I'm not sure what you consider the suburbs but I'm confident you could find that same situation or better so long as you looked at medium size and smaller cities or towns in the US.
You can't. US cities are uniformly car-centric. The exceptions to the rule are too expensive to buy property in anywhere close to city center.
Aside: I lived (and grew up) in several small-to-medium sized US cities prior to settling in Berlin. None come close to offering a similar range of cultural infrastructure to the typical medium-size European city, and quality of life is totally incomparable - again in Europe's favor.
Amen. I live in a US locale that is routinely described as one of the top 5 bike friendly towns in America. I bike around, look around, and all I can think is, are you kidding me? Narrow shoulders, aggressive drivers, high road speeds, poor air quality, no shade, etc...
Don't get me wrong, there's lots of good, but it's sad to think this is the best the US has got.
> I don’t know what your vision of cultural infrastructure is, but I feel culturally satiated.
Multiple theatres, a decent opera house. A regular meetup for my favourite obscure card game. Being able to reasonably expect that essentially all the bands I like will play my city sooner or later.
This more or less describes every medium-sized U.S. city, from Cincinnati to Nashville to Phoenix to Pittsburgh to St. Louis to Cleveland and so on.
There may be specific things you care more about that one city might have more of than the others, but, in general, all cities have this stuff (and it's a tragedy of human flourishing that people on the coasts think they don't).
Certainly not the case for a typical 100k-sized city, unless my hometown is unusually badly off. One and a half theatres, no opera house at all, an MtG community but nothing for anything smaller, most bands didn't bother going there on their tours.
I don't know about 100k. That seems small. I'm talking about metros of well over a million people.
But, also, don't get confused by looking only at the statistics for core cities. People look at, say, St. Louis, see that it has only 300k people, and stop there. But that's a wildly misleading number that's really more of a reflection of the fact that lots of people in the U.S. live in what are called "suburbs," even if those "suburbs" are actually still part of the urban core.
The St. Louis metro has 2.8 million people. 1.3 million of those people live in the core, urban city/county. That 300k number isn't useful at all. It's based on silly, irrelevant historical border-drawing.
That's basically true as a default state. But you can make it work if it's something you care about. Most of those cities have at least one walkable neighborhood that's (more or less) car-optional. I think you'd still want to own a car for those things that can't be accomplished without one, but you could live most of your daily life on foot.
That's two blocks from a Whole Foods, walking to everything else you'd need, and 4 blocks from the light rail, which can take you to each of the region's two largest employment centers (Downtown and Clayton), its two largest universities, and the airport.
Where do you live that a decent 4br/2ba goes for 200k? I’m in the Midwest and that’s at least 100-150k lower than I’d expect in an urban area (rural communities, sure - but not the city).
I bought my 3 bedroom 1.5 bath house in Richmond, Va for 250k and it takes me 7 minutes to bike to work. I could have gotten a place in a less desirable part of the city for even cheaper. It is a pretty bike friendly city.
I think the point that is missed isn’t that Richmond is “better” than Berlin, but that among the thousands of cities and towns in the United States, some of them offer most or all of the amenities that are being discussed at a reasonable cost!
I doubt there is anyplace on the planet that fully meets the HN-Platonic ideal of a magical land with no cars, cheap rent in exclusively brand new or prewar mid-rise building, and bountiful jobs at hundreds of tech companies.
I’m in the "Midwest" and that’s at least 100-150k lower than I’d expect in an urban area.
The parent was not talking about Berlin, but about affordable housing in an urban environment. I would hardly classify Richmond as even a mid sized city despite the fact it's metropolitan area population is over 1 million, but it is definitely urban. I can walk to anything I need and like I said, bike to work. I mean it is the capital of a state so not exactly a "village"...
My sister is in Tulsa and has a _very_ nice 4+2 (or maybe 3+2, idr, but it's a well-built, big house on an acre); it cost her $250k. Where I live (central Illinois, 200000 person metro area), prices are even lower.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm. Being in NY is a negative, not a positive. NY has some of the highest taxes in the country and much of the money gets funneled to NYC.
They're affordable because not many people want to deal with 10 feet of snow every year (unless there are nice big mountains nearby, which NY state does not).
When I was living in suburbs for a few months, getting from A to B on a bike took a long time. 40 minutes to work. 30 minutes to the next mall/shopping street. Just one small house after another, with no amenities nearby. Vast low-density residential areas make for a long commute.
After I got back to the city it felt incredible to bike through it. Everything you need is within a few minutes driving distance. Work is 20 minutes on bike and I don't live particularely close to it. No worries about parking either, because there is always some place that you can lock your bike to.
How many different tech jobs are there at a medium size city? In Berlin hundreds of companies in a small area are competing to attract talent with the best pay, perks and work life balance. Even if you have kids and prefer stability, you get some of the benefits of that. And if a job change becomes necessary, you'll have a much higher chance in Berlin of finding a good fit without moving home or lengthening your commute.
There can be a huge number. I mean look at Baltimore for example. Median home price is $260k and salaries for engineers range anywhere from $60k - $250k. There was a post here the other day about how Grand Rapids had some huge amount of tech companies. Many towns with Universities are built for biking and walking and also have strong presence of companies looking for engineers.
> There was a post here the other day about how Grand Rapids had some huge amount of tech companies
You really have to be careful with those articles -- most of them are basically marketing fluff. Grand Rapids has a good welcoming inclusive, but tiny tech scene. GR is only 'huge' when compared to smaller neighboring cities, which have practically nothing.
This isn't a comprehensive measure or anything, but just for a quick sense of scale, on Stack Overflow right now Chicago has 79 tech job listings. Seattle has 68. Detroit has 15. Grand Rapids has 2.
Grand Rapids isn't even remotely comparable to Detroit, much less any actual tech-focused city. And that's just jobs, ignoring all housing / transportation / cultural amenities and all other quality-of-life differences.
I've lived in Baltimore for 5 years(to escape DC), but I'd never work in Baltimore. I came here to because it isn't technically advanced. Beyond that it's packed to the brim with dope fiends. You've gotta be in third world don't get robbed mode 100% of the time, there are 17k abandoned townhouses in Baltimore, garbage everywhere, but the rent is super cheap if that's what you're into.
I've never been to Grand Rapids. If all goes to plan it'll stay that way.
Berlin is one the most incredible cities on earth right now.
There's definitely going to be cultural differences since Grand Rapids is in west Michigan and not eastern Germany. The food's decent, and there are a few art festivals, museums, venues and arenas. Lansing is an hour away which has more of the same. Holland is a little closer and on Lake Michigan. Chicago is only a couple hours away if you're yearning for the big city. I can't speak much about the night life but last I knew we had multiple bars and clubs if that's your thing. The only public transportation is the Rapid (bus system).
> I'm confident you could find that same situation or better so long as you looked at medium size and smaller cities
Are you certain? In my experience, there really isn't an "affordable medium size city" in the US. There are affordable suburbs of medium sized cities. There are affordable suburbs that technically lie within the cities legal boundary lines, and are so-called 'urban' (by legal/taxable status only).
But if "city" is being used as a measure of minimum density (and not a line on a map) then there is no such thing as an "affordable for families" large or medium-sized city in the US. Any urban area developed enough to have an average building height of 5 stories or higher is unafforable to the vast majority of US families.
This remains true even in the so-called "low cost of living" mid-sized cities.
"Are you certain? In my experience, there really isn't an "affordable medium size city" in the US."
Minneapolis.
A very, very rich urban environment (there are two cities there, after all) and cultural scene. Is currently, very affordable - even in the most desirable neighborhoods.
I don't consider Minneapolis much of a city - more like a giant suburb with some nice bike paths. I grew up on the Northside. Same for the few times visiting Denver. You're gonna be driving if you want to have a social life.
You simply cannot compare it to a similar sized European city, or to any of the "big city" style US cities on the East coast.
For this exact reason I split my time between Minneapolis and Chicago and plan to move to Chicago as soon as possible full time. The lifestyles are not remotely comparable.
Minneapolis is exactly what I was thinking of when I said, "there are affordable suburbs that technically lie within the cities legal boundary lines" and are therefore called 'city' but are actually suburbs. Lyndale, Cocoran, Harrison, and many other examples, are actually suburban but they are technically within the legal/tax boundaries of Minneapolis and get called 'urban', when they are not.
Minneapolis is a cool place, this is not an slight to the city or it's residents in any way. But Minneapolis is almost entirely suburban, and the parts of Minneapolis / St Paul that are actually urban (where "urban" means more than 75% of the buildings are 4+ stories), those parts are not affordable to families.
I would have argued that you're making a "no true Scotsman" argument until I remembered something. I used to have a house in a great neighborhood in southwest Minneapolis. I had a girlfriend who came to my house frequently for almost a year before she realized I actually lived within the Minneapolis city limits, and not in a suburb.
Honestly, I think it's a shame to limit the definition of "city" so stringently. Why can't a quiet neighborhood with tree-lined streets and kids playing outside be considered a part of the city and not a "suburb within a city?"
But whatever, I still think of it as the best city I've ever lived in and although I still work here, I miss living in it sometimes.
I’m not an American and I’ve never lived there but aren’t the only cities you can bike safely as a method of transport rather than exercise in the Boston Washington corridor or San Francisco?
There are many places with relatively high salaries and cheap rents for software engineers, but ones where you can live in a nice area, be 15 minutes bike from work and not have a car?
The daycare and maternity leave are probably irrelevant. The OP could probably make enough more in the US that no maternity pay and high childcare costs don’t matter much but he’d still need a car.
Also, comparing Berlin to medium size or small cities will not make the latter look good. Cultural infrastructure is much better if you’re into that. I doubt a parent of a small child has that much time to enjoy it but even just English language cultural events, meet ups etc. will be way more active in Berlin than in say, Raleigh.
Your view sounds like it is based on stereo types and not reality. I mean bicycling.com has a list of the top 50 bicycling cities in the US. Raleigh has an Opera, several theaters, a symphony. It does not lack for cultural events.
I have been to the US, New York, New Jersey and Florida. Given the length and density of settlement in the first two there’s probably not a more bicycle hospitable part of the US. I would be terrified to cycle there. Bicycling magazine’s website supports your contention less than you might imagine. It’s for hobbyists, people who bike for exercise and who tour. Most Europeans who cycle do so as a mode of transport, not recreation. And just as you will not find articles on the best places to find good pasta in Italy, or croissants in France you’re not going to find a list of the most bike friendly cities in Germany. By American standards they’re all really, really bike friendly. And that’s totally unremarkable, just like cities built for the convenience of people in cars are normal in the US.
I’m not saying Raleigh is a cultural wasteland. I’m sure it has much to recommend it but to compare it to Berlin? Really? Berlin has almost eight times the population and has many very heavily subsidised national cultural institutions. I’m sure Raleigh has a better live music scene in English.
You should travel in Europe some. You would not compare anywhere in Western Europe to the US in terms of bike friendliness if you had.
That list is about recreational biking, not about biking as a means of transportation. Look at cities where people commute by bicycle[1] and it is basically just the cities listed plus a bunch of small towns with gigantic university campuses.
I guess that is my point. The OP says that having a family in the US would be a struggle but if you set aside the handful of cities with out of control costs in the US like SF, NY, and DC the rest really are quite affordable.
Exclude the east and west coast mega cities and you have a lot of land but a small chunk of the population. This tends to tie you much closer to a specific employer and has long term risks.
this is just not true, at least on the east coast.
i rent a 4br house just over the city line that's listed for ~$200k . 10 minute drive to downtown and a 30 minute commute to work. if i wanted to i could easily come up with the down payment for this house in a couple years on my entry level engineer's salary. in my office park alone, there are already several other software companies right there that i could conceivably work at.
once you rule out NYC, Boston, and the other megacities, there are still many mid-sized cities with good food, music, etc. they don't have nearly the same troubles with traffic, so it's often pretty easy to find a good job in the burbs if they dont do software in the city center.
A '30 minute commute to work' is a long time every day. It adds up to 250 hours a year, and over 10,000 hours over a lifetime.
Accepting a longer commute means more options, but the price is steap. Mine is currently 10 minutes and in a prior job I walked to work. However, that means I either need to move regularly or have a lot of options very close to me.
It's a direct time and money trade-off. People are spending time to obtain a standard of living that they do not have enough money to purchase with dollars.
You can light your money on fire by renting or you can be paying off a house at the same rate at the time cost of whatever your commute is.
If you want to eat healthy the options for fast meals get expensive. If you prepare everything from close to scratch you can eat just as health at the cost of time.
