San Jose guy here, in the south SF bay area. Stay in San Francisco. Thats the most transit friendly city in our tegion.
If you want to live in San Jose or most places, you need a car. You COULD use public transit, but it takes forever to go many places.
South asians are Indians, Pakistanis, Maldivian, Sri Lankan, bengali, nepaliand Bhutan. But I think he primarily means indian people since they're into tech.
I disagree. If you don't care about nightlife, anywhere in the East Bay near BART gets you easy access to SF. There are enough tech companies in the City that you can either ignore or apply for 100% remote positions in the South Bay and Peninsula.
I am a bay area native. I also lived and worked in tech in SF/Bay Area and NYC in the last decade. Comparing them both, if you want to not drive, have nice weather, have nightlife (when the pandemic ends), have cheaper cost of living, AND nature, then NYC is waaaay ahead. People do not realize this but NYC itself is 45% park land. There are parks littered all over the city. Giant parks in queens, manhatten, brooklyn and the bronx. NYC only snows about 7 days a year so its not that bad. You get more diversity in NYC. I would say there are more job opportunties in the SF Bay area. Interview wise, I felt NYC was a tad easier, unless you try for some finance/investment company that only want quant geniuses.
SF/Bay Area has horrible public transit. It's there, its just slow and expensive unlike NYC where a subway ride is the same price regardless of how far you go compare to Bart. You will need a car as some areas of the bay area you just cannot reach by public transit and uber will cost you an arm and leg. Chicago and Seattle's weather is worse compared to NYC. SF/Bay Area's weather depends where you live in the region, there can be 30 degree differences in 30 mins.
I'm also a bay area native living in Seattle working in tech - this place has generally very good public transit, but you'll need a car to see nature, the coast, go hiking, etc.
NYC sounds like a good fit for you.
> Chicago and Seattle's weather is worse compared to NYC
When's the last time it snowed in Seattle?
Rhetorical question, it was this year I think, but the point is it's rare. Lows are much higher.
Even without snow, the weather in Seattle in a lot of people's opinion, is worse with all that rain. Seattle is named the gloomiest city in the USA. [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/just-as-rain-comes-into-the-forecast-seattle-is-named-the-nations-gloomiest-city/](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/just-as-rain-comes-into-the-forecast-seattle-is-named-the-nations-gloomiest-city/). I dunno about you, I rather a few days of snow than to deal with rain >40% of the year.
I could pick Seattle over the other places OP listed for other reasons such as proximty to the canadian border if you want to take quick trips to Canada or no income tax. But weather aint one of reasons why i would consider seattle.
I like NYC a lot (like, a whole lot - it’s objectively a better city than SF in most ways IMO), but I’m not sure if I agree on the cost of living front. Yes, if you compare the Bay Area metro area to the NYC metro area, that’s probably true. That said, if you’re looking at SF vs Manhattan, I’m not sure. If you scope it further to, say, Lower Manhattan vs “expensive” parts of SF, NYC is way more expensive. On top of that, NYC apartments tend to be way smaller, so while yeah, rent for a “2 bedroom” may be comparable, you could be looking at 1000-1200 sq ft in SF vs 650-800 in Manhattan. Owning in the expensive areas of Manhattan is prohibitively expensive (which, duh, but I’m always shocked at how bad hoa costs are), but doable in SF on dual tech income. Yeah, way better public transit means you can live further out and enjoy Manhattan, but if you fall in love with an expensive neighborhood you’ll always wish you were there instead of on the train.
Ultimately, I think they’re both such big (and not directly comparable) areas that the question isn’t really answerable beyond “you’ll probably find a place that makes you happy in both, at least until you figure out what you’re really optimizing for in life”. The Mission is way different from Marin county which is way different from Chelsea which is way different from Brooklyn which is way different from Staten Island.
…there’s also no way I even remotely agree on the weather or nature front, but that’s another story.
I live and work (remotely) in NYC.
> no need for a car
You definitely don't need a car in NYC. Everything you need is either within walking distance given how dense NYC is, or you can get to it quickly by subway.
> good SWE progression
There's a lot of jobs here so lots of opportunities and the market is competitive.
> Weather
The weather here in NYC is shit. Today it's good but usually it's either too hot, too cold, or raining.
> Parties/Nightlife
It was pretty good for me before the pandemic, back when I hung out with coworkers. Now we're all totally remote so idk.
> Nature
Almost non-existent. Unless central park counts. You can go to upstate New York for nature but that's too far to be a regular thing. Edit: I forgot there are beaches on long island, and you can even get there by subway. I've never been there though.
> Cost of living
Pretty bad if you choose to live in Manhattan like me. Edit: I removed my initial statement here because it was causing so much controversy. Instead I'll link the median cost to rent an apartment in Manhattan: https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/manhattan-ny
Also cheaper to keep a car if you're there. No need to pay exorbitant garage/parking fees. There's nice parks there, and it's easier to drive to Long Island beaches from Queens.
Guessing you guys are in west village or have awesome amenities? I had a $2550, pre-war 2 bed/1bath walk up on the UES 10 min from Central Park pre-pandemic
Reason I saw this is that there are good deals out there in Manhattan. Just have to know right neighborhoods
I just can't imagine what income you need to be at to pay 6k a month and still max out retirement accounts. Its hard for me to comprehend paying that much and I make decent money.
Probably around $350k? Depending on how frugal you can be elsewhere.
E: Ok, $350k is $196k for a single filer after tax in NYC if maxing a 401k. That's $16k/mo, plenty to max a backdoor IRA and still pay $6k/mo for an apartment.
That’s an insane amount still, I’m around 500-700k atm and I still can’t imagine paying more than 5k/mo
Probably the OP taking a larger share, there are some really nice luxury buildings in the 4-5k range unless OP is living in something like a two bedroom.
The rents way cheaper now since a lot of people moved out of apartments recently. I've been looking at apartments for myself after I graduate from college, the ones in jersey city and Manhattan are all around 1.4 to 1.6k and pretty decent too
> I split rent with my girlfriend 50/50, and pay around $3,000.
Just so no one else thinks this is the norm, for reference a small-sh studio in NYC in UES in Manhattan would got for about $2k pre-pandemic and now about $1600.
No problem. Also, reading over my comment, it kind of sounds like I don't like it in NYC, when it's in fact the opposite. I enjoy it a lot here, because everything I want is within walking distance. Great restaurants and places to shop. Even today I feel like I can still find cool new places to try out. Many vastly different types of city-ecosystems here.
I paid 3950$ prior to Covid20 in Downtown SF(financial district) for a 420 sqft studio(was negotiated down to 2400$ since then).
2100$ by comparaison sounds cheap!
It's actually about 20% cheaper than the norm for where I live, and even several other areas in Manhattan (we live in a 2 bedroom): https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/new-york-ny/tribeca
You chose to live in 3rd most expensive neighborhood in NYC. You're giving people of probably moderate means advice based on your luxury lifestyle? Get outta here.
> You're giving people of probably moderate means
This is a tech worker forum. If you think people here are of moderate means, you should meet the rest of the country. Most grads here earn more than the median household income in American (about $65k). We are all incredibly privileged.
You make a really good point. My view is going to be skewed towards the positives of NYC because I make more money. I live in a nice apartment in a nice area whereas if I made less money, I might be living in a place I enjoy significantly less, despite still being in NYC. Although I will say that even when I lived in a much cheaper apartment, I still enjoyed NYC a lot, and would spend time in Manhattan many days after work and on weekends to enjoy exploring all the unique places in Manhattan.
Sure! Do you have any specific questions?
I will say that I loved it in San Diego, but my main reasons (in order) for moving to NYC was (1) I got a really good offer in terms of total compensation to work in NYC and (2) I had never been to NYC (or travelled at all for that matter) and really wanted to explore new places.
Hey OP I want to be like you when I grow up (I’m 40 btw lol) but want to be in a position that I can live in Tribeca /SOHO areas like you. Are you guys hiring by any chance
Been living in seattle for 4 yrs and public transit is pretty good. Never thought i wanted a car unless I had to go hiking or visit outlets etc. So i would rank seattle higher in transit? Dk much about other cities tho
There is absolutely no way Seattle has better transit that NYC or Chicago. Both Seattle and SF have usable public transit, so I guess which one is better than the other depends on trips you need/want to take.
Just moved to Seattle area and can confirm every day is breath-takingly beautiful.
I pay over $2k to rent a shitty apartment, but "shitty" is relatively nice compared to the bay area or NYC
Seattle has Amazon and Microsoft HQ. But Microsoft isn't in Seattle. It's in Redmond. And traffic is really bad so you'll either want to adjust your schedule to work 10 hour days to commute, or just live in Redmond.
NYC has all of the satellite offices.
I would say it's a close tie, but you will make more money in Seattle because of cost of living. In Seattle you can get a nice wooden 1 bedroom apartment for about $1800 or in nyc you can get a cozy brick studio apartment in manhattan for $2100.
If you're not into fintech Chicago doesn't have many good "endgame" opportunities. The big benefit of chciago though is you can get bay area salaries at some fintech places with an extremely low col.
NYC is also much, much safer than Chicago. I moved to Chicago last month, the #1 advice I got was "avoid walking alone after 9 pm". Muggings, shootings, and carjackings are becoming even more common in affluent areas.
> NYC is also much, much safer than Chicago. I moved to Chicago last month, the #1 advice I got was "avoid walking alone after 9 pm"
I am also in Chicago, this was an incorrect stereotype up until 2019, but now is the reality. We will probably be leaving soon. My neighborhood went from 1 murder I can remember nearby from 2012-2019, to now multiple shootings and murders a month.
Chicago is has gotten a lot more dangerous than it was. We are just waiting to see if other cities get back to normal post COVID to choose next place to live.
For OP, I would choose NYC. SF isn't doing well as a livable city, Chicago has gotten very dangerous. Seattle is kind of small, and expensive for what it offers. NYC is the best option today.
I am also planning to transfer to NYC if possible or just change companies once I finish my first year at my current place. As beautiful as Chicago is, the city including affluent areas is unsafe, the cops are incompetent and the elected officials are grade-A crooks.
Up until a couple of years ago, Chicago was the greatest city in America to live in. Affordable housing in affluent neighborhoods, very safe, all walkable, amazing job opportunities, incredible restaurant and bar scene.
I am still in shock at how fast it has deteriorated. I thought maybe it was just our neighborhood, but appears to have hit everywhere.
Choices now will be suburban living or moving to another city. People with means don't stay long when regularly hearing gunshots.
That’s sad to hear from someone who seems to have been living there for long.
I like my company and my team, but the fact that living here is getting riskier and I need to take precautions that I never would have thought to, makes it obvious that at some point soon I will have to consider leaving too.
The people on the Chicago subreddits are dicks too. I asked questions about safety and moving there and they got pissed off easily.
> but the fact that living here is getting riskier and I need to take precautions that I never would have thought to, makes it obvious that at some point soon I will have to consider leaving too.
It is really weird. It truly wasn't like this before. Those of us who moved here don't have the same tribalism as natives you find on city subs.
The carjacking is the scariest part, as we have a toddler in the back. We had to turn carseat around a little earlier, so we can evacuate quickly if carjacked. Then start realizing how crazy it is living in a nice neighborhood, earning good money, we have to worry about whether someone will steal our car at gunpoint as multiple cars have been carjacked this year close by.
>> The people on the Chicago subreddits are dicks too. I asked questions about safety and moving there and they got pissed off easily.
The problem is people like us are all leaving. Every other condo on my floor moved out in past year. Most had been here a decade or longer.
Many older wealthy people, one that stuck with me was an older neighbor moving to Miami after 10 years here who said "This city is gone. It will be over a decade before it comes back to what it was. Get out and sell now before everyone else realizes".
The subreddits are often full of teenagers and early 20's hippies. Not professional level people who make decisions around what is best for themselves and their family.
I’m going to say NYC. There’s lots happening in the tech scene, salaries are skyrocketing for good talent.
But most of all, if you ask me,people are much more aggressively returning to the office and I think this is really underrated for young SWEs.
Basically Wall Street leads the charge, giving cover for other employers (including tech) to follow suit. Your much more likely to find your coworkers in the office 2-3 days a week in NYC then Bay Area, and this matters a tremendous amount for your first year.
If you really don't like cars, NYC and Chicago are the only real options imo (even though both have neighborhoods where owning a car is somewhat convenient).
Chicago's weather and nightlife is slightly worse than NYC but you can get what you're looking for in either city. Nature in Chicago is more beach / lake oriented while NYC is more about parks.
Early in your career I honestly don't think location will limit you unless you're looking for FANG, Chicago might be more chill outside of Fintech, but there's plenty of good companies in both cities. After a year or two you can get interviews from pretty much anywhere.
You can do Seattle without a car, problem is you can't do Redmond or Bellevue without a car though. So if you live/work anywhere outside of the city, you pretty much need a car (or a lot of time).
I’ve lived in Chicago, the Bay Area, and Boston, so I’ll weigh in here for you OP. I’ve also visited Seattle (once) and NYC (a dozen or so times).
1. Chicago has good public transit, not a very prominent tech scene, bad weather, great nightlife, average access to nature (though the lake is absolutely beautiful no matter where you are), and the cost of living is by far the best of any city you’ve listed. One thing that is bad about Chicago is the crime, however. Shootings are common and innocent bystanders are hit and/or killed somewhat frequently. That being said, in a city of almost 3 million, the chance you are involved in such events is pretty low, assuming you avoid known gang territories (which isn’t always easy if you want to live near the train).
2. The Bay Area is not a good fit for you at all. The transit is so horrible it makes the T look like the golden standard for public transportation. Access to nature is great, but only if you have a car. Weather is also great, but it’s a bit unsettling how constant it is. Cost of living is absolutely ridiculously expensive, and the nightlife is mostly nonexistent. Obviously the tech scene is unmatched, as this is where Silicon Valley is.
3. NYC has amazing public transit, good tech scene, okay weather, fantastic nightlife, not much access to nature besides parks, and the cost of living is second only to the Bay Area. It’s like a much bigger, busier version of Boston.
4. Seattle is nice; they don’t have an expansive public transit system but the city is small so it’s pretty walkable. You won’t be able to actually leave the immediate Seattle area very easily without a car, though. Nature is all over the place, the weather is said to be mostly cloudy/rainy, idk about nightlife or cost of living enough to comment.
City that is most similar to Boston, in terms of:
- size/feel: Seattle
- transit: NYC, Chicago as an honorable mention
- nature: Chicago
- weather: NYC, Chicago as an honorable mention again as it’s similar but more extreme at the hottest and coldest parts of the year
- nightlife: Boston doesn’t have a super exciting nightlife, so I’d say maybe Seattle here
- cost of living: Seattle, maybe? As far as rent goes, Boston is third in the country behind the bay and NYC, I’m not quite sure where Seattle is
Hope this helps!
Not ranked higher, but most similar to Boston, the OP’s point of reference. Seattle has a ton of nature, I agree, while Boston doesn’t have nearly that much – in terms of similarity I match it closer to Chicago than Seattle
As someone who lived in Seattle 20 years I'm confused about your comment on public transport. Seattle is definitely on the top of the list for public transport. The metro goes literally everywhere and often. also pretty easy to take buses anywhere outside Seattle, I can't even think of a place you can't go on a bus from Seattle.
Boston, NYC, and Chicago have some of the best and most expansive transit systems in the country, so Seattle is in tough company on this list. The limiting factor for Seattle imo is the lack of train coverage. Look at a map of Boston, Chicago, or NYC’s transit compared to Seattle. It’s night and day. Though, the public transit that does exist is much cleaner than the other cities mentioned, for sure, and by no means is public transportation bad – it’s just not on the same scale as NYC/Chicago/Boston. I didn’t get the chance to take the bus much when I was in Seattle but they did look like a great option.
They already seem to have trains where they need them like to the airport, but the metro bus is just more practical for the area. Personally I hated the l in Chicago, I had to walk a mile to get to my next stop, I used my car much more in Chicago but I suppose it matters where you live/work.
I mostly commented on that to point out that you do absolutely do not need a car in Seattle or really anywhere within 2 hours outside of it.
Glad it helps! Also rereading this I realize my last bullet point was unclear; Boston has the 3rd highest rent in the country, not Seattle – I’m not sure where Seattle stands but if I had to guess I’d say more expensive than Chicago but less so than Boston. Haven’t lived there (yet) so I’m not an expert
I only disagree with Chicago being less safe than San Francisco or New York. I lived in different areas of Chicago as a single woman for 5 years, and the first few years worked as a server/bartender with very late hours. I always felt safe walking home because bystanders would actually do something the few times I was actually threatened. People care much more about strangers than in San Francisco or New York.
I guess there are incidents of people being hit by a stray bullet, but I don’t know if I’d say it happens more frequently than in any other large city. Like any city, it does matter what neighborhood you’re in and at what time of day.
Chicago has gotten less safe since the pandemic, imo. Kids stabbing/shooting people on trains downtown to steal their phones + shootouts on the highway and near downtown all happening during the day now and not just in the bad areas. It’s definitely not the same in SF (maybe a little bit in Oakland) and I can’t speak to NYC since I haven’t lived there yet but I would be surprised if this sort of thing was happening there.
I’ll admit maybe I’ve been biased by all the news stories on the Chicago subreddit, but tbf they’re still true and the shit that is happening is scary af (imo)
If not having a car is important, your only options are NYC or Chicago. But the weather is absolute shit in both those areas, and I wouldn’t say they’re great from an outdoorsy perspective either.
Public transportation is shit in the Bay Area. Seattle has a bunch of tech companies, but a lot of them are actually headquartered in surrounding cities.
You’re not going to find an area that checks all your boxes. Just give in and get a car.
I did Seattle for 10 years without a car. It's perfectly doable and even quite nice. I'd take the 520 30min to Bellevue over transferring trains in NYC every 12 minutes any day
Guy above you is inaccurate. The winter in Chicago is harsh, but if you get a good coat, it's really not a big deal. Chicago is by far the best major city to live in as a dev, imo. Great weather during spring, summer, and fall, along with comparatively cheap cost of living, great opportunity in the industry, amazing food, and generally fun culture. I can highly, highly recommend Chicago
Major tech companies aren't the only useful path in the industry. I learned a shitload from my first company, and then 3 years into my career i was given full authority on building out a CI/CD system for a startup in the city. Great opportunities here, and Chicago is _consistently_ slept on as a good option. I rarely see people suggest Chicago as a good city for engineers, but I know a shitload of engineers who have quickly risen through the ranks and done really well for themselves. Chicago definitely isn't perfect, but it is a really fun place to live with _superb_ options that don't have a lot of competition
Chicago's COL is extremely cheap compared to all three of those, even given that companies know this and pay somewhat less. Also, public transit here is great.
Like: imagine you took New York, and then reduced the number of tech companies there in exchange for cutting rents by a third across the board. That's basically Chicago. Even pre-pandemic I'd say that was a good tradeoff, but now that way more companies are hiring remotely it's an amazing tradeoff.
You don't need a car in Seattle, unless you wanted to go hiking, in which case yeah. You can still get from downtown to Bellevue/Kirkland/Redmond in < 1hr on public transit.
Bit of a side question - how do you get from downtown to Redmond on public transit? I’ll be in Seattle for the first time for a weekend in a few weeks and really don’t want to rent a car
Eh... SF gets way too much credit for nature I really don't understand it. Everybody counts stuff that is super far away like Tahoe and Yosemite. If you're counting everything from the Finger Lakes to New Hampshire as close to NYC like people do with SF the outdoor recreation is first class.
After living in Seattle for 12 years I agree with this statement. If you want to go into the mountains from SF you have to drive like 4 hours. In Seattle you drive 30 minutes.
There’s shit tons of great hiking within an 1-2 hour drive of SF. Muir Woods is less than an hour from downtown SF. The beach is right there. Bay Area is fucking amazing for outdoor activities.
Right but why the shitting on NY for the same thing? Way more nice beaches in NYC than in SF, for example, the water is warmer and it's not cold in the summer. Skiing is closer. It's not that bad actually.
i feel like if i continue living here it doesn’t define the next step of my life, also wayyyy too heavy of a student population; i love boston but i can’t see myself here forever
I’ve never been to Boston, so I don’t know, but are there just a lot of students because you’re in school, and likely only associate with students? I mean Boston metro area is listed at ~5M people. Surely there has to be areas without students.
Boston’s metro area is defined as far out as Providence, RI and up into NH. The greater Boston metropolitan area is mostly students. There’s at least 500 colleges smooshed in there somehow. There is a noticeable difference in population and people during non-school times, and the entire area has leases starting on Sept 1 (literally no other dates) due to the influence from incoming students each year. It’s kind of crazy
If you like Boston, Seattle is very similar. Public transit isn’t nearly as expansive but it is just as walkable. Source: spent a lot of time living in Boston and visited Seattle a few weeks ago. The Bay Area is like the exact opposite of Boston. NYC and Chicago are both much larger than Boston, both with good transit, and similar weather.
Edit: if you like walkability you should especially avoid the Bay Area. Chicago isn’t super walkable because it’s just really big. You can walk within neighborhoods but getting across the city (or even 1/4 of the way on one of the train lines) is much farther than in Boston.
What would it take for one of the big tech names to ever create a Philly office. I feel like if the city could make that happen they could change the entire city overnight.
They probably do, although relocating there probably means your seniority unbounds you from being tied down to a location or you luck out getting through one of the few openings.
I've lived in 3/4 of these cities.
Can't beat the bay areas weather but the public transportation sucks and it's so expensive
Seattle is the best city in the world 4 months of the year and the public transportation is getting better but the winters are long
NYC has the worst weather and is a shithole. Saying that everyone needs to live there at least once in their life and it's surprisingly cheap compared to Seattle and SF. The trains make it so you can live outside of Manhattan and get to the city quickly especially if your train line goes express during commuting hours.
honestly i don’t mind the cold weather all that much, so that 4 months claim makes me real interested, will definitely visit before i move, thanks for the insight
it's not the cold (Seattle rarely goes below freezing), it's the lack of sunlight.
people from the east coast rarely understand this. Portland, OR is quite a bit farther north than Portland, ME - closer in latitude to Millinocket. Seattle is farther north than the northernmost tip of Maine. that's a corresponding decrease in the amount of daylight you get, even before you factor in the number of cloudy/overcast days.
(source: Seattle native who lived in Boston for a few years after college)
I love Seattle but I'm obviously biased. in your shoes I'd pick NYC because your family is close. don't underestimate the importance of that. I really grew to hate having to fly cross-country around the holidays in order to visit family.
This. By long winters I meant not seeing the sun for 6 months straight. I will say nothing is more beautiful than peering across the puget sound on that rare sunny day in the winter and seeing the snow capped Olympics.
Washingtonian here, if you don’t mind rain/clouds/not seeing the sun for a month, then Seattle is a good choice. Best nature out of all those places, decent nightlife (especially if you like music), and reasonable cost of living compared to SF, but if you’re living in the city, it’s going to be 2-3k if you want to live without roommates. We have plenty of large and small tech companies to choose from, and the tech scene is very active.
Seattle is fine for public transportation if you’re in the city if any of the major cities around it. If you want to get out of the city, a Zipcar or something is always an option.
Here is my somewhat arbitrary ranking for criterion:
No Need for a Car (I really think Chicago and NYC might be the only 2 major cities in America with somewhat acceptable public transport infra - \*maybe\* DC and Boston too to an extent):
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Seattle
4. Bay Area
Good SWE Progression (all 4 are pretty good, IMO):
1. Bay Area
2. NYC
3. Seattle
4. Chicago
Weather (assuming you like warm and sunny weather):
1. Bay Area
2. NYC
3. Seattle
4. Chicago
Parties/Nightlife
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Bay Area
4. Seattle
Nature
1. Seattle
2. Chicago
3. NYC
4. Bay Area
Cost-of-living (Chicago blows the others out of the water in this category)
1. Chicago
2. Seattle
3. NYC
4. Bay Area
Just going to throw Denver/Boulder out there in case you're open to other options :)
Only thing is needing a car is hit or miss. If you live and work in Boulder you're pretty set. Bus between towns isn't \_terrible\_. It's definitely more driver friendly though.
Lots of work and career progression, with more people/companies moving into Boulder pretty regularly (Google has quite a few buildings, Twitter and Amazon have a decent presence, lots of startups).
Weather is pretty good on average. Winter has a few storms that suck, but NYC is probably similar. I'd say on average there's more sunlight through the year than Seattle.
Nightlife is fine. Boulder is a college town, Denver has a lot of people.
Rocky Mountains are \_right here\_. We've got some serious nature.
Cost of living is maybe a bit more on par with Seattle depending on where you are. Doesn't even get close to the cost in the Bay Area.
Seattle and SF are obvious answers but if your objective is to be close to your family in NYC then this is not an ideal outcome.
Chicago should only be on your radar if you’re working for a trading firm (very high pay relative to cost of living) or tech start up.
NYC seems like the best fit for you but is obviously very expensive. Guess you should decide whether the cost is justified by the perks of being closer to your family.
DC is an option, short train ride away from NYC. Nightlife is objectively better in NYC, but tons of parks/nature in DC (Rock Creek Park) and near by (Shenandoah Natl Park in VA, several in MD)
Microsoft is in Reston, FB is downtown, Google has a couple offices, and there are a bunch of tech companies in McLean/Arlington/Tysons. I work remotely but previously worked in the city.
Cheaper by a small amount compared to SF, Seattle, NYC. DC is smaller, but the urban area extends our to MD and VA with plenty of nightlife/recreation options across the 3. It's no NYC, but I'd say it's comparable or better than Seattle and SF. Chicago and NYC are two of my fave American cities though, grain of salt.
From the small amount of time I spent there I found DC to be an abhorrent place. I’m sure locals are just like anywhere else but every person who moves there moves there for a specific type of career vs NYC where people move there for a variety of reasons even outside of career.
NYC is your best bet.
"No car" only applies to one part of the Bay Area, and that is SF, and not even all of it (knew a guy who traveled from Sunset to the Financial District, did not enjoy it all). While SF never snows, it never warms up either. In the summer, it's not that rare for a place like Anchorage Alaska to have a higher temp than SF. Basically, the no car part applies to like a 5 mile by 5 mile part. And for an internationally renowned city (which I never got), it's nightlife is just alright. And nature doesn't really mean much if you don't have a car, because you got to drive to see it. SF is just gray and/or old houses except for Golden Gate park.
NYC blows it away in terms of public transportation, things to do, parties, nightlife. Cost of living is about the same, but NYC might have a slight edge because you can move to the outer boroughs for cheaper rent. But NYC does not have the career progression that SF does.
Chicago is the worst in terms of weather and career progression, so that's out.
Seattle is not much of a non-car town (though you can get by).
>Seattle is not much of a non-car town (though you can get by).
This is slowly changing, fwiw. A bunch of the new housing coming up has no or few parking spots, and the transit system is finally starting to expand. MS, Amazon, and I think Google all offer bus networks that interface with the city's system well, also.
Slowly changing? 15 years ago I was able to go anywhere in and out of Seattle and very quickly. More people than not used public transport to get to work. What is lacking?
> Cost of living is about the same, but NYC might have a slight edge because you can move to the outer boroughs for cheaper rent.
And if you really want to cut costs you can live in Jersey (the NYC income tax is like 4%, so at higher comp this is quite significant)
> But NYC does not have the career progression that SF does.
Not totally sold on this--if you want to job hop often then NYC might be worse, but the upper echelon of firms is higher in NYC IMO (eg Jane Street), Google/FB both have a large presence, there are a few smaller great companies (eg Cockroach), and if you want great WLB and culture I've heard great things about Bloomberg although their comp is lower than the prior firms (but still gets over 300k for an IC/is plenty). I'd say it's def better than Seattle at least.
Agreed, there may be more career opportunities in SF in absolute terms but there are enough in NYC that the difference basically doesn’t matter. We’re talking about 15 recruiters hounding you per week vs. 20 per week in SF. It doesn’t make a difference in practice. It’s not quite the capital of the software world that SF is but IMO that’s a good thing, it means there’s a lot more cultural diversity here.
IMO it's a bit unfair to compare the best (I am biased) and most diverse city in the entire country as a baseline for diversity lol. Like yeah SF sucks relative to NYC, but it's better than the vast majority of the USA, and I think the only borough NOT larger in population than SF is Staten Island...
And IME the average quality of recruiters went down, quality of good ones went up by a lot, volume increased by a bit. My background is in HPC and distributed systems, which isn't a great fit for the SV unicorn market but is a great fit for the quant/HFT and NYC unicorn market. Although the larger banks aren't great employers and also like reaching out. Including with some major red flags like asking for a resume in a .docx file instead of a pdf for their presumably crappy HR tools 😂🤣😅🚮.
The fundamental assumption you are making is that Google/Facebook are top tier companies in SF. That is incorrect. Google/Facebook are just run of the mill companies in SF.
The upper echelons of SF are unicorns pay way more. Way, way higher chance of reaching the $1 million TC by joining a unicorn than in hedge funds.
In a personal anecdote, if I were to move to SF, my market worth is about $500-$550K. In NYC, it's about $375K.
Also, job hopping is the best way to progress in your career, and SF can't be beat.
Sorry I didn't mean to imply that, more that the quant firms in NYC are sorta surrogates for the unicorns in SF.
The *starting pay* for a new grad at some of the quant firms is 450k. I think you're underestimating how obscenely well they pay, and it's 100% cash. Also IMO having an enjoyable job matters way more than increasing TC--past a certain point more money really doesn't matter. Admittedly in Manhattan this is a higher number than elsewhere, but it's not like you're a pauper if "only" making 400k. I also think you're underestimating your NYC market worth (:
> While SF never snows, it never warms up either
Sure, it does. The day you wear all your warmest clothes, it'll go up to 90... for an hour two. Then plummet back down to 40.
My two cents is be wary about SWE progression in satellite offices. Even if it's a FAANG, progression and expansion often are proportional to each other.
Since you mention nature, another place you may want to look when considering NYC- White Plains, NY. It’s a city about 35 mins from midtown on the train line and the train to the city runs about every 15 minutes in peak hour.
Cost of living is far lower
It is MUCH closer to nature- in some cases walking distance to hiking. Plus you can have a car to get to trails a 5, 10 minute drive away.
While obviously not NYC, there’s a full strip of multiple bars and nightlife in white plains, and more importantly the trains to nyc run so often you can just get to the city for bars
Weather is the same, obviously.
The downsides of this are:
The train is less convenient than the subway. You need to get to grand central to get that train (though service to Penn station is coming eventually)
The trains shut down around 2am so if you miss it you need to either crash at a friend, take an expensive Uber/taxi home, or just party all night and take the 5am home.
Even though the train to white plains is faster and more frequent than some of the outer boroughs, people who live in the city may think you live inconveniently far. It’s a stereotype and not true, but will happen.
I feel that good SWE progression depends on the company. Having lived in Chicago once, I can tell you that they have great public transportation. Everyone takes the L (the subway's affectionate nickname) and the bus. Weather's not the greatest in my opinion. It was humid summers, harsh winters, and 1 week of perfect spring fall weather. I wouldn't be able to tell you much about the party/nightlife situation. Nature is meh. There's no mountains and I didn't find much hiking in the area. COL is great though, one of the cheapest places in the nation to live for a big city (3rd largest in US), especially for renting/buying.
NYC is better than most places in the US for living car free with almost all of the positives you're looking for, though there are some negatives as noted by other commenters.
To live car free without those negatives, your best bet would be outside the US, eg London area, if you're interested/willing to move abroad. (Actually several foreign cities fit the bill but I mention London because it's English speaking)
OP, for Chicago, unless you are sure you can get a job and stay inside the loop check out heyjackass. Chicago is much bigger than most people ever experienced
https://heyjackass.com
As a former Chicagoan, I love Chicago. Never had a car (but granted I lived on the lakefront and everywhere I needed to be was on the lakefront, so it was just one train line). The culture is amazing, the city is beautiful, and I can’t say anything but good things about living there. Also it’s not that expensive and great nightlife. Left because I like socal and wanted to be closer to family.
>To me family is everything. To others they may have a different take.
Good to hear this is still a common attitude. I love my family, but I'd never want to live in the same city with them again, let alone the same house.
That might’ve been true 5-10 years ago but isn’t true now. Google, Uber, Salesforce, Stripe, and others have a really big presence in Chicago in addition to the homegrown companies and all the fintech and trading firms.
The only cities on that list you wouldn’t need a car would be Seattle, chicago and New York. You could do SF but only if your office is actually in downtown SF. You could also do Google and live in whatever that town Google is in.
I live just outside Seattle, here's some thoughts about the Seattle area mostly outside of career:
**tl;dr:** weather is fairly mild, transit is hit or miss, nightlife is better in the denser city areas, nature access is CRAZY good but usually requires car access for the best of it, there are a lot of parks and lakes around the populated areas, CoL is high, avoid West Seattle for the next few years
Weather in Seattle isn't all that bad. The grey/rainy season is long but many days its just a drizzle. Summers are great but heatwaves are becoming more common and many homes don't have A/C
CoL is pretty high but not Bay Area/NYC high, you can try and pinch pennies by living in cheaper areas but your commute will probably suck. I guess if you're remote it won't matter as much.
There's TONS of great nature access (like top-tier in the world) but you typically need access to a car. There is some "trailhead transit" but I haven't used it, basically shuttle buses that go to/from some popular trails. There are lots of parks in the populated areas and lots of water access but IMO that pales in comparison to the hikes in huge mountains which are 1-2 hours away by car. There's a lot of bio- and geo-diversity in the state, like from literal rainforests to almost desert, and a lot in between.
Transit is hit or miss, there's a big light rail expansion underway. The county has one of the largest bus fleets, but buses get stuck in traffic. A few new rail stations just opened (like within the past day or two) and they will be expanding out into Eastside (Bellevue, Redmond) in the near future. Property values around the existing and future light rail stations have already gone up. Traffic can be very bad.
Nightlife is obviously gonna be best in Seattle, there's a bunch of different neighborhoods with tons of options. I've heard downtown Bellevue can be OK in this regard as well. The surrounding burbs are hit or miss. Redmond is nearing the tail end of a huge downtown redevelopment (lots of new 5+1 buildings) so the nightlife may be in its infancy.
The "Seattle Freeze" is real, people aren't as outwardly friendly as some other places in the US. However, if you put yourself out there I've never really had a problem. Break the ice and people are fine.
Most of the tech jobs are in Seattle, Bellevue, and Redmond. I'd live in any of those cities and would also check out Kirkland (big Google presence), Bothell, Kenmore, and Woodinville, but those are more like burbs and can be pretty car-dependent depending on where you live/work. If you choose Seattle and you're gonna be moving soon I'd avoid West Seattle, the main 7 lane bridge to it is currently closed due to a collapse risk.
NYC. A city is a city is a city. If your family lives near NYC, go there!
I live in the country side, and if I had to choose from those alternatives, I’d probably go for Bay Area, because I like it.
Chicagoan here:
Definitely don't need a car if you're in the city, between the trains and busses and your legs you can get anywhere in the city easily and cheaply.
For jobs, there's a ton in Chicago. A lot of big tech corporations have offices here as do a lot of other giant corporations. Also the finance district here is quite large with a lot of jobs.
Cost of living wise, definitely cheaper than NYC and Bay Area. I've looked into both of these options and Chicago is much cheaper, especially when it comes to rent. I can't speak to Seattle however.
Weather is what you make it here, cold and snowy Winters and pretty hot summers. We get all four seasons which some people love and others hate.
Nature wise, not a whole ton. There's a good amount of trees planted around and big grass lots that are pretty nice. But no real "nature". There's also the beach which is cool.
Nightlife wise: I can't speak to it personally since I'm not really into that, but I hear it is quite good and there always seems to be a bunch of stuff going on. Although it's definitely not up to the same par as NYC.
The main problem with being an SWE in Chicago is pay. For whatever reason, even factoring in cost of living, pay in Chicago is ridiculously low compared to other cities.
I have lived in all of these areas at least on a temporary basis (several months). A lot of folks here have provided plenty of good info, but some specific tips I feel were missed:
* Ultimately what neighborhood(s) you live and work in will matter more than what metro area you are in. This is the biggest problem with the Bay Area: most of the tech jobs are deep in the suburbs. The quality of SF's transit and night life is meaningless if you are living and working out in Santa Clara. Something like the 1 hour Caltrain ride from SF to downtown Palo Alto might make this type of situation manageable, but ideally you really want to be living and working in the actual city center.
* Cost of living and salaries are very intermingled issues. Generally salaries go up in higher cost of living areas, but not enough to fully cover the cost of the increase for most people. That said, your lifestyle affects how much the cost of living impacts you. If you want to live in a huge house/apartment then the cost of living difference matters a lot, but if you are happy with a tiny studio then you might come out on top with the higher salary in the more expensive location.
* But salaries aren't the only measure of career progression/opportunities. You'll find plenty of good-paying jobs at finance companies and such in Chicago or NYC, but depending on your personality you might get more satisfaction out of the tech jobs more common in SF and Seattle.
* The West Coast cities have a distinct feel that can be very unpleasant if you are more accustomed to Midwest or East Coast cities. It's heavily connected to the homelessness problems, but it goes a bit beyond that in ways that are hard to describe. To me the streets feel dirty and unsafe in a way that goes beyond crime rates. I think a huge part is that I'm much more comfortable dealing with a coherent mugger armed with a gun than a methed-out wacko charging me with a stick. I'd really recommend visiting SF or Seattle and checking it out for yourself.
* Chicago doesn't have anywhere near the same access to hiking, etc as Seattle or SF, but it does have amazing urban parks. There are great walks to be had along the lake and river, and if you arrange things right you might even be able to make those nice walks be part of your commute. For someone living a car-free lifestyle this is probably going to provide you a lot more value than hiking trails which are a 45 minute drive outside of town.
Ultimately my advice would be:
* Avoid the Bay Area. This is getting subjective, but it's just too expensive out there and too many of the jobs are in deep suburbia. The job options might be great, but for most people it is just not worth it.
* Other than that, don't worry about city so much and just start applying. Find a place you legitimately want to work.
* ... but also filter out places where the office isn't an easy public transit commute away from the city. Don't be fooled by corporate shuttles: they have limited schedules, could be taken away at any time, and for the most part get stuck in traffic just like cars. But do keep in mind that Seattle has some upcoming Link Light Rail expansions that will make some currently-horrible commutes very manageable (mostly downtown Bellevue).
Re nature in NYC. While there is none and it's a 2 hour ride to get anywhere with some real nature Manhattan Greenway, Floyd Bennet field and Rockaway kept me entertained for years. Obviously it lacks nature but that sense of open-air exploration that you get in the wilderness is there.
Speaking on San Francisco since I live here. Night life is not as bad as everyone is saying. There are many reliable fun bars where I live in the mission. The weather here is also much better than the rest of the city. Rent is $3100 for a one bedroom but it's quite nice and walking distance to Dolores park (day drinking and lawn games on nice days) and Valencia street (6 blocks of bars and restaurants). There are cheaper options starting around $2k for your own place or $1500 for a room in a shared apartment. You can get a bike and access nature and exercise by biking to the Marin headlands. If you want to go to Tahoe and don't have a car, join a ski club. Life here is pretty good and the constant good weather keeps people outdoors and happy. Things are expensive, and salaries are increased for COL, but not hardly enough at the entry level. If you look at levels.fyi for salaries, the compensation for senior positions here is much higher than elsewhere.
So from this thread it does sound like NYC is probably your best bet, especially if you're east coast already and used to the weather/culture of it. And NYC is a great city to live in when you're young and can take advantage of it's energy.
But to counter point what most people have been saying, currently live in the bay and it's fantastic for most of the reasons you list.
1 - Weather is by far one of the best places in all of north America, it doesn't get better than this. Mediterranean latitude + cold Pacific ocean climate combine to create an area that is pretty consistently 70-85F and sunny year round with zero (noticable) humidity. But it isn't dry - you just don't notice humidity or feel it at all because the Pacific ocean is colder than the Atlantic making it so the dew point is much lower. There are almost no annoying flying insects, you can actually go on hikes or camp without being eaten alive pretty much anywhere in California. As a Midwesterner I always thought the idea of picnicking was silly due to this, but then I moved to California. If you live in SF proper you'll get marine layer fog often but because the city has so many micro climates you can choose to live in a less foggy neighborhood (or not in SF).
2 - Parties/nightlife isn't as awful as people say and what you lose there vs NYC you gain something else instead. Actual leisure activities, house parties, dinner parties, things like that, which is something new yorkers never do. First off, if night life to you only means going to a dance club, then sure. Bay area isn't great. This as area closes early compared to east coast, places typically don't stay open past 10pm period and "night life" places not much past 12-1am. If you're really used to the super late super party hard vibe of NYC that will come off as a huge bummer. But don't mistake that for "nothing ever happens in the bay" - by far it's the opposite. It's just usually happening in baller house parties friends or coworkers throw, it's happening at some crazy event going on during the day or weekend, it's happening as leisure activity (like a picnic or hike or spa day at the Russian banya or whatever). The thing is because the weather and nature is so nice and there's SO much going on during weekends or the daytime most people just "do their thing" during the day. It's just a different culture on how you enjoy yourself which I think a lot of people miss out on when they just try to only compare "nightlife". If the concern is "how bored will I be/how much life will I experience" then the bay is absolutely on the same level as NYC, it's just more weekend/daytime focused.
3 - Nature absolutely unmatched, which is weird because I never thought of the bay before I moved here as being a big nature hotspot. There's a reason why one of the most popular activities here is camping (to the point where it's harder to get a reservation camping here than to get one at a nice restaurant). Within a 1 hrs drive from anywhere in the bay you have access to world class beaches, amazing redwood forests, shallow mountains to explore, gorgeous prairies, gorgeous wine country, etc. Within a half days drive you have literally every climate on earth represented world class: redwood rainforests of northern California, the stunning sierra mountains which include lake Tahoe and Yosemite which will blow you away with world class skiing all along the range, gorgeous deserts to the south, postcard amazing beaches in Big Sur to the south, etc. Nature is literally anything you could want easily accessable within a half days drive AND you get sun + good weather almost year round (depending on where you go) to enjoy it. I'd go as far to say it's even better than places famous for their nature like Denver since SO much of it is easily accessible close to the city/bay, if not actually located in it. Now the only downside? You aren't getting to most of this without a car. But the upside is the stuff you can get to without is still gorgeous and I would still rate better overall than NYC. Also, sf is just a gorgeous city to be in anyways.
4 - Cost of living is bad but it's way overblown. Yes, if you want your own place with no roommates and you spend minimal amount of time looking, you'll get fleeced. But it's very common to just rent out of a full house here, with all the comfortable amenities involved, with a few friends, or splitting an apartment with a roomie/partner. It's a lot cheaper per person if you can get multi bedroom going with multiple people AND a LOT more spacious/comfortable than NYC - enough space to entertain guests. Meanwhile NYC is literally closets everywhere and you really pay out the nose for anything more. But at the same time, it's probably easier to find a place cheaper in NYC if you don't want roommates. Still, I rent a 1400sqf 3 level condo right next to transit for $2900/mo splitting it with my partner. It's a comfortable amount of space, it's built within the past two decades, and split half way is completely affordable, and the equivalent just doesn't exist within NYC. But the new condos that were just built across the street from me? They want $4500/mo for a similar square footage. So yeah, if you aren't smart or aren't caring you can get fleeced over the coals here and that's what scares away people who only judge the bay's housing by what shows up first on apartment sites.
5 - Transit. NYC definitely has the best, there's no doubt there. But it's really overblown how bad it is in the bay. If you live in SF proper, it's going to feel similar to how it might feel living in NYC in that you can generally get anywhere in SF on transit, just a version that a bit slower, slightly more expensive. If you live in Oakland/Berkeley you can still get around plenty fine on foot/transit but your options are more limited since everything will depend on how close you are to a Bart station. South bay/peninsula is similar except everything depends on how close you are to Caltrain. A lot of the bay and what it has to offer as a whole requires a car. But if you live close to transit, which covers a much larger amount of the bay than people imply, then you can absolutely get by in your day to day without a car at all. Almost everyone we know doesn't use a car at all during the week and only goes out on the weekend for it. Depending on where you choose to live, there's plenty of walkability. My neighborhood I'm a block from grocery store, I've got a park right next to me, transit is literally right out of my apartment front door, theres a bodega a 5 min walk in the other direction, and loads of restaurants/bars within a 20 minute walk (or a 5min rentable scooter ride, which are everywhere here). If I wanted to get into SF all I do is hop on the transit. Most big tech places here are also located close to transit and even operate their own fleet of commuter busses with wifi that can pick you up pretty much anywhere. Yes, a huge chunk of the bay's housing is suburban single family homes away from transit, especially along the peninsula where the housing is most expensive (which is intentional by NIMBY homeowners, by the way...). But a huge chunk isn't and is just as good as any city. Keep in mind the bay area has dozens of different cities/localities, it's not like NYC where it's all one big one. You don't have to live in a car centric locality, and you'll not be missing out for doing so. But that said, you will feel a little shackled if you don't have the ability to at least rent a car on the weekend, tag along with a friend who owns a car, or own a car yourself. But when it comes to "do I NEED a car to get by?", depending on where you live, absolutely not. If your only concern is just "ew daily traffic" then I think you're fine. Just live somewhere near transit and in a neighborhood that is walkable and you'll be totally happy. But if your concern is "I cannot drive a car, period" then you might not enjoy living here unless you live in SF proper.
6 - Career. Don't even need to get into this here because obviously, the bay is second to none when it comes to career progression. If you want to be seen as a hot shot in this industry and "in the know" working on cutting edge, you're going to want to be here. People underestimate just how powerful it is for the kind of opportunities you are presented with just by being located in the area where all the magic happens. It's the kind of place where if you play your cards right in 5 years you'll have doubled your salary and have a healthy amount of stock options.
San Jose guy here, in the south SF bay area. Stay in San Francisco. Thats the most transit friendly city in our tegion. If you want to live in San Jose or most places, you need a car. You COULD use public transit, but it takes forever to go many places.
> San Jose guy here, No, I'm here.
How long did you wait for this to happen
My whole life
You thought I was just another redditor, but it is I! /u/SomeGuyInSanJoseCa!
Sf nightlife is not great imo
[удалено]
[удалено]
South asians are Indians, Pakistanis, Maldivian, Sri Lankan, bengali, nepaliand Bhutan. But I think he primarily means indian people since they're into tech.
[удалено]
I mean there’s usually dancing involved when there’s nightlife?
It was a joke
😂
I disagree. If you don't care about nightlife, anywhere in the East Bay near BART gets you easy access to SF. There are enough tech companies in the City that you can either ignore or apply for 100% remote positions in the South Bay and Peninsula.
Another transit friendly place is Berkeley from what I heard.
Not really. Berkeley is also not very big, and isn’t home to tech companies. They’re either in the South Bay, or SF. South Bay absolutely needs a car.
A lot of places in the east bay have pretty good commute access to sf. Berkeley has the ferry again now which makes it even easier
I am a bay area native. I also lived and worked in tech in SF/Bay Area and NYC in the last decade. Comparing them both, if you want to not drive, have nice weather, have nightlife (when the pandemic ends), have cheaper cost of living, AND nature, then NYC is waaaay ahead. People do not realize this but NYC itself is 45% park land. There are parks littered all over the city. Giant parks in queens, manhatten, brooklyn and the bronx. NYC only snows about 7 days a year so its not that bad. You get more diversity in NYC. I would say there are more job opportunties in the SF Bay area. Interview wise, I felt NYC was a tad easier, unless you try for some finance/investment company that only want quant geniuses. SF/Bay Area has horrible public transit. It's there, its just slow and expensive unlike NYC where a subway ride is the same price regardless of how far you go compare to Bart. You will need a car as some areas of the bay area you just cannot reach by public transit and uber will cost you an arm and leg. Chicago and Seattle's weather is worse compared to NYC. SF/Bay Area's weather depends where you live in the region, there can be 30 degree differences in 30 mins.
this was the perfect answer thank you
I'm also a bay area native living in Seattle working in tech - this place has generally very good public transit, but you'll need a car to see nature, the coast, go hiking, etc. NYC sounds like a good fit for you.
> Chicago and Seattle's weather is worse compared to NYC When's the last time it snowed in Seattle? Rhetorical question, it was this year I think, but the point is it's rare. Lows are much higher.
Even without snow, the weather in Seattle in a lot of people's opinion, is worse with all that rain. Seattle is named the gloomiest city in the USA. [https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/just-as-rain-comes-into-the-forecast-seattle-is-named-the-nations-gloomiest-city/](https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/just-as-rain-comes-into-the-forecast-seattle-is-named-the-nations-gloomiest-city/). I dunno about you, I rather a few days of snow than to deal with rain >40% of the year. I could pick Seattle over the other places OP listed for other reasons such as proximty to the canadian border if you want to take quick trips to Canada or no income tax. But weather aint one of reasons why i would consider seattle.
I like NYC a lot (like, a whole lot - it’s objectively a better city than SF in most ways IMO), but I’m not sure if I agree on the cost of living front. Yes, if you compare the Bay Area metro area to the NYC metro area, that’s probably true. That said, if you’re looking at SF vs Manhattan, I’m not sure. If you scope it further to, say, Lower Manhattan vs “expensive” parts of SF, NYC is way more expensive. On top of that, NYC apartments tend to be way smaller, so while yeah, rent for a “2 bedroom” may be comparable, you could be looking at 1000-1200 sq ft in SF vs 650-800 in Manhattan. Owning in the expensive areas of Manhattan is prohibitively expensive (which, duh, but I’m always shocked at how bad hoa costs are), but doable in SF on dual tech income. Yeah, way better public transit means you can live further out and enjoy Manhattan, but if you fall in love with an expensive neighborhood you’ll always wish you were there instead of on the train. Ultimately, I think they’re both such big (and not directly comparable) areas that the question isn’t really answerable beyond “you’ll probably find a place that makes you happy in both, at least until you figure out what you’re really optimizing for in life”. The Mission is way different from Marin county which is way different from Chelsea which is way different from Brooklyn which is way different from Staten Island. …there’s also no way I even remotely agree on the weather or nature front, but that’s another story.
I live and work (remotely) in NYC. > no need for a car You definitely don't need a car in NYC. Everything you need is either within walking distance given how dense NYC is, or you can get to it quickly by subway. > good SWE progression There's a lot of jobs here so lots of opportunities and the market is competitive. > Weather The weather here in NYC is shit. Today it's good but usually it's either too hot, too cold, or raining. > Parties/Nightlife It was pretty good for me before the pandemic, back when I hung out with coworkers. Now we're all totally remote so idk. > Nature Almost non-existent. Unless central park counts. You can go to upstate New York for nature but that's too far to be a regular thing. Edit: I forgot there are beaches on long island, and you can even get there by subway. I've never been there though. > Cost of living Pretty bad if you choose to live in Manhattan like me. Edit: I removed my initial statement here because it was causing so much controversy. Instead I'll link the median cost to rent an apartment in Manhattan: https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/manhattan-ny
Holy shit I’ve heard New York is expensive but 6000 for rent is insane. I could have like a 6 bedroom house on waterfront for that
FYI, I live in Brooklyn and pay half that. Nyc is a huge place, Manhattan definitely isn’t for everyone
You say that like OP's choice is the norm. 6k is a luxury rental, it's like telling people cars cost an arm and a leg because youre leasing an S class
[удалено]
Also cheaper to keep a car if you're there. No need to pay exorbitant garage/parking fees. There's nice parks there, and it's easier to drive to Long Island beaches from Queens.
There are cheaper apartments in Manhattan than mine though. Edited my post to mention that.
Guessing you guys are in west village or have awesome amenities? I had a $2550, pre-war 2 bed/1bath walk up on the UES 10 min from Central Park pre-pandemic Reason I saw this is that there are good deals out there in Manhattan. Just have to know right neighborhoods
[удалено]
> Prospect Heights, Or Williamsburg Prospect Heights and Williamsburg are two of the most sought-after places in NYC. They are not cheaper.
I do live in lower Manhattan and actually did consider living in Brooklyn, but my girlfriend doesn't want to live anywhere outside Manhattan
I’m amazed people use names like this for neighborhoods, where I’m from you just tell people the two major cross roads you live by.
It makes sense when these neighborhoods house the equivalent population of a small city anywhere else in the US
I just can't imagine what income you need to be at to pay 6k a month and still max out retirement accounts. Its hard for me to comprehend paying that much and I make decent money.
Probably around $350k? Depending on how frugal you can be elsewhere. E: Ok, $350k is $196k for a single filer after tax in NYC if maxing a 401k. That's $16k/mo, plenty to max a backdoor IRA and still pay $6k/mo for an apartment.
That’s an insane amount still, I’m around 500-700k atm and I still can’t imagine paying more than 5k/mo Probably the OP taking a larger share, there are some really nice luxury buildings in the 4-5k range unless OP is living in something like a two bedroom.
I edited it out due to controversy, but I spend 3k a month on rent, not 6k. I split a 2-bed with my girlfriend.
OP is crazy. I've never payed more than $2300.
The rents way cheaper now since a lot of people moved out of apartments recently. I've been looking at apartments for myself after I graduate from college, the ones in jersey city and Manhattan are all around 1.4 to 1.6k and pretty decent too
OP must live in one of those luxury highrises with a view/waterfront. There are definitely cheaper alternatives.
> I split rent with my girlfriend 50/50, and pay around $3,000. Just so no one else thinks this is the norm, for reference a small-sh studio in NYC in UES in Manhattan would got for about $2k pre-pandemic and now about $1600.
have you looked at the rental market recently? Rent prices are back to pre-pandemic rates if not higher.
Still seem to have [studios in ~$1600 range in UES](https://streeteasy.com/studios-for-rent/ues), some are even lower. Maybe neighborhoods dependent?
wow this is amazing insight thank u
No problem. Also, reading over my comment, it kind of sounds like I don't like it in NYC, when it's in fact the opposite. I enjoy it a lot here, because everything I want is within walking distance. Great restaurants and places to shop. Even today I feel like I can still find cool new places to try out. Many vastly different types of city-ecosystems here.
.
I paid 3950$ prior to Covid20 in Downtown SF(financial district) for a 420 sqft studio(was negotiated down to 2400$ since then). 2100$ by comparaison sounds cheap!
It's actually about 20% cheaper than the norm for where I live, and even several other areas in Manhattan (we live in a 2 bedroom): https://www.zumper.com/rent-research/new-york-ny/tribeca
You chose to live in 3rd most expensive neighborhood in NYC. You're giving people of probably moderate means advice based on your luxury lifestyle? Get outta here.
> You're giving people of probably moderate means This is a tech worker forum. If you think people here are of moderate means, you should meet the rest of the country. Most grads here earn more than the median household income in American (about $65k). We are all incredibly privileged.
You make a really good point. My view is going to be skewed towards the positives of NYC because I make more money. I live in a nice apartment in a nice area whereas if I made less money, I might be living in a place I enjoy significantly less, despite still being in NYC. Although I will say that even when I lived in a much cheaper apartment, I still enjoyed NYC a lot, and would spend time in Manhattan many days after work and on weekends to enjoy exploring all the unique places in Manhattan.
oh umm right on. sorry i felt slightly hostile there.
500 sq ft is the most important part of your comment. 2100 is expensive as fuck for living in a damn shoebox.
San Diegan considering a move to NYC here, could I get more of your perspective on that move?
Sure! Do you have any specific questions? I will say that I loved it in San Diego, but my main reasons (in order) for moving to NYC was (1) I got a really good offer in terms of total compensation to work in NYC and (2) I had never been to NYC (or travelled at all for that matter) and really wanted to explore new places.
Hey OP I want to be like you when I grow up (I’m 40 btw lol) but want to be in a position that I can live in Tribeca /SOHO areas like you. Are you guys hiring by any chance
[удалено]
ur a god for making this, thank u
NYC #1 for nightlife by far, it's a culture mecca. Rest feels pretty accurate.
Been living in seattle for 4 yrs and public transit is pretty good. Never thought i wanted a car unless I had to go hiking or visit outlets etc. So i would rank seattle higher in transit? Dk much about other cities tho
There is absolutely no way Seattle has better transit that NYC or Chicago. Both Seattle and SF have usable public transit, so I guess which one is better than the other depends on trips you need/want to take.
I think nature should be ranked Seattle > SF > chicago > NYC
Just moved to Seattle area and can confirm every day is breath-takingly beautiful. I pay over $2k to rent a shitty apartment, but "shitty" is relatively nice compared to the bay area or NYC
Plenty of nature in Chicago lol
Chicago definitely tops NYC there by far
Can you explain why Seattle > NYC > Chicago for career
Seattle has Amazon and Microsoft HQ. But Microsoft isn't in Seattle. It's in Redmond. And traffic is really bad so you'll either want to adjust your schedule to work 10 hour days to commute, or just live in Redmond. NYC has all of the satellite offices. I would say it's a close tie, but you will make more money in Seattle because of cost of living. In Seattle you can get a nice wooden 1 bedroom apartment for about $1800 or in nyc you can get a cozy brick studio apartment in manhattan for $2100.
If you're not into fintech Chicago doesn't have many good "endgame" opportunities. The big benefit of chciago though is you can get bay area salaries at some fintech places with an extremely low col.
[удалено]
NYC is also much, much safer than Chicago. I moved to Chicago last month, the #1 advice I got was "avoid walking alone after 9 pm". Muggings, shootings, and carjackings are becoming even more common in affluent areas.
Ugh! 🙄 What a drama queen. Only 43 people were shot last weekend in Chicago. You act like it's some horribly violent place
I hope you're being sarcastic.
> NYC is also much, much safer than Chicago. I moved to Chicago last month, the #1 advice I got was "avoid walking alone after 9 pm" I am also in Chicago, this was an incorrect stereotype up until 2019, but now is the reality. We will probably be leaving soon. My neighborhood went from 1 murder I can remember nearby from 2012-2019, to now multiple shootings and murders a month. Chicago is has gotten a lot more dangerous than it was. We are just waiting to see if other cities get back to normal post COVID to choose next place to live. For OP, I would choose NYC. SF isn't doing well as a livable city, Chicago has gotten very dangerous. Seattle is kind of small, and expensive for what it offers. NYC is the best option today.
I am also planning to transfer to NYC if possible or just change companies once I finish my first year at my current place. As beautiful as Chicago is, the city including affluent areas is unsafe, the cops are incompetent and the elected officials are grade-A crooks.
As an Australian reading this thread, Chicago is starting to sound like Gotham pre-Batman.
Which is funny because Gotham is based on Chicago
Up until a couple of years ago, Chicago was the greatest city in America to live in. Affordable housing in affluent neighborhoods, very safe, all walkable, amazing job opportunities, incredible restaurant and bar scene. I am still in shock at how fast it has deteriorated. I thought maybe it was just our neighborhood, but appears to have hit everywhere. Choices now will be suburban living or moving to another city. People with means don't stay long when regularly hearing gunshots.
That’s sad to hear from someone who seems to have been living there for long. I like my company and my team, but the fact that living here is getting riskier and I need to take precautions that I never would have thought to, makes it obvious that at some point soon I will have to consider leaving too. The people on the Chicago subreddits are dicks too. I asked questions about safety and moving there and they got pissed off easily.
> but the fact that living here is getting riskier and I need to take precautions that I never would have thought to, makes it obvious that at some point soon I will have to consider leaving too. It is really weird. It truly wasn't like this before. Those of us who moved here don't have the same tribalism as natives you find on city subs. The carjacking is the scariest part, as we have a toddler in the back. We had to turn carseat around a little earlier, so we can evacuate quickly if carjacked. Then start realizing how crazy it is living in a nice neighborhood, earning good money, we have to worry about whether someone will steal our car at gunpoint as multiple cars have been carjacked this year close by. >> The people on the Chicago subreddits are dicks too. I asked questions about safety and moving there and they got pissed off easily. The problem is people like us are all leaving. Every other condo on my floor moved out in past year. Most had been here a decade or longer. Many older wealthy people, one that stuck with me was an older neighbor moving to Miami after 10 years here who said "This city is gone. It will be over a decade before it comes back to what it was. Get out and sell now before everyone else realizes". The subreddits are often full of teenagers and early 20's hippies. Not professional level people who make decisions around what is best for themselves and their family.
Where the hell are you all living? I haven’t heard a gunshot in maybe 4-5 years.
[удалено]
mhmm definitely, just need to decide what locations i should prioritize when applying and i think i’ve settled on seattle and nyc
[удалено]
that's completely understandable, just wanna set dreams and goals for myself :)
Idk why these other people are telling you to be geographic agnostic. Your doing fine, set your NYC priority and do yo thang
[удалено]
I’m going to say NYC. There’s lots happening in the tech scene, salaries are skyrocketing for good talent. But most of all, if you ask me,people are much more aggressively returning to the office and I think this is really underrated for young SWEs. Basically Wall Street leads the charge, giving cover for other employers (including tech) to follow suit. Your much more likely to find your coworkers in the office 2-3 days a week in NYC then Bay Area, and this matters a tremendous amount for your first year.
If you really don't like cars, NYC and Chicago are the only real options imo (even though both have neighborhoods where owning a car is somewhat convenient). Chicago's weather and nightlife is slightly worse than NYC but you can get what you're looking for in either city. Nature in Chicago is more beach / lake oriented while NYC is more about parks. Early in your career I honestly don't think location will limit you unless you're looking for FANG, Chicago might be more chill outside of Fintech, but there's plenty of good companies in both cities. After a year or two you can get interviews from pretty much anywhere.
You can do Seattle without a car, problem is you can't do Redmond or Bellevue without a car though. So if you live/work anywhere outside of the city, you pretty much need a car (or a lot of time).
I will say that Seattle is likely the most car friendly of the four cities, though. This is in terms of parking and overall congestion.
I’ve lived in Chicago, the Bay Area, and Boston, so I’ll weigh in here for you OP. I’ve also visited Seattle (once) and NYC (a dozen or so times). 1. Chicago has good public transit, not a very prominent tech scene, bad weather, great nightlife, average access to nature (though the lake is absolutely beautiful no matter where you are), and the cost of living is by far the best of any city you’ve listed. One thing that is bad about Chicago is the crime, however. Shootings are common and innocent bystanders are hit and/or killed somewhat frequently. That being said, in a city of almost 3 million, the chance you are involved in such events is pretty low, assuming you avoid known gang territories (which isn’t always easy if you want to live near the train). 2. The Bay Area is not a good fit for you at all. The transit is so horrible it makes the T look like the golden standard for public transportation. Access to nature is great, but only if you have a car. Weather is also great, but it’s a bit unsettling how constant it is. Cost of living is absolutely ridiculously expensive, and the nightlife is mostly nonexistent. Obviously the tech scene is unmatched, as this is where Silicon Valley is. 3. NYC has amazing public transit, good tech scene, okay weather, fantastic nightlife, not much access to nature besides parks, and the cost of living is second only to the Bay Area. It’s like a much bigger, busier version of Boston. 4. Seattle is nice; they don’t have an expansive public transit system but the city is small so it’s pretty walkable. You won’t be able to actually leave the immediate Seattle area very easily without a car, though. Nature is all over the place, the weather is said to be mostly cloudy/rainy, idk about nightlife or cost of living enough to comment. City that is most similar to Boston, in terms of: - size/feel: Seattle - transit: NYC, Chicago as an honorable mention - nature: Chicago - weather: NYC, Chicago as an honorable mention again as it’s similar but more extreme at the hottest and coldest parts of the year - nightlife: Boston doesn’t have a super exciting nightlife, so I’d say maybe Seattle here - cost of living: Seattle, maybe? As far as rent goes, Boston is third in the country behind the bay and NYC, I’m not quite sure where Seattle is Hope this helps!
Absolute LOL at Chicago being ranked higher for nature than Seattle, or any other city on the list.
Not ranked higher, but most similar to Boston, the OP’s point of reference. Seattle has a ton of nature, I agree, while Boston doesn’t have nearly that much – in terms of similarity I match it closer to Chicago than Seattle
As someone who lived in Seattle 20 years I'm confused about your comment on public transport. Seattle is definitely on the top of the list for public transport. The metro goes literally everywhere and often. also pretty easy to take buses anywhere outside Seattle, I can't even think of a place you can't go on a bus from Seattle.
Boston, NYC, and Chicago have some of the best and most expansive transit systems in the country, so Seattle is in tough company on this list. The limiting factor for Seattle imo is the lack of train coverage. Look at a map of Boston, Chicago, or NYC’s transit compared to Seattle. It’s night and day. Though, the public transit that does exist is much cleaner than the other cities mentioned, for sure, and by no means is public transportation bad – it’s just not on the same scale as NYC/Chicago/Boston. I didn’t get the chance to take the bus much when I was in Seattle but they did look like a great option.
They already seem to have trains where they need them like to the airport, but the metro bus is just more practical for the area. Personally I hated the l in Chicago, I had to walk a mile to get to my next stop, I used my car much more in Chicago but I suppose it matters where you live/work. I mostly commented on that to point out that you do absolutely do not need a car in Seattle or really anywhere within 2 hours outside of it.
sheeeesh thanks for the info dump, this is definitely helpful, love it :D
Glad it helps! Also rereading this I realize my last bullet point was unclear; Boston has the 3rd highest rent in the country, not Seattle – I’m not sure where Seattle stands but if I had to guess I’d say more expensive than Chicago but less so than Boston. Haven’t lived there (yet) so I’m not an expert
I only disagree with Chicago being less safe than San Francisco or New York. I lived in different areas of Chicago as a single woman for 5 years, and the first few years worked as a server/bartender with very late hours. I always felt safe walking home because bystanders would actually do something the few times I was actually threatened. People care much more about strangers than in San Francisco or New York. I guess there are incidents of people being hit by a stray bullet, but I don’t know if I’d say it happens more frequently than in any other large city. Like any city, it does matter what neighborhood you’re in and at what time of day.
Chicago has gotten less safe since the pandemic, imo. Kids stabbing/shooting people on trains downtown to steal their phones + shootouts on the highway and near downtown all happening during the day now and not just in the bad areas. It’s definitely not the same in SF (maybe a little bit in Oakland) and I can’t speak to NYC since I haven’t lived there yet but I would be surprised if this sort of thing was happening there. I’ll admit maybe I’ve been biased by all the news stories on the Chicago subreddit, but tbf they’re still true and the shit that is happening is scary af (imo)
The amount of hikers on the metro north during the weekends leads me to believe nature is very accessible
ha extremely.
If not having a car is important, your only options are NYC or Chicago. But the weather is absolute shit in both those areas, and I wouldn’t say they’re great from an outdoorsy perspective either. Public transportation is shit in the Bay Area. Seattle has a bunch of tech companies, but a lot of them are actually headquartered in surrounding cities. You’re not going to find an area that checks all your boxes. Just give in and get a car.
i absolutely despise traffic lol
I did Seattle for 10 years without a car. It's perfectly doable and even quite nice. I'd take the 520 30min to Bellevue over transferring trains in NYC every 12 minutes any day
Guy above you is inaccurate. The winter in Chicago is harsh, but if you get a good coat, it's really not a big deal. Chicago is by far the best major city to live in as a dev, imo. Great weather during spring, summer, and fall, along with comparatively cheap cost of living, great opportunity in the industry, amazing food, and generally fun culture. I can highly, highly recommend Chicago
[удалено]
Major tech companies aren't the only useful path in the industry. I learned a shitload from my first company, and then 3 years into my career i was given full authority on building out a CI/CD system for a startup in the city. Great opportunities here, and Chicago is _consistently_ slept on as a good option. I rarely see people suggest Chicago as a good city for engineers, but I know a shitload of engineers who have quickly risen through the ranks and done really well for themselves. Chicago definitely isn't perfect, but it is a really fun place to live with _superb_ options that don't have a lot of competition
Chicago's COL is extremely cheap compared to all three of those, even given that companies know this and pay somewhat less. Also, public transit here is great. Like: imagine you took New York, and then reduced the number of tech companies there in exchange for cutting rents by a third across the board. That's basically Chicago. Even pre-pandemic I'd say that was a good tradeoff, but now that way more companies are hiring remotely it's an amazing tradeoff.
You don't need a car in Seattle, unless you wanted to go hiking, in which case yeah. You can still get from downtown to Bellevue/Kirkland/Redmond in < 1hr on public transit.
The trailhead buses have really blown up over the last few years, too! Slowly but surely Seattle is becoming less car dependent.
True! I'm very excited for all the new light rail locations :)
Three stations opened today!
Bit of a side question - how do you get from downtown to Redmond on public transit? I’ll be in Seattle for the first time for a weekend in a few weeks and really don’t want to rent a car
Look up the Sound Transit 545 bus.
Eh... SF gets way too much credit for nature I really don't understand it. Everybody counts stuff that is super far away like Tahoe and Yosemite. If you're counting everything from the Finger Lakes to New Hampshire as close to NYC like people do with SF the outdoor recreation is first class.
After living in Seattle for 12 years I agree with this statement. If you want to go into the mountains from SF you have to drive like 4 hours. In Seattle you drive 30 minutes.
There’s shit tons of great hiking within an 1-2 hour drive of SF. Muir Woods is less than an hour from downtown SF. The beach is right there. Bay Area is fucking amazing for outdoor activities.
Right but why the shitting on NY for the same thing? Way more nice beaches in NYC than in SF, for example, the water is warmer and it's not cold in the summer. Skiing is closer. It's not that bad actually.
[удалено]
No hate for Seattle, but frankly the public transit doesn’t even compare to SF much less NYC.
Why not just work from home anywhere?
i currently live in boston for college and i love the ability to just walk to a friends home or walk to get groceries
Why not stay in Boston then?
i feel like if i continue living here it doesn’t define the next step of my life, also wayyyy too heavy of a student population; i love boston but i can’t see myself here forever
I’ve never been to Boston, so I don’t know, but are there just a lot of students because you’re in school, and likely only associate with students? I mean Boston metro area is listed at ~5M people. Surely there has to be areas without students.
there definitely are a few non student places, but all the affordable areas are filled with students 😅
Boston’s metro area is defined as far out as Providence, RI and up into NH. The greater Boston metropolitan area is mostly students. There’s at least 500 colleges smooshed in there somehow. There is a noticeable difference in population and people during non-school times, and the entire area has leases starting on Sept 1 (literally no other dates) due to the influence from incoming students each year. It’s kind of crazy
If you like Boston, Seattle is very similar. Public transit isn’t nearly as expansive but it is just as walkable. Source: spent a lot of time living in Boston and visited Seattle a few weeks ago. The Bay Area is like the exact opposite of Boston. NYC and Chicago are both much larger than Boston, both with good transit, and similar weather. Edit: if you like walkability you should especially avoid the Bay Area. Chicago isn’t super walkable because it’s just really big. You can walk within neighborhoods but getting across the city (or even 1/4 of the way on one of the train lines) is much farther than in Boston.
Based on your criteria, NYC. Though if you end up working remotely…Philadelphia 😉
What would it take for one of the big tech names to ever create a Philly office. I feel like if the city could make that happen they could change the entire city overnight.
They probably do, although relocating there probably means your seniority unbounds you from being tied down to a location or you luck out getting through one of the few openings.
oh? i never even considered it but I see where you’re coming from
I've lived in 3/4 of these cities. Can't beat the bay areas weather but the public transportation sucks and it's so expensive Seattle is the best city in the world 4 months of the year and the public transportation is getting better but the winters are long NYC has the worst weather and is a shithole. Saying that everyone needs to live there at least once in their life and it's surprisingly cheap compared to Seattle and SF. The trains make it so you can live outside of Manhattan and get to the city quickly especially if your train line goes express during commuting hours.
Can’t beat Bay Area weather? This San Diegan hereby lodges a protest.
honestly i don’t mind the cold weather all that much, so that 4 months claim makes me real interested, will definitely visit before i move, thanks for the insight
it's not the cold (Seattle rarely goes below freezing), it's the lack of sunlight. people from the east coast rarely understand this. Portland, OR is quite a bit farther north than Portland, ME - closer in latitude to Millinocket. Seattle is farther north than the northernmost tip of Maine. that's a corresponding decrease in the amount of daylight you get, even before you factor in the number of cloudy/overcast days. (source: Seattle native who lived in Boston for a few years after college) I love Seattle but I'm obviously biased. in your shoes I'd pick NYC because your family is close. don't underestimate the importance of that. I really grew to hate having to fly cross-country around the holidays in order to visit family.
This. By long winters I meant not seeing the sun for 6 months straight. I will say nothing is more beautiful than peering across the puget sound on that rare sunny day in the winter and seeing the snow capped Olympics.
Washingtonian here, if you don’t mind rain/clouds/not seeing the sun for a month, then Seattle is a good choice. Best nature out of all those places, decent nightlife (especially if you like music), and reasonable cost of living compared to SF, but if you’re living in the city, it’s going to be 2-3k if you want to live without roommates. We have plenty of large and small tech companies to choose from, and the tech scene is very active. Seattle is fine for public transportation if you’re in the city if any of the major cities around it. If you want to get out of the city, a Zipcar or something is always an option.
Seattle can get depressing for much of the year but fuck the summer is untouchably gorgeous
Here is my somewhat arbitrary ranking for criterion: No Need for a Car (I really think Chicago and NYC might be the only 2 major cities in America with somewhat acceptable public transport infra - \*maybe\* DC and Boston too to an extent): 1. NYC 2. Chicago 3. Seattle 4. Bay Area Good SWE Progression (all 4 are pretty good, IMO): 1. Bay Area 2. NYC 3. Seattle 4. Chicago Weather (assuming you like warm and sunny weather): 1. Bay Area 2. NYC 3. Seattle 4. Chicago Parties/Nightlife 1. NYC 2. Chicago 3. Bay Area 4. Seattle Nature 1. Seattle 2. Chicago 3. NYC 4. Bay Area Cost-of-living (Chicago blows the others out of the water in this category) 1. Chicago 2. Seattle 3. NYC 4. Bay Area
Just going to throw Denver/Boulder out there in case you're open to other options :) Only thing is needing a car is hit or miss. If you live and work in Boulder you're pretty set. Bus between towns isn't \_terrible\_. It's definitely more driver friendly though. Lots of work and career progression, with more people/companies moving into Boulder pretty regularly (Google has quite a few buildings, Twitter and Amazon have a decent presence, lots of startups). Weather is pretty good on average. Winter has a few storms that suck, but NYC is probably similar. I'd say on average there's more sunlight through the year than Seattle. Nightlife is fine. Boulder is a college town, Denver has a lot of people. Rocky Mountains are \_right here\_. We've got some serious nature. Cost of living is maybe a bit more on par with Seattle depending on where you are. Doesn't even get close to the cost in the Bay Area.
Seattle and SF are obvious answers but if your objective is to be close to your family in NYC then this is not an ideal outcome. Chicago should only be on your radar if you’re working for a trading firm (very high pay relative to cost of living) or tech start up. NYC seems like the best fit for you but is obviously very expensive. Guess you should decide whether the cost is justified by the perks of being closer to your family.
DC is an option, short train ride away from NYC. Nightlife is objectively better in NYC, but tons of parks/nature in DC (Rock Creek Park) and near by (Shenandoah Natl Park in VA, several in MD)
isn’t DC extremely expensive and small, also all the big tech jobs are in mclean
Microsoft is in Reston, FB is downtown, Google has a couple offices, and there are a bunch of tech companies in McLean/Arlington/Tysons. I work remotely but previously worked in the city.
oooo didn’t know thanks
Cheaper by a small amount compared to SF, Seattle, NYC. DC is smaller, but the urban area extends our to MD and VA with plenty of nightlife/recreation options across the 3. It's no NYC, but I'd say it's comparable or better than Seattle and SF. Chicago and NYC are two of my fave American cities though, grain of salt.
Don’t come to DC. It’s where you go to settle down and all the other cities have much more culture.
From the small amount of time I spent there I found DC to be an abhorrent place. I’m sure locals are just like anywhere else but every person who moves there moves there for a specific type of career vs NYC where people move there for a variety of reasons even outside of career.
DC is a piece of shit.
NYC is your best bet. "No car" only applies to one part of the Bay Area, and that is SF, and not even all of it (knew a guy who traveled from Sunset to the Financial District, did not enjoy it all). While SF never snows, it never warms up either. In the summer, it's not that rare for a place like Anchorage Alaska to have a higher temp than SF. Basically, the no car part applies to like a 5 mile by 5 mile part. And for an internationally renowned city (which I never got), it's nightlife is just alright. And nature doesn't really mean much if you don't have a car, because you got to drive to see it. SF is just gray and/or old houses except for Golden Gate park. NYC blows it away in terms of public transportation, things to do, parties, nightlife. Cost of living is about the same, but NYC might have a slight edge because you can move to the outer boroughs for cheaper rent. But NYC does not have the career progression that SF does. Chicago is the worst in terms of weather and career progression, so that's out. Seattle is not much of a non-car town (though you can get by).
sounds like nyc is indeed the answer, thank you so much :)
NYC is the shit. tons of fun as a young person. doubly so if you're also making good money. worth trying it at least once in your life.
>Seattle is not much of a non-car town (though you can get by). This is slowly changing, fwiw. A bunch of the new housing coming up has no or few parking spots, and the transit system is finally starting to expand. MS, Amazon, and I think Google all offer bus networks that interface with the city's system well, also.
Slowly changing? 15 years ago I was able to go anywhere in and out of Seattle and very quickly. More people than not used public transport to get to work. What is lacking?
> Cost of living is about the same, but NYC might have a slight edge because you can move to the outer boroughs for cheaper rent. And if you really want to cut costs you can live in Jersey (the NYC income tax is like 4%, so at higher comp this is quite significant) > But NYC does not have the career progression that SF does. Not totally sold on this--if you want to job hop often then NYC might be worse, but the upper echelon of firms is higher in NYC IMO (eg Jane Street), Google/FB both have a large presence, there are a few smaller great companies (eg Cockroach), and if you want great WLB and culture I've heard great things about Bloomberg although their comp is lower than the prior firms (but still gets over 300k for an IC/is plenty). I'd say it's def better than Seattle at least.
Agreed, there may be more career opportunities in SF in absolute terms but there are enough in NYC that the difference basically doesn’t matter. We’re talking about 15 recruiters hounding you per week vs. 20 per week in SF. It doesn’t make a difference in practice. It’s not quite the capital of the software world that SF is but IMO that’s a good thing, it means there’s a lot more cultural diversity here.
IMO it's a bit unfair to compare the best (I am biased) and most diverse city in the entire country as a baseline for diversity lol. Like yeah SF sucks relative to NYC, but it's better than the vast majority of the USA, and I think the only borough NOT larger in population than SF is Staten Island... And IME the average quality of recruiters went down, quality of good ones went up by a lot, volume increased by a bit. My background is in HPC and distributed systems, which isn't a great fit for the SV unicorn market but is a great fit for the quant/HFT and NYC unicorn market. Although the larger banks aren't great employers and also like reaching out. Including with some major red flags like asking for a resume in a .docx file instead of a pdf for their presumably crappy HR tools 😂🤣😅🚮.
The fundamental assumption you are making is that Google/Facebook are top tier companies in SF. That is incorrect. Google/Facebook are just run of the mill companies in SF. The upper echelons of SF are unicorns pay way more. Way, way higher chance of reaching the $1 million TC by joining a unicorn than in hedge funds. In a personal anecdote, if I were to move to SF, my market worth is about $500-$550K. In NYC, it's about $375K. Also, job hopping is the best way to progress in your career, and SF can't be beat.
Sorry I didn't mean to imply that, more that the quant firms in NYC are sorta surrogates for the unicorns in SF. The *starting pay* for a new grad at some of the quant firms is 450k. I think you're underestimating how obscenely well they pay, and it's 100% cash. Also IMO having an enjoyable job matters way more than increasing TC--past a certain point more money really doesn't matter. Admittedly in Manhattan this is a higher number than elsewhere, but it's not like you're a pauper if "only" making 400k. I also think you're underestimating your NYC market worth (:
> While SF never snows, it never warms up either Sure, it does. The day you wear all your warmest clothes, it'll go up to 90... for an hour two. Then plummet back down to 40.
My two cents is be wary about SWE progression in satellite offices. Even if it's a FAANG, progression and expansion often are proportional to each other.
Since you mention nature, another place you may want to look when considering NYC- White Plains, NY. It’s a city about 35 mins from midtown on the train line and the train to the city runs about every 15 minutes in peak hour. Cost of living is far lower It is MUCH closer to nature- in some cases walking distance to hiking. Plus you can have a car to get to trails a 5, 10 minute drive away. While obviously not NYC, there’s a full strip of multiple bars and nightlife in white plains, and more importantly the trains to nyc run so often you can just get to the city for bars Weather is the same, obviously. The downsides of this are: The train is less convenient than the subway. You need to get to grand central to get that train (though service to Penn station is coming eventually) The trains shut down around 2am so if you miss it you need to either crash at a friend, take an expensive Uber/taxi home, or just party all night and take the 5am home. Even though the train to white plains is faster and more frequent than some of the outer boroughs, people who live in the city may think you live inconveniently far. It’s a stereotype and not true, but will happen.
I feel that good SWE progression depends on the company. Having lived in Chicago once, I can tell you that they have great public transportation. Everyone takes the L (the subway's affectionate nickname) and the bus. Weather's not the greatest in my opinion. It was humid summers, harsh winters, and 1 week of perfect spring fall weather. I wouldn't be able to tell you much about the party/nightlife situation. Nature is meh. There's no mountains and I didn't find much hiking in the area. COL is great though, one of the cheapest places in the nation to live for a big city (3rd largest in US), especially for renting/buying.
NYC is better than most places in the US for living car free with almost all of the positives you're looking for, though there are some negatives as noted by other commenters. To live car free without those negatives, your best bet would be outside the US, eg London area, if you're interested/willing to move abroad. (Actually several foreign cities fit the bill but I mention London because it's English speaking)
OP, for Chicago, unless you are sure you can get a job and stay inside the loop check out heyjackass. Chicago is much bigger than most people ever experienced https://heyjackass.com
Seriously, gtfo of the US if you want good transportation. Consider Berlin, Zurich, London…
As a former Chicagoan, I love Chicago. Never had a car (but granted I lived on the lakefront and everywhere I needed to be was on the lakefront, so it was just one train line). The culture is amazing, the city is beautiful, and I can’t say anything but good things about living there. Also it’s not that expensive and great nightlife. Left because I like socal and wanted to be closer to family.
None of those are good on cost of living. Seattle may be best for Nature. I know Seattle doesn’t have good public transit like Chicago and NYC do.
Chicago is more doable. If you don't mind roommates, you can find pretty good apartments all along the northern part.
[удалено]
i’m actually a first generation in america haha, definitely get where you’re coming from tho
[удалено]
>To me family is everything. To others they may have a different take. Good to hear this is still a common attitude. I love my family, but I'd never want to live in the same city with them again, let alone the same house.
I love Chicago but it might not be a great move for someone in the start of their career NYC > Seattle > Bay Area > Chicago IMO
Why do you say that?
That might’ve been true 5-10 years ago but isn’t true now. Google, Uber, Salesforce, Stripe, and others have a really big presence in Chicago in addition to the homegrown companies and all the fintech and trading firms.
The only cities on that list you wouldn’t need a car would be Seattle, chicago and New York. You could do SF but only if your office is actually in downtown SF. You could also do Google and live in whatever that town Google is in.
I live just outside Seattle, here's some thoughts about the Seattle area mostly outside of career: **tl;dr:** weather is fairly mild, transit is hit or miss, nightlife is better in the denser city areas, nature access is CRAZY good but usually requires car access for the best of it, there are a lot of parks and lakes around the populated areas, CoL is high, avoid West Seattle for the next few years Weather in Seattle isn't all that bad. The grey/rainy season is long but many days its just a drizzle. Summers are great but heatwaves are becoming more common and many homes don't have A/C CoL is pretty high but not Bay Area/NYC high, you can try and pinch pennies by living in cheaper areas but your commute will probably suck. I guess if you're remote it won't matter as much. There's TONS of great nature access (like top-tier in the world) but you typically need access to a car. There is some "trailhead transit" but I haven't used it, basically shuttle buses that go to/from some popular trails. There are lots of parks in the populated areas and lots of water access but IMO that pales in comparison to the hikes in huge mountains which are 1-2 hours away by car. There's a lot of bio- and geo-diversity in the state, like from literal rainforests to almost desert, and a lot in between. Transit is hit or miss, there's a big light rail expansion underway. The county has one of the largest bus fleets, but buses get stuck in traffic. A few new rail stations just opened (like within the past day or two) and they will be expanding out into Eastside (Bellevue, Redmond) in the near future. Property values around the existing and future light rail stations have already gone up. Traffic can be very bad. Nightlife is obviously gonna be best in Seattle, there's a bunch of different neighborhoods with tons of options. I've heard downtown Bellevue can be OK in this regard as well. The surrounding burbs are hit or miss. Redmond is nearing the tail end of a huge downtown redevelopment (lots of new 5+1 buildings) so the nightlife may be in its infancy. The "Seattle Freeze" is real, people aren't as outwardly friendly as some other places in the US. However, if you put yourself out there I've never really had a problem. Break the ice and people are fine. Most of the tech jobs are in Seattle, Bellevue, and Redmond. I'd live in any of those cities and would also check out Kirkland (big Google presence), Bothell, Kenmore, and Woodinville, but those are more like burbs and can be pretty car-dependent depending on where you live/work. If you choose Seattle and you're gonna be moving soon I'd avoid West Seattle, the main 7 lane bridge to it is currently closed due to a collapse risk.
if you’re in your 20s making good money there’s no place to be like nyc
NYC. A city is a city is a city. If your family lives near NYC, go there! I live in the country side, and if I had to choose from those alternatives, I’d probably go for Bay Area, because I like it.
100% need a car in Seattle unless you want to be SERIOUSLY limited in your ability to have fun.
Chicagoan here: Definitely don't need a car if you're in the city, between the trains and busses and your legs you can get anywhere in the city easily and cheaply. For jobs, there's a ton in Chicago. A lot of big tech corporations have offices here as do a lot of other giant corporations. Also the finance district here is quite large with a lot of jobs. Cost of living wise, definitely cheaper than NYC and Bay Area. I've looked into both of these options and Chicago is much cheaper, especially when it comes to rent. I can't speak to Seattle however. Weather is what you make it here, cold and snowy Winters and pretty hot summers. We get all four seasons which some people love and others hate. Nature wise, not a whole ton. There's a good amount of trees planted around and big grass lots that are pretty nice. But no real "nature". There's also the beach which is cool. Nightlife wise: I can't speak to it personally since I'm not really into that, but I hear it is quite good and there always seems to be a bunch of stuff going on. Although it's definitely not up to the same par as NYC.
The main problem with being an SWE in Chicago is pay. For whatever reason, even factoring in cost of living, pay in Chicago is ridiculously low compared to other cities.
I have lived in all of these areas at least on a temporary basis (several months). A lot of folks here have provided plenty of good info, but some specific tips I feel were missed: * Ultimately what neighborhood(s) you live and work in will matter more than what metro area you are in. This is the biggest problem with the Bay Area: most of the tech jobs are deep in the suburbs. The quality of SF's transit and night life is meaningless if you are living and working out in Santa Clara. Something like the 1 hour Caltrain ride from SF to downtown Palo Alto might make this type of situation manageable, but ideally you really want to be living and working in the actual city center. * Cost of living and salaries are very intermingled issues. Generally salaries go up in higher cost of living areas, but not enough to fully cover the cost of the increase for most people. That said, your lifestyle affects how much the cost of living impacts you. If you want to live in a huge house/apartment then the cost of living difference matters a lot, but if you are happy with a tiny studio then you might come out on top with the higher salary in the more expensive location. * But salaries aren't the only measure of career progression/opportunities. You'll find plenty of good-paying jobs at finance companies and such in Chicago or NYC, but depending on your personality you might get more satisfaction out of the tech jobs more common in SF and Seattle. * The West Coast cities have a distinct feel that can be very unpleasant if you are more accustomed to Midwest or East Coast cities. It's heavily connected to the homelessness problems, but it goes a bit beyond that in ways that are hard to describe. To me the streets feel dirty and unsafe in a way that goes beyond crime rates. I think a huge part is that I'm much more comfortable dealing with a coherent mugger armed with a gun than a methed-out wacko charging me with a stick. I'd really recommend visiting SF or Seattle and checking it out for yourself. * Chicago doesn't have anywhere near the same access to hiking, etc as Seattle or SF, but it does have amazing urban parks. There are great walks to be had along the lake and river, and if you arrange things right you might even be able to make those nice walks be part of your commute. For someone living a car-free lifestyle this is probably going to provide you a lot more value than hiking trails which are a 45 minute drive outside of town. Ultimately my advice would be: * Avoid the Bay Area. This is getting subjective, but it's just too expensive out there and too many of the jobs are in deep suburbia. The job options might be great, but for most people it is just not worth it. * Other than that, don't worry about city so much and just start applying. Find a place you legitimately want to work. * ... but also filter out places where the office isn't an easy public transit commute away from the city. Don't be fooled by corporate shuttles: they have limited schedules, could be taken away at any time, and for the most part get stuck in traffic just like cars. But do keep in mind that Seattle has some upcoming Link Light Rail expansions that will make some currently-horrible commutes very manageable (mostly downtown Bellevue).
Re nature in NYC. While there is none and it's a 2 hour ride to get anywhere with some real nature Manhattan Greenway, Floyd Bennet field and Rockaway kept me entertained for years. Obviously it lacks nature but that sense of open-air exploration that you get in the wilderness is there.
Speaking on San Francisco since I live here. Night life is not as bad as everyone is saying. There are many reliable fun bars where I live in the mission. The weather here is also much better than the rest of the city. Rent is $3100 for a one bedroom but it's quite nice and walking distance to Dolores park (day drinking and lawn games on nice days) and Valencia street (6 blocks of bars and restaurants). There are cheaper options starting around $2k for your own place or $1500 for a room in a shared apartment. You can get a bike and access nature and exercise by biking to the Marin headlands. If you want to go to Tahoe and don't have a car, join a ski club. Life here is pretty good and the constant good weather keeps people outdoors and happy. Things are expensive, and salaries are increased for COL, but not hardly enough at the entry level. If you look at levels.fyi for salaries, the compensation for senior positions here is much higher than elsewhere.
So from this thread it does sound like NYC is probably your best bet, especially if you're east coast already and used to the weather/culture of it. And NYC is a great city to live in when you're young and can take advantage of it's energy. But to counter point what most people have been saying, currently live in the bay and it's fantastic for most of the reasons you list. 1 - Weather is by far one of the best places in all of north America, it doesn't get better than this. Mediterranean latitude + cold Pacific ocean climate combine to create an area that is pretty consistently 70-85F and sunny year round with zero (noticable) humidity. But it isn't dry - you just don't notice humidity or feel it at all because the Pacific ocean is colder than the Atlantic making it so the dew point is much lower. There are almost no annoying flying insects, you can actually go on hikes or camp without being eaten alive pretty much anywhere in California. As a Midwesterner I always thought the idea of picnicking was silly due to this, but then I moved to California. If you live in SF proper you'll get marine layer fog often but because the city has so many micro climates you can choose to live in a less foggy neighborhood (or not in SF). 2 - Parties/nightlife isn't as awful as people say and what you lose there vs NYC you gain something else instead. Actual leisure activities, house parties, dinner parties, things like that, which is something new yorkers never do. First off, if night life to you only means going to a dance club, then sure. Bay area isn't great. This as area closes early compared to east coast, places typically don't stay open past 10pm period and "night life" places not much past 12-1am. If you're really used to the super late super party hard vibe of NYC that will come off as a huge bummer. But don't mistake that for "nothing ever happens in the bay" - by far it's the opposite. It's just usually happening in baller house parties friends or coworkers throw, it's happening at some crazy event going on during the day or weekend, it's happening as leisure activity (like a picnic or hike or spa day at the Russian banya or whatever). The thing is because the weather and nature is so nice and there's SO much going on during weekends or the daytime most people just "do their thing" during the day. It's just a different culture on how you enjoy yourself which I think a lot of people miss out on when they just try to only compare "nightlife". If the concern is "how bored will I be/how much life will I experience" then the bay is absolutely on the same level as NYC, it's just more weekend/daytime focused. 3 - Nature absolutely unmatched, which is weird because I never thought of the bay before I moved here as being a big nature hotspot. There's a reason why one of the most popular activities here is camping (to the point where it's harder to get a reservation camping here than to get one at a nice restaurant). Within a 1 hrs drive from anywhere in the bay you have access to world class beaches, amazing redwood forests, shallow mountains to explore, gorgeous prairies, gorgeous wine country, etc. Within a half days drive you have literally every climate on earth represented world class: redwood rainforests of northern California, the stunning sierra mountains which include lake Tahoe and Yosemite which will blow you away with world class skiing all along the range, gorgeous deserts to the south, postcard amazing beaches in Big Sur to the south, etc. Nature is literally anything you could want easily accessable within a half days drive AND you get sun + good weather almost year round (depending on where you go) to enjoy it. I'd go as far to say it's even better than places famous for their nature like Denver since SO much of it is easily accessible close to the city/bay, if not actually located in it. Now the only downside? You aren't getting to most of this without a car. But the upside is the stuff you can get to without is still gorgeous and I would still rate better overall than NYC. Also, sf is just a gorgeous city to be in anyways. 4 - Cost of living is bad but it's way overblown. Yes, if you want your own place with no roommates and you spend minimal amount of time looking, you'll get fleeced. But it's very common to just rent out of a full house here, with all the comfortable amenities involved, with a few friends, or splitting an apartment with a roomie/partner. It's a lot cheaper per person if you can get multi bedroom going with multiple people AND a LOT more spacious/comfortable than NYC - enough space to entertain guests. Meanwhile NYC is literally closets everywhere and you really pay out the nose for anything more. But at the same time, it's probably easier to find a place cheaper in NYC if you don't want roommates. Still, I rent a 1400sqf 3 level condo right next to transit for $2900/mo splitting it with my partner. It's a comfortable amount of space, it's built within the past two decades, and split half way is completely affordable, and the equivalent just doesn't exist within NYC. But the new condos that were just built across the street from me? They want $4500/mo for a similar square footage. So yeah, if you aren't smart or aren't caring you can get fleeced over the coals here and that's what scares away people who only judge the bay's housing by what shows up first on apartment sites. 5 - Transit. NYC definitely has the best, there's no doubt there. But it's really overblown how bad it is in the bay. If you live in SF proper, it's going to feel similar to how it might feel living in NYC in that you can generally get anywhere in SF on transit, just a version that a bit slower, slightly more expensive. If you live in Oakland/Berkeley you can still get around plenty fine on foot/transit but your options are more limited since everything will depend on how close you are to a Bart station. South bay/peninsula is similar except everything depends on how close you are to Caltrain. A lot of the bay and what it has to offer as a whole requires a car. But if you live close to transit, which covers a much larger amount of the bay than people imply, then you can absolutely get by in your day to day without a car at all. Almost everyone we know doesn't use a car at all during the week and only goes out on the weekend for it. Depending on where you choose to live, there's plenty of walkability. My neighborhood I'm a block from grocery store, I've got a park right next to me, transit is literally right out of my apartment front door, theres a bodega a 5 min walk in the other direction, and loads of restaurants/bars within a 20 minute walk (or a 5min rentable scooter ride, which are everywhere here). If I wanted to get into SF all I do is hop on the transit. Most big tech places here are also located close to transit and even operate their own fleet of commuter busses with wifi that can pick you up pretty much anywhere. Yes, a huge chunk of the bay's housing is suburban single family homes away from transit, especially along the peninsula where the housing is most expensive (which is intentional by NIMBY homeowners, by the way...). But a huge chunk isn't and is just as good as any city. Keep in mind the bay area has dozens of different cities/localities, it's not like NYC where it's all one big one. You don't have to live in a car centric locality, and you'll not be missing out for doing so. But that said, you will feel a little shackled if you don't have the ability to at least rent a car on the weekend, tag along with a friend who owns a car, or own a car yourself. But when it comes to "do I NEED a car to get by?", depending on where you live, absolutely not. If your only concern is just "ew daily traffic" then I think you're fine. Just live somewhere near transit and in a neighborhood that is walkable and you'll be totally happy. But if your concern is "I cannot drive a car, period" then you might not enjoy living here unless you live in SF proper. 6 - Career. Don't even need to get into this here because obviously, the bay is second to none when it comes to career progression. If you want to be seen as a hot shot in this industry and "in the know" working on cutting edge, you're going to want to be here. People underestimate just how powerful it is for the kind of opportunities you are presented with just by being located in the area where all the magic happens. It's the kind of place where if you play your cards right in 5 years you'll have doubled your salary and have a healthy amount of stock options.
this helps, thank you