cabs, etc. I'm more or less expecting to move to a rural place in the next few years and the thing I'll regret the most is having lots of restaurants around. That's just not enough to persuade me to stay in a metro area.
|
|
#84
10-15-2007, 04:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: country bumpkins vs. city slickers
the religious factor in small towns can't be understated.
|
|
#86
10-15-2007, 06:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: country bumpkins vs. city slickers
Things I like about the country:
1. Mullets 2. Driving home drunk 3. Wearing the same potato sack two days in a row
|
|
#87
10-15-2007, 06:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: country bumpkins vs. city slickers
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Finally, I like how I don't have to deal with ... racism/antisemitism [/ QUOTE ] LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL [/ QUOTE ] Why's that funny? [/ QUOTE ] Because Chicago, Philly and NY have all proven to be as racist if not more so than anywhere I've been in Georgia, but we have to hear this [censored] all the time. [/ QUOTE ] new york is one of the more segregated cities in the US, in fact. tbe racism in the north is alive and well. difference is, up here people hide it better.
|
|
#88
10-15-2007, 07:04 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: country bumpkins vs. city slickers
[ QUOTE ]
This is why Boston is the optimal city to live on the outskirts of. Down the block I have a corner store, liquor store, laundry, pizza place, bar, and mexican place. We have a pool. If we bought a house, we'd have ample parking and a backyard. People have cookouts and get togethers and might even know their neighbors names. There are parks nearby, and the Mass Pike is 5 minutes away and you can be apple picking or skiing or doing any rural thing in less than 30 minutes. I can get to downtown Boston in 30 minutes by T or 15 minutes driving. Now obviously suburban != rural, but other than vast expanses of farm land and shootin coons in your backyard, I feel like it gives you the best of both worlds. The more rural you want, just move a little further out, but I think living in the Brookline/Chestnut Hill/Newton area seems about perfect. [/ QUOTE ] The problem with Newton is that everyone closes at 9:00 and you have to drive to get anywhere because the one train that goes into Boston costs $4.
|
|
#89
10-15-2007, 07:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: country bumpkins vs. city slickers
xorbie, true. i wouldn't want to live there now, but i think its pretty good if you have kids.
|
|
#90
10-15-2007, 08:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: country bumpkins vs. city slickers
Advantages of rural life include hunting, fishing, atvs, dirt bikes, a lawn, not having to deal with the homeless, or thugs, car within 20 feet, no traffic, and overall better people around you.
I admit I wish I lived closer to a larger city for more options for recreation, but I'd hate to live in an apartment downtown NYC.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
