What cities have a high quality of life?

[Acajack]

I actually know a thing or two about ballet believe it or not (surprise surprise)
and I didn’t bring up the Royal Winnipeg flippantly. It really is world-renowned.

Originally Posted by isaidso

Winnipeg absolutely does have a world renowned ballet company.

Not only is Royal Winnipeg Ballet highly regarded in the ballet world but it's the oldest ballet company in North America. I'm loathe to bolster the relevance of monarchy but they don't hand our royal charter to just anyone. Most of the time assets of this calibre are located in celebrated global cities but not always. The Mayo Clinic, for instance, is in Rochester, Minnesota.

There are a number of surprising things in Winnipeg. The Manitoba Legislature is considered, by some, to be the most perfect building ever constructed by the Freemasons. That aside, it's one of the most impressive buildings on the continent imo.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Winnipeg_Ballet
https://canadiangeographic.ca/articl...-the-prairies/

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by edale

I was last there in 2019. I found downtown Austin very underwhelming and sterile.

That was five years ago. It was starting to really pick up steam around that time. It's crazy now with all the construction and activity at street level.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The discourse about downtown Austin supports the claim that this is all subjective. I find downtown Austin completely bland/forgettable. Another Charlotte. Others obviously disagree.

I'd go so far to say there are no really good downtowns in TX, though Fort Worth, SA and EP are more interesting than others. Even those three are fundamentally weak and relatively unimportant in their regions but they aren't cookie-cutter.

When were you last in downtown Austin?

You're in New York, so I can understand that most places don't begin to compare.

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

If you highly value urbanist stuff, I'd also put Cleveland ahead of Detroit. Somewhat more intact prewar fabric, less white/wealth flight, an actual transit system, and generally superior legacy cultural/civic institutions. The art museum is ridiculous. It might be my favorite outside the Met and the Orsay. Also right on a Great Lake and cheaper RE costs.

Detroit's advantages are that it's bigger/more cosmopolitan, far more immigrants and non-locals, much better airport, better job opportunities, more stuff in general and I'd much rather live in MI political climate than OH.

Just to nitpick this, I wouldn't exactly say Detroit is more "cosmopolitan" than Cleveland by any stretch. Larger, sure, but certainly not more cosmopolitan. Both are generally the same. Detroit city is certainly not more cosmopolitan than Cleveland city; Novi certainly isn't more cosmopolitan than Strongsville. And as far as "stuff" in general, I'd argue Cleveland has more attractions in the metro than Detroit, overall. Cleveland's Metroparks system, for example, annihilates pretty much anything in Metro Detroit. Both have the same types of museums, theaters, shopping, radial-street "comeback" downtowns, pro sports, white-friendly urbanish suburbs, idiotic nasal accents, random Non-Midwest ethnic groups (Arabs in Detroit; Puerto Ricans in Cleveland), ghetto eastsides, etc but Cleveland does excel in nature over Detroit, thus IMO has more "stuff."

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

When were you last in downtown Austin?

You're in New York, so I can understand that most places don't begin to compare.

Forget just New York. Austin's downtown and general urbanity doesn't compare to the big coastal cities.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Buckeye Native 001

I've yet to visit a city where I didn't find some way to have a good time. That includes some of the more-ridiculed places on this forum like Phoenix, Charlotte, Houston, and the non-Miami parts of Florida. Hell, even places like Kanab, UT and Kingman, AZ had something worth seeing within their respective city limits.

There's no accounting for taste (which I definitely lack) and subjectivity.

also, city vs city or opinions that overly simplify the reality of a place, for either good or bad, can be misleading. So your comment comes closest to my POV.

Originally Posted by edale

they probably wouldn't find a big messy city like NYC or Paris very pleasant.

Paris has centuries of classic old euro devlpt that offsets its dirtiness, whereas NYC....as true of most US cities....does not. Paris looks like it's out of a picture book while most other cities throughout the world tend to look like one another....all with the typical modern highrises. however, there are sections of a city like buenos aires that are sort of a knock off of Paris.

Since this thread is about quality of life, I don't know if a lot of major cities in north america or elsewhere rank the way they should. There are also cities in 2nd or 3rd tier nations like argentina, which are known as somewhat unstable or struggling. But the fact Argentina's capital city nonetheless has features that make US or north american cities seem like they're in a poorer country is always surprising...


• Video Link

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Crawford

In contrast, much of the Sunbelt is much more expensive, schools are worse, traffic is worse and there's no legacy high culture. And there are lots of good public colleges in places like FL, TX, TN, GA, AZ, but nothing equivalent to UM. Different strokes.

This. The South is no longer cheap. Not at least anywhere you'd want to live in the South. I mean, have you seen real estate prices in the various cities in South Carolina? The entire Charleston area is bonkers expensive. The suburban areas of SC outside of Savannah near Hilton Head, bonkers expensive. Greenville? Bonkers expensive. WTF is there even to do in Greenville? The suburban areas of Charlotte in SC (Fort Mill, etc), bonkers expensive. And what are you paying for? Idealolgy? Because the schools are terrible. The roads are terrible. The public college system is a joke. I simply don't get it.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

This. The South is no longer cheap. Not at least anywhere you'd want to live in the South. I mean, have you seen real estate prices in the various cities in South Carolina? The entire Charleston area is bonkers expensive. The suburban areas of SC outside of Savannah near Hilton Head, bonkers expensive. Greenville? Bonkers expensive. WTF is there even to do in Greenville? The suburban areas of Charlotte in SC (Fort Mill, etc), bonkers expensive. And what are you paying for? Idealolgy? Because the schools are terrible. The roads are terrible. The public college system is a joke. I simply don't get it.

Is there not something to be said anymore for being part of the growth and building process rather than simply existing in a place where everything is already established?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

Just to nitpick this, I wouldn't exactly say Detroit is more "cosmopolitan" than Cleveland by any stretch. Larger, sure, but certainly not more cosmopolitan. Both are generally the same. Detroit city is certainly not more cosmopolitan than Cleveland city; Novi certainly isn't more cosmopolitan than Strongsville. And as far as "stuff" in general, I'd argue Cleveland has more attractions in the metro than Detroit, overall. Cleveland's Metroparks system, for example, annihilates pretty much anything in Metro Detroit. Both have the same types of museums, theaters, shopping, radial-street "comeback" downtowns, pro sports, white-friendly urbanish suburbs, idiotic nasal accents, random Non-Midwest ethnic groups (Arabs in Detroit; Puerto Ricans in Cleveland), ghetto eastsides, etc but Cleveland does excel in nature over Detroit, thus IMO has more "stuff."

I'd be absolutely shocked if Detroit does not feel more cosmopolitan than Cleveland. This isn't a knock on Cleveland, but I just assume Detroit to have historically been more of a melting pot than Cleveland.

Also, Detroit is/was a huge culture generator for the entire country. There are arguably only three cities that had more of a cultural impact on the country since the turn of the 20th century.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I'd be absolutely shocked if Detroit does not feel more cosmopolitan than Cleveland. This isn't a knock on Cleveland, but I just assume Detroit to have historically been more of a melting pot than Cleveland.

Also, Detroit is/was a huge culture generator for the entire country. There are arguably only three cities that had more of a cultural impact on the country since the turn of the 20th century.

Detroit gets far more international visitors than Cleveland. That would make it more cosmopolitan by definition.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

This. The South is no longer cheap. Not at least anywhere you'd want to live in the South. I mean, have you seen real estate prices in the various cities in South Carolina? The entire Charleston area is bonkers expensive. The suburban areas of SC outside of Savannah near Hilton Head, bonkers expensive. Greenville? Bonkers expensive. WTF is there even to do in Greenville? The suburban areas of Charlotte in SC (Fort Mill, etc), bonkers expensive. And what are you paying for? Idealolgy? Because the schools are terrible. The roads are terrible. The public college system is a joke. I simply don't get it.

Those are places that are perceived to be nice, safe and comfortable. It's mostly just sprawling suburbia, but any place in America that is remotely nice and livable is becoming prohibitively expensive. Heck, even in some not-so-nice places, you won't believe the asking prices...

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

random Non-Midwest ethnic groups (Arabs in Detroit; Puerto Ricans in Cleveland),

I wouldn't classify Puerto Ricans as "non-midwest", as all of the big 5 great lakes cities (Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo) have significant Puerto Rican communities.

Cleveland's PR population is the largest by percentage, but it's not some major outlier within the GL region.


Puerto Rican population by MSA:

Chicago 209,833
Cleveland 72,496
Milwaukee 42,962
Buffalo 38,557
Detroit 28,087

[Jaborandi]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Detroit gets far more international visitors than Cleveland. That would make it more cosmopolitan by definition.

How many of those international visitors are from Windsor, Ontario?

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Jaborandi

How many of those international visitors are from Windsor, Ontario?

I suspect there are significantly more international business travelers to Detroit. For international tourists, other than from SW Ontario, not sure either is a big draw

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Jaborandi

How many of those international visitors are from Windsor, Ontario?

Almost none would be from Windsor if they are counted by overnight stays.

[Crawford]

Detroit has a fairly major intl. airport, with destinations like Amman, Istanbul, Seoul, Shanghai. UM and MSU are close enough to influence thru traffic. Also a larger number and share of immigrants. The auto industry is globalized, and there are expat niche enclaves, like a Japanese enclave in Novi-Northville area and a French-German-Italian enclave in Birmingham-Bloomfield area. There are auto expat-focused German, French and Japanese schools. Obviously a big ME population.

I'm fairly confident Detroit is more cosmopolitan than Cleveland by common definitions, though they're certainly both fairly rooted places, and it's a bit of a midget contest, comparatively speaking. And Detroit cosmpolitanism is very heavily driven by one demographic - expat auto engineers.

[ColDayMan]

I suppose my definition of "cosmopolitan" is quite different as I always assumed when discussing cosmopolitan cities that it's having an experience of people and things from many different parts of the world on a visible, educated, sophisticated scale. I see Cleveland and Detroit having minimal aspects of this in compared to the more nationally known cosmopolitan cities. By definition, Parma, with it's large Ukrainian village, is more cosmopolitan than, say, Royal Oak simply due to having an immigrant population significantly different than, well, basic Americans. Dearborn would be more "cosmopolitan" than Birmingham (MI). Hamtramck more "cosmopolitan" than the Grosse Pointes.

But in reality, we know that isn't true. Where I live (Columbus), there are Japanese, Somali, and even Nepalese schools. The city has the largest immigrant-focused school in the United States. It's also in hood-adjacent Northern Lights. I wouldn't dare call the Northern Lights neighborhood more cosmopolitan than other places in the region simply because it has greater cultural diversity. I don't go to Jackson Heights, Queens and think it's more cosmopolitan than Greenwich Village.

It's clear Detroit has a larger base of international business travelers than Cleveland (auto industry, larger airport, etc) but I fail to see how that translates into international tourism as both seem a wash. Only Chicago is pulling international visitor numbers that are significant in the (USA) Great Lakes.

For the record, I work equally in Detroit and Cleveland monthly (I've worked in Detroit for 20+ years) and I fail to see the difference when discussing "stuff" that both have. Swap Slovenians and Ukrainians for Iraqis and Poles. They all go to Coney Islands or Swenson's with nasal accents and fierce loyalty to abysmal teams.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

I wouldn't classify Puerto Ricans as "non-midwest", as all of the big 5 great lakes cities (Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, and Buffalo) have significant Puerto Rican communities.

Cleveland's PR population is the largest by percentage, but it's not some major outlier within the GL region.

That's fair. I meant more of the stereotypic Black/White/Mexican Midwest that comes to mind when speaking of places you don't think of having an ethnic group. Like no one thinks of Fort Wayne of having a Burmese population...but it does.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

I suppose my definition of "cosmopolitan" is quite different as I always assumed when discussing cosmopolitan cities that it's having an experience of people and things from many different parts of the world on a visible, educated, sophisticated scale. I see Cleveland and Detroit having minimal aspects of this in compared to the more nationally known cosmopolitan cities. By definition, Parma, with it's large Ukrainian village, is more cosmopolitan than, say, Royal Oak simply due to having an immigrant population significantly different than, well, basic Americans. Dearborn would be more "cosmopolitan" than Birmingham (MI). Hamtramck more "cosmopolitan" than the Grosse Pointes.

I don't think Royal Oak, Birmingham, or Grosse Pointe are cosmopolitan. I find those places to be fairly pretentious, and I would completely understand why outsiders are not impressed by them. Grosse Pointe and Birmingham in particular, and to a lesser extent Royal Oak, have actually thrived on excluding others, which is antithetical to cosmopolitan.

Hamtramck and Dearborn also aren't necessarily cosmopolitan by themselves. But having large ethnic enclaves like those in somewhat close proximity to each other does meet the definition of cosmopolitan, if not the spirit.

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

I wouldn't dare call the Northern Lights neighborhood more cosmopolitan than other places in the region simply because it has greater cultural diversity. I don't go to Jackson Heights, Queens and think it's more cosmopolitan than Greenwich Village.

Greenwich Village is a crossroads, that's why it feels more cosmopolitan than Jackson Heights, which is a heavily immigrant neighborhood located closer to the periphery of the city. The resident population is somewhat cosmopolitan, but it really thrives off of being a destination point for people from all over the city and region (as well as visitors).

Detroit doesn't have great public squares, so it's not often that you see all of these groups in a single space like you do in NYC... But it's a pretty diverse place. When I'm in Detroit in the summer I try to visit the Riverwalk, which is one of the few heavily utilized public squares in the region that isn't a mall. There is a small parking lot next to downtown that is free and, so I always park there. Every single time I'm in that parking lot I see people from everywhere: Indian, Arab, Asian, white, Black, Hispanic, Muslim, Jewish, etc. You'll likely hear several different languages being spoken if you walk, job, or bike up and down the Riverwalk. While it's not Times Square, it has a very "crossroad of the world" type of feeling that goes largely unnoticed. I think even many people very familiar with Metro Detroit would be shocked at the cross section of ethnic backgrounds that flow through there on a typical warm day.

Originally Posted by ColDayMan

It's clear Detroit has a larger base of international business travelers than Cleveland (auto industry, larger airport, etc) but I fail to see how that translates into international tourism as both seem a wash. Only Chicago is pulling international visitor numbers that are significant in the (USA) Great Lakes.

Yes, there isn't a lot of leisure travel to Detroit, and most of the reason for that is self-inflicted. No argument there. I don't think this is because Detroit cannot be a tourist hub. I think it is because Detroit has not wanted to be a tourist hub.

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by DZH22

Forget just New York. Austin's downtown and general urbanity doesn't compare to the big coastal cities.

Agree.

[ColDayMan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes, there isn't a lot of leisure travel to Detroit, and most of the reason for that is self-inflicted. No argument there. I don't think this is because Detroit cannot be a tourist hub. I think it is because Detroit has not wanted to be a tourist hub.

Which I've always thought was strange for a city so tied into the auto industry. I'm aware of that little museum at Greenfield Village with cars but I've always thought Detroit deserved an actual, full-fledged automotive museum. Hell, even Flint tried Six Flags AutoWorld for like two weeks.