We're Number 2

Shaw, the neighborhood I kinda sorta live in (it's not clear to me which neighborhood my house is technically in, but I identify as Shaw rather than Columbia Heights since I never go to any CH places) is the second-bloggiest neighborhood in America behind only the insidious Clinton HIll in Brooklyn.

More to the point, as select friends are aware I'm constantly claiming that I'm going to relocate to Portland, Oregon. I barely know anything about Portland, but everything I hear sounds good. The list has someplace called "The Pearl District" in Portland as the sixth bloggiest neighborhood in America. So now it's official, I'm not just moving to Portland, I'm moving to the Pearl District in Portland. Although that's a sucky name and Northwest Triangle sounds a lot better.

Comments

Oh the hell you are!

The Pearl is... pretty I guess, and has some nice restaurants. But it has none of what make Portland portlandy. It's mostly full of... people that move here from elsewhere and want to bring their high-priced condos with them.

Posted by ryan | April 23, 2007 6:58 PM

Everyone is perpetually about to move to Portland. No one ever does.

It ranks only slightly behind "the check is in the mail" and "I won't cum in your mouth" as the most popular falsehood on Earth.

In reality, Portland's last vacancy was occupied about 7 years ago, and armed guards patrol the borders precisely to guard against folks actually trying to make the falsehood come true.

Posted by Petey | April 23, 2007 6:59 PM

And I say that being someone who... moved here from LA and lived off Northwest 23rd, previously the most expensive urban-y neighborhood, recently supplanted by the Pearl.

Posted by ryan | April 23, 2007 7:02 PM

I've been to Portland, and man, is it hicksville for a city of 1 million or so people. Plus, everyone seems shockingly not-good-looking. The nature-type scenery is beautiful, and I guess there's outdoorsy stuff to do, but I'm not really an outdoorsy guy.

Posted by too many steves | April 23, 2007 7:03 PM

"being someone who... moved here from LA"

See what I'm talking about?

Nothing but a tissue of lies wrapped in more tissues inside of Christmas wrapping.

Posted by Petey | April 23, 2007 7:05 PM

It's mostly full of... people that move here from elsewhere and want to bring their high-priced condos with them.

I have no high-priced condo, I just wanted to bring my blog! Where should I live.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | April 23, 2007 7:07 PM

Funnily enough, 6 of my good friends packed up and moved to Portland out of the blue 4 years ago. 3 are still there.

Move to Chicago. I would say you should move to Lakeview, so you can avoid living in a hip neighborhood. Lakeview is the opposite of a hip neighborhood; touristy and full of sports bars. Plus there's convenient access to the Red line. And douche bags. But the rent is reasonable and you can always get laid, on Clark (if straight) or in Boystown (if gay).

Posted by Freddie | April 23, 2007 7:17 PM

"I just wanted to bring my blog! Where should I live."

New York is nice. Folks tend to live in NYC unless they have some familial or experiential reason not to.

Getting past that, San Francisco is semi-nice. Portland and Seattle are a bit of a step down.

Of course, coming from the District, even Muncie, Indiana would be a step up.

If your blog is truly mobile, and you can thus consider living abroad, I'd suggest Chile. All of your friends will come visit in November. Otherwise, Europe's got lots of places to live. But Chile has similar time zones to here, which would be an advantage.

And it's worth noting that David Byrne once considered the topic. Home of Elvis and the ancient Greeks, y'know.

Posted by Petey | April 23, 2007 7:17 PM

Ryan your ellipses... confuse me.

Posted by Freddie | April 23, 2007 7:17 PM

Europe's got lots of places to live

Vienna!

Posted by Freddie | April 23, 2007 7:18 PM

Dude, what's wrong with DC? Why you leaving us? If anything, you should change neighborhoods. I love it over here in the Eastern Market/Lincoln Park area. Lots of pretty ladies lying out in the park, a wonderful look-but-never-buy outdoor market, and a freaking Dunkin' Donuts. You just have to know what bars to go to avoid Hill staffers.

Posted by Cain | April 23, 2007 7:18 PM

probably plenty of places in Portland you could move to, but I doubt the Pearl is the place for a first time homebuyer. Mostly I think of the Pearl for the restaurants, antique stores, and galleries (not just art galleries). Also, right next to it there's a neo-Romanesque Catholic cathedral with excellent music programs, should your tastes be moving in that direction. The largest Powell's bookstore is on the fringes of the Pearl.

What I actually really like about Portland are (a) the very walkable downtown (on the other side of Burnside -- yes, that Burnside) from the Pearl district and (b) the rather large number of independently owned interesting stores one wanders across -- most recently we found a three story store specializing in architectural and decorative elements for people rebuilding 1880-1930 vintage houses. Sort like Restoration Hardware with more authenticity and class.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | April 23, 2007 7:21 PM

You should move to London. But you're not going to do that, so you should live in the South for at least a couple of years. You can't really write about America without spending some time down there, right? Atlanta is supposed to be tolerable, and that triangley thing in NC is fine, but maybe too liberal for your purposes.

Posted by ogged | April 23, 2007 7:39 PM

"Atlanta is supposed to be tolerable, and that triangley thing in NC is fine, but maybe too liberal for your purposes."

How 'bout Provo, Utah or Tulsa, Oklahoma? They're not as liberal as that triangley thing in NC...

Posted by Petey | April 23, 2007 7:41 PM

I live in Tacoma, WA, and spend quite a bit of time in Portland (have relatives and friends there). It's a lovely city, very artsy, has the largest independent bookstore anywhere (Powell's), a wonderful mass transit system, great parks, and a beautiful, walkable downtown. Actually, the NW is blessed with wonderful cities (Vancouver BC, along with Portland and Seattle, and even historic backwater Tacoma has become very pleasant) as well as incredible scenery. Good thing it rains all the time, or we'd be totally overrun....

Posted by beckya57 | April 23, 2007 7:43 PM

The pearl sucks. Move there if and only if you like dog shampoo parlors on every block.

Posted by stephen judkins | April 23, 2007 7:44 PM

You should look at moving to the east side of the river. The west side (Downtown, Pearl District) is expensive and you don't need to live there, just hop across the river for shows, etc. The best thing about Portland is that there are tons of little neighborhoods that all have cool bars, and coffee shops, and often a hip, female-friendly strip-club in there as well. I would look at NE Alberta, SE Hawthorne, SE Belmont, SE Clinton, SE around 28th and Stark. Lot's of great places. The Pearl District is an older, richer scene.

That said, NOBODY else is alowed to move here, only you Matt.

Posted by Withnail | April 23, 2007 7:53 PM

Having lived two years in Eugene, Portland is great if you like rain every day from November thru February.

Posted by SLC | April 23, 2007 7:55 PM

It takes quite unusual observational power to distinguish between the hipster hang outs, etc in Shaw and Colombia Heights and form clear preferences between the two.
Consider delaying foreign policy book for an urban living guide.

Posted by ChrisB | April 23, 2007 7:59 PM

As a longtime San Franciscan, occasional resident of Chicago and LA and sometimes visitor to Portland........Portland feels surprisingly kind of small town to me (reflecting too many steve's comment). That's not a good thing. I haven't that impressed with Portland - though Portland is much cheaper than the other major West Coast cities. Though maybe Matt's big book advance may rid him of the need to budget carefully.

No, I would say either LA or Berlin. Vienna?!? Huh? No way unless you're into Baroque architecture or something. What's so good about Vienna?

Lakeview's ok - I lived there too.

Posted by burritoboy | April 23, 2007 8:07 PM

As a (relative) newcomer to Seattle, I can say that Portland is the place to be if you really want to experience the NW. A very nice small city.

But several people have said it before: Chicago is the place to be. Like NYC only livable and affordable.

Posted by pdp | April 23, 2007 8:14 PM

What's so good about Vienna?

As you indicated, first, the architecture is amazing. Some of the best coffee in the world, and the best coffee shops in the world (of course, that's a pretty uneducated statement, but whatevs). Great public transport, great walkability (for a sprawling city), tons of culture... it's the greatest. Nice cathedral too.

Posted by Freddie | April 23, 2007 8:18 PM

I'm not a liar, petey: I moved here from San Francisco (3+ yrs ago), and Portland has most of the good things of SF and few of the bad things.

We do get fewer sunny days in the winter/spring, but lots of water makes Portland GREEN. I've never seen any big city with more big trees - everywhere.

And fab food! The people are NOT ugly, but dress is very informal. Jeans will get you into almost everywhere.

You'd be welcome in Portland, as long as you work to 'keep Portland weird'.

Here's some great pics of the city:

After viewing pics, click on 'visitors' to see things to do.

Where to live: so many choices, lots of neighborhoods with extra mustard (character). Pearl is not the right choice for a young single guy (and it's expensive).

Posted by JimPortlandOR | April 23, 2007 8:19 PM

Well, if you can look past the overworn stinky hippie cliche, SF does have a number of advantages. Stellar live music scene. Great restaurants. Our Chinese food is better than NYC's, period. They have extensive public wireless high-speed Internet coverage. Earthlink and Google just inked a deal with city hall for free city-wide wifi. Your rep as powerhouse lefty blogger will have a enormous currency in bluer-than-blue SF. Plus, the ratio of single straight men to single straight women is absolutely unbelievable. Maybe even some speaking gigs in Silicon Valley. Cha-ching.

Posted by sangfroid826 | April 23, 2007 8:19 PM

Okay, all of those people who said Portland is hicksville are just WRONG. Matt, if you're looking to leave the craziness of New York for the west coast, I'm telling you that Portland is the place. (Relatively) low cost of living, great politics & arts scene, lots and lots of great cheap (and expensive, if you like) food, nature, beer, coffee, way better public transit than Seattle and many other "big" cities, etc. I've lived in Chicago - Chicago is great, and if I weren't living here, I"d probably be there. But I've been here for 5 years & still haven't run out of things to do. Oh...and you can afford a nice house for under $250k.

Posted by sarah | April 23, 2007 8:19 PM

I moved to Portland from Nebraska without ever visiting the place, having a job lined up, or even knowing anyone. And I often running into folks like me.

All cities have their issues and neighborhood loyalties. The Pearl District was redeveloped quickly over the last few years and, as evidenced above, it is not without its detractors--who often have reasonable objections. But being the sixth bloggiest neighborhood is certainly a good thing.

I now live in the Pearl District and will buy you a beer just as soon as you get here.

Posted by John | April 23, 2007 8:21 PM

"Portland has most of the good things of SF and few of the bad things."

Portland had a few of the good things of SF, a few more of the the bad things and a few more bad things of it's own.

Good in both:
restaurants (Portland cheaper than SF).
public transit (worse in SF).

Bad in both SF and Portland:
too many honky-ass Trustafarians in both places.
limo liberal "politics".
crazy whackos in abundance.

Bad in Portland:
rains too much.
hicksville.
lots of white trash in the burbs and hills, some of them scary.
nowhere near as many jobs.
ugly women (well, not precisely ugly as seemingly unable to learn how to apply makeup).

Posted by burritoboy | April 23, 2007 8:33 PM

"Well, if you can look past the overworn stinky hippie cliche"

Dude, do you ever ride the 38 or the F line? That ain't no cliche, that's some serious stinkiliciousness.

Posted by burritoboy | April 23, 2007 8:36 PM

Hey Matt and loyal Mattites,

I'm a college student moving out to DC next year with a couple of friends. We will likely have relatively low paying government/public intrest jobs. Where would be a good neighborhood to live? D.C. is sooo expensive. I would really appreciate any advice.

And good call on the Bulls.

Posted by Patrick | April 23, 2007 9:15 PM

Which was weird first, Austin or Portland? I think the two cities have some sort of exchange program since I know several people who moved to Portland from Austin and about the same number of people in Austin who moved from Portland. If you don't mind 45 days of 100 degrees every year, then the Mueller develpment in Austin may be a place to look.

Posted by Bob LaBlog | April 23, 2007 9:19 PM

Lakeview is cool, but Chicago has a lot of other cool and affordable areas too. It is a very large town. Great restaurants, music scene second only to NYC, if that.

However, the notion that it's "like NYC" isn't really correct. They have very different vibes.

As for Europe: Vienna?! Way expensive, and the entire city feels like a mausoleum/monument to dead culture. Berlin is much cooler, and much less expensive.

Posted by live | April 23, 2007 9:35 PM

Also (sorry for doubling): why would you move anywhere based on blogging activity? You can blog from anywhere, and read blogs from anywhere; why would it matter if you live in physical proximity to other bloggers?

Posted by live | April 23, 2007 9:42 PM

Portland is super beautiful, and the moist mild weather keeps the Portlanders young and easy-going. But it's not an international city, and it's too far from the rest of America.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 23, 2007 9:42 PM

Seattle is where you visit if you aren't from the NW, Portland is where you live if such things as transit, cost, and "virbrancy" (or other silly term) mean something to you. And Powells, and having everything downtown including restaurants, museums, waterfront, markets, galleries (and yes, the Pearl district) being all close enough to walk to.

I live in Seattle, and I like it a lot. I also love Portland, and I think that Portland has more little neighborhoods where you can do what you want, have things you need, and be near enough to bigger things to do (concerts, museums, etc.).

I must say that Portland has a high learning curve for getting around (if you are in a car, as I often am since I drive from Seattle). The City of Bridges has, in fact, an assload of bridges, and lots of one-way streets and restricted turns, so one mistake can lead to being (literally) on the wrong side of the river (there are two) or town, with limited options for correcting your initial screw-up.

That said, MY, have you been out to the NW? Last I remember that was not the case. Get yer self out here and explore some NW cities. You hopefully will be impressed, but since you have been living in NYC, Boston, and DC, you might not be impressed at all. Portland and Seattle are not cities in the way you might be expecting. I love all those East Coast cities by the way, it's just that I am West Coaster. You might feel the same way about us as an East Coaster.

Posted by abject funk | April 23, 2007 9:55 PM

Shaw is the hipster area of DC right? Good place to live?

Posted by Patrick | April 23, 2007 9:59 PM

I have trouble believing that you're moving to Portland, but I hypothetically applaud the idea .

I would say that East side is definitely the place to go, perhaps Alberta.

It's one of the least stylish cities in the US (except when grunge was stylish), but I think that's a good thing. It's almost 80% white. For a small city, it has a lot of amenities and cultural shit, but it's not a major center.

It might be the easiest and pleasantest American city to live in, but you have to provide your own stimulation (lots of people do -- not just drugs, either, smartass). Lots of hip contemporary young-people stuff, granted that it's no "urban".

Posted by John Emerson | April 23, 2007 10:29 PM

As a former (and hopefully soon to be returning) resident of Portland, I have to say that one of my favorite things about it is how hard it is to drive downtown. It's on purpose, you know, to keep people from driving in from the 'burbs or Seattle. As a result, you can cross against the light basically anywhere (except West Burnside) without worrying about it. Also, most of the two-lane streets are a bit narrower than they really should be, which is just awesome for pedestrians. And you can literally walk across town and back in a day when the weather is nice (which it is most of the year -- and it's not as if we have such pleasant winters here on the East Coast either). And parks! And neighborhood bars that aren't (just) full of depressing old guys in the middle of the afternoon!

Posted by Josh | April 23, 2007 10:37 PM

Since we are throwing out some ideas here, I can tell you that Tallahassee, FL (where I am) should definitely not be included into the "move to" list. Not bad, but definitely not good. Anyone have any thoughts on the not mentioned (and not NW city) Denver, CO? What about Chico, CA? Sorry for the threadjack, just wondering.

/please forgive.

Posted by Gus | April 23, 2007 10:49 PM

"As you indicated, first, the architecture is amazing. Some of the best coffee in the world, and the best coffee shops in the world (of course, that's a pretty uneducated statement, but whatevs). Great public transport, great walkability (for a sprawling city), tons of culture... it's the greatest. Nice cathedral too."

Yeah, but what you've described is pretty much every Central European city - not all have the architecture (mostly depending on how badly they got bombed in WWII - some really bad decisions in Cologne's rebuilding, I have to say) and some replace the coffee with beer. The difference is that Vienna is spendy and it's heart remains buried in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. If you're willing to lay out that much bread, just go to Geneva or Zurich. Anyway, Strasbourg or Prague have got Vienna's cathedral beat in the "late medieval architecture" sweepstakes.

The next American slacker hotspot in Europe? Leipzig. You heard it here first.

Posted by burritoboy | April 23, 2007 11:06 PM

As a current resident of Chicago, I love everything about it except: (1) it's not really a late night city, but nowhere is compared to NYC; (2) the weather. Personally, I prefer the blisteringly cold winters to the blisteringly hot summers, but I yearn for a more temperate zone. It has both very not-metropolitan and very-metropolitan regions, and everyone other than my dad thinks I'm crazy when I say this, but I prefer Chicago metropolitan to Manhattan metropolitan (the hours aside). It's also got to be the best bang for your buck in the US as far as real metropolitan areas go.

As a former resident of San Francisco, I love everything about it; it's my favorite city I've ever been to. It's got to be the most expensive place in the US outside of Manhattan, though.

While I love Chicago, I'm at a point in my life where I think I'd benefit from a change of scenery; I'm considering either returning to SF (finding a job that pays double what I make now would be helpful) or somewhere in the Pacific Northwest. People have been talking up Portland at Seattle's expense, but if you're tied to a more metropolitan experience, I assume Seattle's the way to go?

Posted by Quarterican | April 23, 2007 11:10 PM

Portland probably cannot compete with the cities of the Hanseatic League or the Holy Roman Empire, but I believe that Matt wants to stay in the US.

If not, in many respects Vancouver BC has Portland and Seattle whipped.

Posted by John Emerson | April 23, 2007 11:14 PM

Where would be a good neighborhood to live? D.C. is sooo expensive. I would really appreciate any advice.

Patrick

Colombia Heights, far out Capitol Hill, Logan Circle are a little(sometimes just a little bit) cheaper then other urban areas and still have culture. Shaw isn't the most expensive either. Takoma/Takoma Park, Silver spring are also cheaper but not as much going on. Brookland is cheaper, same deal, worse crime. Anything in NE not close to the capital is cheaper. Also everything west of 16th St is expensive
It's not impossible to live far out in Montgomery or Prince George, but you might be only blogger on the block.

Posted by ChrisB | April 23, 2007 11:15 PM

Hey guys, the whole thing about blogging is that blogging is non local. Who cares if there are bloggers in your neighborhood? They could be in Sarawak and your relationship with them would be the same. (There is a Dadaist blogger in Sarawak, as it happens).

Posted by John Emerson | April 23, 2007 11:20 PM

Yeah, driving in Portland is weird. Every time I'm there (in a car) I seem to get lost and find myself forced to cross various bridges I have no idea if I actually want to cross. After about 20-30 minutes of aimless, confused wandering, I find myself on the Burnside bridge, which is ususally close to my destination or serves as a reorientation point. So my Portland advice is--if lost, wander aimlessly until you invariably find yourself on the Burnside bridge.

Or better yet, don't drive. I never get lost in Portland if I leave cars out of it.

Posted by djw | April 23, 2007 11:20 PM

withnail--may I apply for an exemption? My wife's from what I call "suburban Tangent" but I dragged her to Buffalo and she desparately wants to return to her home region, so it'd really be adding only one person, not two. I'll fit in, really! I vote Democratic, don't dress perfectly, and am fine with public transit. We've had only the one car here for three-plus years and if we can do it here, it'd be easy there!

Besides, SLC, it beats the hell out of snow six months a year, and the apartments out there all seem to have dishwashers! Throw in the Henry Weinhard's root beer and, well...

Posted by noplot | April 23, 2007 11:57 PM

If you're willing to lay out that much bread, just go to Geneva or Zurich. Anyway, Strasbourg or Prague have got Vienna's cathedral beat in the "late medieval architecture" sweepstakes.

Boo.

Posted by Freddie | April 24, 2007 12:17 AM

Thanks Chrisb. Much obliged.

Posted by Patrick | April 24, 2007 12:31 AM

Gus,

I'll speak up for Chico. Awesome place, for a small town/college town. Yeah, a lot of the kids are meatheads, but the locals are, or were, pretty cool.

Still, it's a very small town. Not really a place you'd enjoy unless you're under 22 or over 35 and have kids.

Posted by too many steves | April 24, 2007 12:35 AM

I'm trying to figure out where to move - out of Texas. I want to be able to live without a car. And afford life at about $32k. Chicago seems the best choice. Anybody got any ideas?

Posted by Jeff | April 24, 2007 12:44 AM

1) we don't need any of your kind here in ecotopia yglesias!

2) stumptown has the best coffee!!!

Posted by razib | April 24, 2007 12:59 AM

Wait, why is Matt moving to Portland? All these comments, and nobody's asked that yet? Portland seems rather an odd place to be a political journalist.

Posted by John | April 24, 2007 1:04 AM

wait, are you trying to say that the bitch isn't shitting us??? matt, michael totten & i should get us some beers in southeast.

Posted by razib | April 24, 2007 1:12 AM

My comments about driving in Portland are based on the fact that I don't live there, and as such have to use a care more than I should. I really like the fact that Portland is walk friendly/car nasty. I went to a concert down there and parked at a hotel and took transit and it was fanstastic. If you are there for even more than a day, a car is useless, that just isn't my situation.

As a Seattle person, I love this city, and it has more "wow" factor in terms of scenery (assuming it isn't raining and you can see stuff). It also has more of a city feel in a few places, but not most. Living in or near downtown does not strike me as a great existence, but I am afraid people used to real cities would find most residential areas to be a real drag, with not much going on. I don't find this, but I grew up in a small town in Easter Washington and have always lived in much smaller towns. So, to me, Seattle is big enough, but a real urban person would find it to feel more like a big town. It certainly is not NYC, or Philadelphia, or Boston, or probably even Providence (I mean that seriously).

Likewise, a lot of Portland's appeal to folks like me in Seattle is that it is even more town-ish. Its urban development plan in the downtown area is to be envied, but it is the neighborhoodiness that really appeals to folks like me. You have culture nearby, but the place you spend most of your time in (home) is also reassuringly boring and also with a few things to do. I say reassuringly boring because I am getting older and just having some peace and quiet and a bit of space to BBQ or have friends hang out is a nice thing.

Finally, I rent, and that is why I can live in Seattle. If I was hell-bent on owning a place, I would live in Portland, as it is less expensive. Both Seattle and Portland are rather cool places to live, provided you can accept the big-city limitations and enjoy the recreation (and in my case, family) nearby.

Posted by abject funk | April 24, 2007 1:36 AM

To the kids moving to DC soon:

If you want to afford a place in a decent neighborhood, plan to live with 3-6 other people. There's almost no other way to live in DC near Metro in a half-decent neighborhood on 30-40k/year job.

That said, relative cheapness can be found:
- near RFK stadium (no shops or bars, but Metro)
- just south of H Street NE/Cap Hill NE in general (no Metro, but good bus access and they just built 9 bars there which are now hipster central)
- S. Capitol Street near the new stadium (if you're willing to wait a year or two for it to get good).
- SW waterfront (a meh neighborhood, but you have Metro and the Arena stage)
- Petworth
- Shaw, east of where Matt lives

Just remember that DC is a geographically small town and as long as you live within a decent distance of downtown, things aren't that far away. You can get to the cool bar in a half hour or so on Metro, or for $10-15 by cab.

And for godsakes, don't you dare live in Arlington. That place will devour your soul.

Posted by Cain | April 24, 2007 1:37 AM

word of advice to matt: portland is not good for the jews. also, how come he doesn't want to live in hillsboro or beaverton with their vibrant latino communities?

Posted by razib | April 24, 2007 2:18 AM

hey razib (you silly person!), your link is to Portland MAINE, not Oregon. We are tolerant of nearly everything here in Portland OR. Portland is mostly located in Multnomah County, which voted 78% for Kerry - so we are both green and blue.

Posted by JimPortlandOR | April 24, 2007 3:10 AM

Chicago is definitely the place to be. It's odd, but Chicago actually feels more urban than New York in some ways. Anyway, Chicago is much prettier and cleaner, and your money will go surprisingly far here. As for neighborhoods, it depends on how much nightlife you want. If you don't care much about nightlife, then consider Hyde Park. It's one of the most diverse neighborhoods in Chicago, and of course it has that college atmosphere. It's also Obama country (though hopefully DC will be Obama's home before long).

Portland's cool too, though. It seems odd that no one has mentioned that Portland is the beer capital of the world (maybe I missed it?). It has an insane number of breweries, including the infamous Rogue brewery. Also, it's worth mentioning that air pollution is MUCH worse for your health than most people imagine. It takes years off your life. Thanks to Portland's location and its near-constant drizzle, it's a much healthier place to live than NY (or, sadly, Chicago). It also has excellent fresh produce much of the year.

Posted by minderbender | April 24, 2007 3:17 AM

San Francisco is definitely the place to be, and Mill Valley is definitely the place to live. You can be 15 minutes outside San Francisco over the Golden Gate Bridge and live in a natural wonderworld where the air is so crisp and clean it's breathtaking.

Of course, it's very expensive to own in Mill Valley unless you're freaking rich, but it's a great place to rent, especially if you're just hanging for awhile. As a respected liberal writer/blogger, a guy like Matt could get a sweet room in a forest mansion with a hot tub for a very sweet deal.

The San Francisco neighborhoods are awesome too. There's great places in the Mission and lower Fillmore that are affordable and you can literally do something different in a different place every night of the year. And the food is amazing, as well as the cheap burritos.

Posted by Jimm | April 24, 2007 6:01 AM

Be leader, not a follower. Move to Detroit, others will follow, I'm certain.

I remember being in Oregon on vacation with my folks and getting asked by locals, not so friendlyish, if we were thinking of moving there. My dad explained that our California plates were a rental and we were just on vacation and everyone brightened up.

Posted by witless chum | April 24, 2007 6:32 AM

This might be a deal-killer. In Portland once met this guy from North Dakota, and he loved the place because it was halfway between a big city and a small town.

In a way, Portland has about as much of the best of both as you could get. Somewhere like Waco or Macon probably would have the worst of both. But if you're someone who "thrives on fast-paced urban life" (TM) you will hate Portland.

Posted by John Emerson | April 24, 2007 7:14 AM

New Yawk is where I'd rather stay
I get allergic smelling hay
I just adore a penthouse view
Darling I love you but give me Park Avenue

Posted by Horatio Parker | April 24, 2007 8:13 AM

Move to Detroit, others will follow, I'm certain.

Right now, this person is apparently the most prominent Detroit area blogger:

http://www.debbieschlussel.com

Maybe Matt and she could hang out . . .

Posted by rea | April 24, 2007 8:30 AM

As a four-year Portlander who came BACK to D.C., I can say these comments are pretty accurate. The Pearl is pretty much the dciest area of Portland. You'd like the Mississippi area better. Portland's great, but damn the rain, the rain...

Posted by mikem | April 24, 2007 9:07 AM

Cause a blogger is a person in your neighborhood,
In your neighborhood, he's in your neighborhood.
And another blogger is a person in your neighborhood--
But they're not the people that you meet
When you're walking down the street
Because they're shut ins you'll never meet any day.

My neighborhood, Newton, MA, is number 4. Come on up and help move us up.

Posted by Sean | April 24, 2007 9:27 AM

If Debbie Schlussel lives in Detroit proper, I'll eat my hat. That's what I was suggesting to Matt. For an actual Detroiter who blogs, this guy is cool. Eccentric, but cool.

http://www.detroitblog.org/

Posted by witless chum | April 24, 2007 9:30 AM

1. the land surrounding the city was designated farmland to control sprawl.

2. the entire Oregon coast is public property.

3. as far as the Pearl, most of the criticism is sour grapes. It is new, and it is expensive, but it also has some pretty fantastic rent-controlled buildings (though not as many as they promised) for people like my aunt, who is in her 60s, a teacher, and is single. Other than that, it is mostly afluent Oregonians (such as my parents) whose kids have long since moved out and who want to be closer to the city life; not Californian retirees.

It is an amazing case of revitalization, as downtown Portland went to shit in the 90s. What is now called the Pearl, when I was growing up, was an absolute wasteland, a safe haven for junkies and drug dealers. There were no homes, no businesses. This contrasts to many of the places mentioned by other posters (specifically NE), which are pretty amazing examples of rapid, large-scale gentrification of old black neighborhoods by an invasion of twenty-something white people who like to bitch about the richer white people in the Pearl in one of the thousands of new 'dive' bars that have sprung up there.

By every possible measure, the development of the Pearl is a major, major boon for Portland, especially downtown.

Posted by matthew c | April 24, 2007 9:30 AM

If Debbie Schlussel lives in Detroit proper, I'll eat my hat.

My copy of the Michigan Bar Directory gives her address in Southfield, a suburb. I said "Detroit area" quite deliberately--hardly anyone actually lives in Detroit itself, any more. Population down about 60% since the 60's . . .

Posted by rea | April 24, 2007 9:51 AM

Jeff at 12:44:
I'm trying to figure out where to move - out of Texas. I want to be able to live without a car. And afford life at about $32k. Chicago seems the best choice. Anybody got any ideas?

Chicago would work, but, echoing John Emerson above, Vancouver BC might also be worth checking out. Cheaper than Chicago, incredible natural scenery very close by, and arguably the best Asian food in North America.

Posted by live | April 24, 2007 10:13 AM

Sorry Matt, you don't live in Shaw!

Posted by faceinthecrowd | April 24, 2007 10:23 AM

Just following up for Jeff at 12:44 -

You can absolutely live in Chicago without a car at about $32K; I'm living in Chicago without a car at $31K, in a studio in Lakeview*, and while everyone's got different standards for what "living" does or should entail, I'm pretty comfortable - I'm not a crazy extravagant guy, but I spend a fair amount on books, CDs, the occasional fantastic expensive restaurant (of which Chicago has many), and I'm still able to put away something resembling a decent savings every month. Coming from Texas**, I assume the summer heat isn't going to be a horrible new burden, but you might want to consider how you feel about -15 windchill.

* Which, as noted above, is anything but hip, while still being for my purposes cool. You trade in the overt hipsters for a higher yuppie/ex-frat quotient, especially when the Cubs are playing, but it's nice and I live around the corner from a fantastic used record store (Reckless Records).

** Of course, I don't know how far $32K goes where you are in Texas, which makes this sort of conversation hard to have.

Posted by Quarterican | April 24, 2007 10:29 AM

Rogers Park in Chicago.

I don't really need to explain why, do I?

Posted by dbt | April 24, 2007 10:32 AM

I grew up in Portland and would like to move back some day. Having lived in a number of other cities since then, including most of the big ones, only makes me appreciate Portland more.

Someone's probably already mentioned this, but Portland is the beer capital of the world. More breweries per capita than anywhere else, including Germany. And the beer is exceptionally good (I particularly recommend anything from the Deschutes Brewery). Every bar has dozens of different microbrews and there are a number movie theaters/bars where you can eat food, drink beer, and watch a movie all at the same time.

The weather--particularly from July to October--is fantastic. No humidity. And the winters, while drizzly, are mild.

If you want to live in the city proper, I'd suggest looking for a place on the East side of river. There are a lot of neighborhoods with personality over there that are less expensive than the Pearl District or the Northwest.

Posted by Anonymous Liberal | April 24, 2007 10:34 AM

I'm from Chicago and live in Manhattan and I don't think its really helpful to compare Chicago to NYC---i.e., Chicago is not a milder, cheaper, less congested NYC. It is those things but it would be a mistake to think you would be getting a more manageable version of NYC. To name a few qualitative differences: the ethnic mix and race relations are different, the street food is different (think sausages and tacos not slices and cheap chinese), the local media is not as interesting, your level of anonymity is much lower, the physical experience of the city (there's a horizon and the lake is very cool) is very different, and you'll probably want to drive.

Oh . . . judging by the affection shown freedarko, I'd say Lakeview is not for you. Maybe Ukrainian Village or Noble Square (at least my memory of them), Logan Square or parts of Edgewater. And god bless the recommendation above for Hyde Park but bewarned, many, many people find it really boring (and you'd need a car).

All that being said . . . I vote for San Francisco.

Posted by Finn | April 24, 2007 11:27 AM

Portland is an awesome place to live and the Pearl is pretty nice though a bit spendy. As mentioned above, the revitalization of the Pearl area was a major success of the last decade. It had been a pretty scummy place and it’s now full of hip shops, restaurants and lofts. There are nice places within walking/biking distance of the Pearl that are less expensive. Of course, a well-known media personality like Matt should live in either the Pearl or somewhere around 23rd (trendy third).

The food scene is really good here, excepting Chinese. (Nobody understands what happens when a Chinese restaurant opens here, but there seems to be a vortex of mediocrity that swallows the chef.) Good beer and coffee everywhere. A number of nice bakeries have opened in the last few years. Some of the best dance companies in the world come through Portland courtesy of White Bird. Good music is happening all the time. The weather is truly beautiful six months of the year.

This weekend we biked from the Pearl District down to Powell's, the best bookstore in the country. After spending some time there we biked to the open air Saturday Market for lunch. Afterwards, we biked along the waterfront till we connected with the Spring Water Trail, which is a 20 mile long bike trail that sort of cuts through Portland and takes you to a neighboring city. On the way back we stopped at a nice bakery in the Pearl for good coffee and macaroons (have to be eaten to be understood.) I am constantly amazed how many days we have like this living here.

Posted by Don N | April 24, 2007 11:46 AM

Oh . . . judging by the affection shown freedarko, I'd say Lakeview is not for you.

Maybe yes, maybe no - Matt never actually asked about Chicago, whereas Jeff did, and I dunno how Jeff feels about Shoals and the Gang - but this is absolutely true:

Lakeview is not FreeDarko.

But, dude, neither is Hyde Park, unless you've confused FreeDarko with "awkward racial dynamics exacerbated by Fresh From Muncie UofC students who say 'Wow, I'm living in the ghetto now!'" HP is most emphatically not the ghetto. (It is, however, most emphatically *near* the ghetto.) It's kind of a weird place, though. I'd never want to live there again unless I had a car; the public transportation exists, but you're psychologically and geographically cut off from the city, and unless things have changed in the last year, the neighborhood lacks frilly eccentricities like "a decent grocery store." (Of course, one month after I moved to Lakeview the closest grocery store to me burned down, which has been a pain ever since, so my life hasn't gotten any better in that regard. Sometimes you really just do want a freaking car.)

Posted by Quarterican | April 24, 2007 12:03 PM

Pearl District sucks, it's the pretentious part of town and everyone goes there because they're supposed to.

NW is nice, more upscale though slightly trendy (not a bad thing though).
SW is the nicest area though very family oriented.
N is run down.
SE is young and hip but its gets really annoying because you have to stare at nose rings everytime you leave your house (I moved from SE to SW recently and though I'm single and living alone it's quite nice)
S (sellwood area) is very nice - sort of the best eclectic mix of all of the above in my view.

Posted by Tom | April 24, 2007 12:17 PM

probably been said in many comments but, seriously, don't move to portland if there's any chance you're SAD-susceptible. it almost killed me, and i grew up in DC, which isn't a particularly sunny place.

Posted by dj superflat | April 24, 2007 12:17 PM

Q . . . Mostly I was trying to say that I maintain a lot of affection for Hyde Park but newbies should be warned that its isolated and many find it boring. And IMHO, Hyde Park has one of the best racial dynamics in the city, awkward as it may be at times. In terms of freedarko-ness, I can't really claim to be able to assign a freedarko-score to various Chicago nieghborhoods (and I apologize to anyone who may take offense at my speculation), but I would guess that Hyde Park is in the top quadrant. This is the nieghborhood, after all, that produced Mandy Patinkin and R. Kelly.

Posted by Finn | April 24, 2007 12:28 PM

Portland is a wonderful place to live, but is lacking in policy jobs and policy orientation. Coming from DC, where everyone you meet is engaged on one policy topic or another, this was a bit of a shock. Green issues are an exception.

Posted by Tripp | April 24, 2007 12:33 PM

There is only one NYC, nothing else really comes close. San Francisco is the most beautiful city in the US, and probably in the best location. Los Angeles is the most underrated city - great music scene, cool underground theater, great neighborhoods, the beach, good looking people, etc. etc. Ignore the haters. Chicago is the most overrated city - livable and inexpensive sure, but very provincial and unstylish. My sister-in-law (from Portland, OR) couldn't stand how badly everyone was dressed and had to go back to New York to get a fashion fix. But Chicago may well be the greatest "American" city, as you can argue SF, LA and NYC are a little too far outside the American mainstream - and obesity and lack of style are certainly American traits that Chicago has in abundance. Philly is actually the coolest city in the US, mainly because so few people realize how cool it really is. Of course you'd have to fight Atrios to the death once you got there.

Posted by vanya | April 24, 2007 12:45 PM

http://portlandmaps.com

You can find anything you want for any address: census info, crime stats, housing assessment histories, transit lines, environmental zoning, vicinity to parks or schools, noise pollution, earthquake zones, etc. It's a bit scary how much info they put out there but it's absolutely fascinating (at least to map geeks).

Posted by Jeff | April 24, 2007 12:52 PM

Finn -

HP is certainly home to an interesting racial dynamic. Most of the time it is indeed pretty cool, and I'd say 99% of the awkwardness is on the part of the students - both causing it and feeling it. (And obviously not all or even most students, but...) What I never decided was whether the neighborhood would be better or worse off without the university - would it become more like the worse neighborhoods around it (the manses up on Woodlawn notwithstanding) or would it flourish. I should say that I was a student at UofC and...have very mixed feelings, and a lot of negative opinions, about the school and its culture, so they definitely color my opinion of HP.

Posted by Quarterican | April 24, 2007 1:04 PM

Portland is also a fantastic basketball town. Don't let the Jail Blazers era fool you; this city loves its basketball. And the team and support for it is on a serious upswing.

Still, you really shouldn't move here. It rains all the time and it's a total backwater compared to New York, DC, and Boston. It's really far from the East Coast. Go to Chicago or San Francisco or LA or stay in DC and leave Portland alone. Alone to its suckage. Yeah, that's it, leave it alone to its suckage.

Everyone thinks former Oregon Governor Tom McCall wasn't serious when he said:

"Come visit us again and again. This is a state of excitement. But for heaven's sake, don't move here to live."

Snort. As if we love living here and just don't want too many newcomers to ruin everything! But the truthiness is, he was giving you friendly and wise advice indeed.

Posted by David Richmond | April 24, 2007 1:27 PM

You know how in most cities you have to search around for a while to find the "hip" part of town? I was in Portland last year for a wedding and it was a couple of days (and I was driving) before I found the unhip part of town. I am an educated, liberal 33-year-old white guy with no kids, so I guess I fit the demo, so it made for a good visit but a bit overwhelming.

Anyway, I scoff at your San Francisco Chinese restaurants, much less anything on the East coast. I live in Monterey Park, center of the L.A. Chinese culinary explosion.

Posted by Adam Villani | April 24, 2007 1:28 PM

one month after I moved to Lakeview the closest grocery store to me burned down, which has been a pain ever since

What about Treasure Island, "America's Most European Supermarket"?

Posted by Freddie | April 24, 2007 2:04 PM

Chicago is the most overrated city - livable and inexpensive sure, but very provincial and unstylish. My sister-in-law (from Portland, OR) couldn't stand how badly everyone was dressed and had to go back to New York to get a fashion fix.

If that isn't the most asinine, idiotic criterion for how to judge a city, I don't know what is. Why don't you just stick to Vice-magazine-reading affluent wannabe-subversive hipster bullshit paradises like Williamsburg. You jag bag.

Posted by Freddie | April 24, 2007 2:08 PM

San Francisco's nice if you like your weather sunny without being warm, and you hate having gears on your bike. No really, even with all the hills, I swear.

Posted by SFO | April 24, 2007 2:16 PM

"If that isn't the most asinine, idiotic criterion for how to judge a city, I don't know what is."

Frankly, I agree entirely with the criticism you're responding to.

Chicago is a perfectly fine city if you can handle all the ugly people with lousy style.

I can't, so I don't live in Chicago. The exact same problem exists with even more provincial cities like Milwaukee and Philadelphia.

The quality of the random folks you see on the street is actually a highly important criteria for cities and neighborhoods in my book.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2007 2:25 PM

I don't know, people in London aren't very stylish at all and people in Berlin dress like cr@p.

Posted by novakant | April 24, 2007 2:36 PM

I feel bad for the people who can't live places because they think there are a lot of ugly people. The shallowness in those statements is amazing and suggests a very empty existence. Also having to travel in order to get your "fashion fix" is beyond smug and trivial. Hopefully they will just stay in that abortion of a place Williamsburg and leave the rest of us alone to live a real life.

PDX really is paradise on Earth. If you are born there the weather doesn't get to you but if you aren't than god help you when April rolls around and you can count the number of times you have seen the sun that year on one hand.

Posted by cbc | April 24, 2007 2:40 PM

kansas city's the bomb

Posted by scorpio | April 24, 2007 2:52 PM

I was trying to think of a lower-key way to say something like what cbc said, but that's beside the point now. Chicago is certainly less overtly "fashionable" than other cities, but that doesn't really matter to me; I guess my own "fashion" sense isn't finely enough attuned that I'm constantly affronted by the atrocities parading around in Chicago. OTOH, I certainly have no complaints about the number of *attractive* people in Chicago; I see more than enough on my bus to work in the morning. San Francisco, though, is brimming with gorgeousness.

Posted by Quarterican | April 24, 2007 2:55 PM

"I feel bad for the people who can't live places because they think there are a lot of ugly people."

Some folks care about the weather in a city. Some folks care about the architecture in a city.

I care about the people in a city, so Chicago really isn't the place for me to live.

Thanks for feeling bad for me, though. You might want to also feel bad for all the ugly people populating Chicago. Life can't be easy for them.

Posted by Petey | April 24, 2007 2:57 PM

"I certainly have no complaints about the number of *attractive* people in Chicago; I see more than enough on my bus to work in the morning. San Francisco, though, is brimming with gorgeousness."

Well, that's kinda the point right there.

No one is saying that there are no attractive people in Chicago. It just comes down to a matter of percentages, and the percentage in Chicago is notably lower than it is in a place like SF.

If the median level of attractiveness is an important