![]() |
When you say money is no object: You mean that you can afford to rent a 1000 square foot apartment? Or money is really no object.
If you have the money to take Limos every where and helicopters out to the Hamptons to visit your weekend cottage, well that is a different story. Without a doubt, the more money you have you can experience all the great things and avoid more of the dirty drudgery. So if I was ultra wealthy, I would go with NY. If I was merely wealthy, I would go with SF. And if I was merely upper middle class (which I am), I would go with neither but would enjoy SF more than NY. Chicago and Portland both have a lot of up sides. But I'm not keen to deal with either in the winter. Don't want to live in a snowy environment. Don't want to go months at a time not seeing the sun. I would rather live someplace in the southwest desert (but not Vegas). To those that like Miami, more power to them. I've gone there a few times for work. Don't care for the humidity. It seems that people that live there don't ever actually see the ocean unless they are going to the beach with kids. Not my vibe. |
Quote:
|
Money no object? I'd buy 1000 acres in rural Montana and put my house in the middle of it. I love to hunt and fish, the hell with living in a larger city.
|
If I had to have a vacation home in a major downtown it would be Vancover.
Yes, I know it’s not the US. |
Raleigh-Durham. Close enough to Charlotte to not miss anything exciting. Close enough to OBX for vacation. Inland enough that humidity and hurricanes are not so much of a problem.
Edit: The Chesapeake bay area would be my first choice but no downtowns on the Bay/Rivers so that kinda kills the appeal and where the really nice expensive homes are. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Manhattan Kansas Near a football school near Kansas city. Not a lot of people and quiet.
|
The way I am feeling today, Boston would be first—along the waterfront— centrally located to get to all family, relatives and friends; the mountains of New Hampshire and the Cape and Freeport Maine the latter two for sailing with sister or brother's family.
|
Quote:
Defining 'downtown' is an interesting topic. I'm presuming we're talking about major metro areas, so we can arbitrarily assume that it's the place in a metro area of 1 million or more people that has the largest concentration of high rises. (Metro areas are formally defined as 50,000 or more people, but there are a whole lot of those, and a lot of them are parts of larger metro areas. If I was to stick to the above definitions, it would be hard to beat Manhattan if money was no object. You've got Central Park, Broadway, and a zillion restaurants and stuff. Other cool cities would be Denver (access to mountains), San Diego (weather), Charleston (if you could live in that historic area), and Washington DC (museums). If you could go smaller, Santa Fe has a very interesting downtown. Los Angeles would be a great choice if you could live elsewhere in the metro area. Downtown LA is no great shakes, but the beach cities are awesome. They'd probably be my top choice, but they're not the 'downtown'. |
Quote:
Also agree on Denver. Colorado has it all. Sedona is a location I would a!so consider though I like being closer to a city. |
Gotham
|
Quote:
Besides, Illinois is like most states ruined by one or two giant urban pits of liberal despair - get outside of the pit, and the rest is okay. I like where I live. I also like my job. I just wish it was somewhere else. And unfortunately, I'm not going to make decent money in my field unless I work in a major city. And as major cities go, I'll take Chicago over LA or New York. |
If money was no object I would spend half my year in the Grand Tetons, then winter in San Diego
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...and_tetons.jpg |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.