What’s your breaking point for moving from where you live?

[Max Rockatansky]

Something I frequently have discussions with people related to roads usually circles back to a couple things that seemingly are trending more and more as a negative:

-  Increasingly long traffic commutes
-  Increasing housing costs
-  Increases for specific fees, taxes and/or tolls. 

That got me thinking, what was my breaking point for moving from place for greener pastures?  Leaving Michigan and the Mid-West for me was a desire to get away from the failing blue collar industries and malaise of a (especially at the time) dull Mid-West.  When I left Phoenix it was due to the economy flatlining with the housing bubbles on top of home prices getting way out of control.  Florida while economically viable for me was one of the more boring places I lived which eventually ended up with a transfer to California. 

I've often heard the notion that people can't move because of family, I've only found that to be as true as you make it.  Even when I was a kid my Dad would chase the money in career which had us in Michigan twice, Connecticut and Illinois.  So it begs the question; is there any tipping point for you that would make you consider leaving the area you are in?  If so what would those factors be and where would you considering going?  For me at present moment I don't foresee leaving California but it wouldn't surprise me if I ended up in a transfer somehow to Washington State one of these days. 

[KEVIN_224]

My breaking point is simple: Connecticut. I would live in Maine again, IF money were no object.

[Max Rockatansky]

My breaking point is simple: Connecticut. I would live in Maine again, IF money were no object.

I would prefer Maine too over Connecticut again and really a lot of states.  The same would be true for me regarding Maine over Connecticut even if I had to deal shape shifting clowns, undead pets, mist monsters or toilet aliens.

[KEVIN_224]

Well I've already lived there twice: Wells (1974-77) and Old Orchard Beach (1985-87). This time I'd like to be in Portland proper, with easy access to Cross Insurance Arena (hockey, WWE, concerts, etc.), Hadlock Field (baseball), the Jetport (PWM) and the Maine Mall in South Portland.

[Rothman]

Breaking point?

I have moved lots of miles to get closer to family, for school and to get away from a dead-end career.  Take your pick.

[nexus73]

The only thing that will get me out of the Coos Bay area is when the Cascadia Subduction Zone quake hits.  That will render the coast uninhabitable.  This is my home area and I love it!

Rick

[jeffandnicole]

Retirement.

[corco]

After living in five different states over a seven year period I've settled back in Boise for the last three, and I intend to stay here to build a life as best I can.

That said - everything is flexible, and I'd gladly move if the right career opportunity came up or if my financial situation allowed me to retire to, say, Mexico at a very young age. I can't envision a situation where I'd leave Boise just because I hate it - but very long term I envision living in a much more rural area with some land, probably in the Great Plains somewhere.

[ce929wax]

I've moved, on average, every 2.8 years, over the last 22 years, and then 4 different times whilst living in the Kalamazoo area.  I'm going to move one more time when I get my own house (I live with my mom currently) and that is it.  I do get tired of the winter here in Michigan and sometimes think about moving somewhere warmer, but I just don't have another cross country move in me.

[inkyatari]

If I could afford to move, which I can't,I'd have been out of illinois a long time ago.  I am tired of living in this state, and it'snot just the corrupt politics.  It's waking up every morning and seeing corn and traffic.  At least if I was in Colorado, it's be mountains and traffic.

[bandit957]

I'm 46 and I've only lived in 3 different places. Each time I've moved, I was legally an adult, so it wasn't because my family moved.

The first move was within Highland Heights. I moved because I was in college, and college students move. More specifically, I was tired of drama from family members and needed quiet to do my schoolwork without them complaining that I was making too much noise typing after they went to bed at 8 PM, or them throwing huge temper tantrums because I needed quiet.

I actually wanted to get out of greater Cincinnati altogether, but the university was just a mile away.

I had that apartment for over 4 years, but I was forced to move from it because new subdivisions caused sewage to back up into it through the shower drain. So then I moved to Bellevue. If I had to stay in greater Cincinnati, I wanted to stay in Highland Heights, but the only place I could find was in Bellevue. I've had that apartment for 22 years since.

This turned out to be a good move. I'd much rather live in Bellevue in 2019 than the crime-laden mess that was Highland Heights in 1997.

In other words, I only move because of intolerable drama or destruction of the home.

[bandit957]

Other factors that would prompt a move include ongoing harassment in the community. This was a real problem from about 1986 to about 1997. I wanted to get out of the area because of it, or move to the northern part of the county, but my parents wouldn't do it because the rest of the family was in the area - even though the northern part of the county was where most of the rest of the family lived.

A bad political environment would be a factor, though this is less of a problem in urban areas than it used to be.

Certain serious crimes might be a factor, but other than the aforementioned harassment, I've survived those.

A lack of job prospects might be a factor, but I've seen only about 3 "help wanted" signs in 25 years, and still I've stayed. I make most of my money from writing anyway.

Soaring housing costs would be a factor, but I'm very wary about keeping gentrification out. I check property maps to see who owns surrounding properties so I can figure out what their intent is.

All the houses and apartments I've had have been good, if you just count the home itself. But Highland Heights was just an absolutely terrible location.

What would I do if I lost my current place? Housing costs are artificially high around here, and local government does absolutely zero to fix it. The only new housing built is luxury housing. That's it. I'd have to live on the river or in the woods. There's nothing.

[csw]

I've only moved for work/school reasons so far, but a big reason I moved to Virginia was because it's less flat than Indiana.

[Mark68]

I actually have been looking to leave Colorado and head back to my home state of California, or the neighboring state of Nevada, for various reasons, two of which are:

Weather (getting tired of winter, but I don't want to live anywhere where heat & humidity combine)
Legal online gambling (specifically poker)


I prefer living in the Western US.

As far as cost of living goes, there isn't much difference now between the Denver area and many areas of California, and it would actually cost less to live in, say, Sacramento.

[vdeane]

If I were to move, it would probably be back to Rochester, since that's where most of my family is.  I probably will eventually anyways, since my parents aren't getting any younger.  That said, I'm not really looking to move out of the Albany area in the near term - the location is just too good for traveling; I can head out in 5 directions from here by interstate; for Rochester, that's only 3, and it doesn't stay interstate if you want to head south.  Not to mention, Albany is near the Adirondacks and Catskills, and otherwise closer to places I'm interested in going to than Rochester is.

If I were to move within the area, it would probably be if I felt comfortable spending the extra money for an apartment with in-unit laundry, and for that I probably wouldn't need to even leave my current apartment complex if I was willing to wait for one to become available.

[Henry]

I would like to move back to Chicago someday, but I'm currently in no rush to do so. Having lived on the West Coast for over 30 years (first L.A. and then Seattle), I'm planning to stay there despite the possibility of an earthquake, forest fire and/or volcanic eruption, and next year will be the 40th anniversary of Mt. St. Helens. As for Chicago, the bad winter weather, political corruption, high crime rate and mass exodus are the four main reasons why I'm not coming back in the near term, but I would love to get season tickets to the Cubs, since they were my first love.

[Verlanka]

I would like to move back to Chicago someday, but I'm currently in no rush to do so. Having lived on the West Coast for over 30 years (first L.A. and then Seattle), I'm planning to stay there despite the possibility of an earthquake, forest fire and/or volcanic eruption, and next year will be the 40th anniversary of Mt. St. Helens. As for Chicago, the bad winter weather, political corruption, high crime rate and mass exodus are the four main reasons why I'm not coming back in the near term, but I would love to get season tickets to the Cubs, since they were my first love.

So you prefer earthquakes & fires to snowstorms?

[Scott5114]

I would like to move back to Chicago someday, but I'm currently in no rush to do so. Having lived on the West Coast for over 30 years (first L.A. and then Seattle), I'm planning to stay there despite the possibility of an earthquake, forest fire and/or volcanic eruption, and next year will be the 40th anniversary of Mt. St. Helens. As for Chicago, the bad winter weather, political corruption, high crime rate and mass exodus are the four main reasons why I'm not coming back in the near term, but I would love to get season tickets to the Cubs, since they were my first love.

So you prefer earthquakes & fires to snowstorms?

Earthquakes and fires are random events that may or may not affect you. If you live in Chicago, it's near-certain you're going to get affected by a snowstorm.

[webny99]

Earthquakes and fires are random events that may or may not affect you. If you live in Chicago, it's near-certain you're going to get affected by a snowstorm.

Earthquakes and fires are also not comparable to snowstorms. Snowstorms are oft-recurring, extremely predictable and manageable weather events that are not inherently dangerous to humans and human property.

A snowstorm in Chicago very well may wreak as much havoc as an earthquake in San Fran would... but that is 100% Chicago's problem. If Upstate NY and other northern areas can get 2 feet of snow and carry on with business as usual, Chicago should be able to figure it out as well. And "affected" is a fairly relative term. I guess you could say I was affected by whatever snowstorms we got last year. What affected me most was that I'm fortunate to live in an area with proper management of and response to snowstorms!

[J N Winkler]

I have spent much of my life living in other places, but I have always had the ability to return to Kansas, and it would take a great deal for me to give that up.  My roots in the state go back at least to 1890, I have access to a couple of generations' worth of institutional memory in my hometown, and cost of living is low while salaries are reasonable.  I look at people who live on the coasts and find it very difficult to escape the feeling that they effectively have their own tigers by the tail since cost of living is so high and salaries are all over the map.

As I have grown older, I have come to realize that while I am personally very left-oriented in terms of politics, that does not necessarily translate into a desire to live in a blue state where I would have to dedicate more effort and attention to regulatory compliance rather than being left alone to make my own way.  For example, I find it difficult to imagine how I could get a daily driver to 25 years if I had had to deal with the California smog test.

I personally find Wichita unpleasant in the summers owing to the high evening dewpoints we have had over the past few years, but I have never been convinced that it would be a good trade to live in the intermountain West (generally drier, with higher fire risk and air quality that is often seriously compromised as a result of fires) or on the West Coast (heavy traffic congestion, elevated cost of living, higher risk of flooding and mudslides--and this is without taking into account earthquakes and the possibility of a Cascadia event).

[Rothman]

This idea that snowstorms do not cause damage is totally false.  The damage caused by accidents, ice dams (causing costly damage to homes) and to utilities is frequent and costly.  Although a bad earthquake can cause a single catastrophic event, the annual barrage of snow is routine, frequent and a constant expense -- especially when you include snow and ice operations.

[Revive 755]

Earthquakes and fires are also not comparable to snowstorms. Snowstorms are oft-recurring, extremely predictable and manageable weather events that are not inherently dangerous to humans and human property.

Extremely predictable?  So how much snow is Chicago getting this coming winter, and when will the first big storm be?

I also recall a couple busted forecasts this winter, at least one where much less snow fell than predicted, and at least one where some areas got much more.

If Upstate NY and other northern areas can get 2 feet of snow and carry on with business as usual, Chicago should be able to figure it out as well.

I get the impression that "business as usual" is defined differently for an urban area like Chicago versus a mostly rural area such as Upstate New York.

[Rothman]

Come to think of it, the idea that upstate cities can handle 2 feet of snow without breaking a sweat is also false.  Sure, they're used to it, but that doesn't mean work hours aren't lost as people dig themselves out or have to wait for plows to come by.

[DTComposer]

Re: disasters vs. weather - I think it's a pick-your-poison situation. Do you want a relatively rare event that's more likely to cause significant damage/injury/death when it happens, or a more regular event that causes those things on a smaller scale each time? I'd be interested to compare, say, earthquake deaths in the Bay Area since 1989 (the Loma Preita quake) vs. snowstorm/freeze-related deaths in Chicago over that same period.

For me, there's only a handful of cities in the country that I could reasonably make the living I do in the industry I'm in (it's a "non-traditional" line of work). I've spent a lot of time in all of those cities/metros, and we would be perfectly happy living in most of them. But factor in that my family is here (very helpful when you have a child) and the climate, and it made the decision easy for us.

That said, it's a pretty safe bet that we'll move once we retire/kid is in college. But that's a while away.

[Duke87]

Thus far in my life I have only moved within the confines of the same metro area... so I haven't really relocated per se. Nonetheless, for all the moves I have made, the reason each time thus far has been:

- Father left temporary job for permanent job, we moved from one apartment to another to be closer to where his job would be
- Parents left apartment and purchased a condo
- Parents left condo and purchased a house
- I went away to college
- I finished college and went back to my parents' house
- I moved out into my own apartment, placed so I'd have a shorter commute
- I moved to a different apartment because I was sick of that neighborhood and wanted to be closer to my girlfriend
- I moved to a different apartment to move in with my girlfriend
- (pending, hasn't happened yet) I will be moving with my wife out of this rented apartment into a purchased home.


Going forward? I'd be willing to move elsewhere for a career advancement opportunity. Might even be nice if it's to somewhere with a lower cost of living. The challenge will be convincing my wife to move somewhere potentially far away from her nearest friend or relative.