Just curious what it is that you do in your day to day life that is so location dependent? I'm someone who enjoys a variety of activities including museums, fine dining, sporting events, kid-friendly activities like zoos, hiking, going to the beach, concerts, exploring interesting towns and cities, fishing, attending interesting lectures, woodworking, playing music, boating, golf . . . I think you get the idea. I've never had any problem doing or enjoying any of these activities during a lifetime spent in the Midwest and South. I can completely understand plenty of reasons why someone wouldn't want to live where I live: job, family, even weather (though I'm surprised how much quality of life people are willing to sacrifice for this one amenity), but "eeww, the rust belt" is a silly and insulting response.
I like mountain climbing, skiing, rock climbing, sea kayaking, hiking, snowshoeing, backpacking, mountain biking. Many of these things are only possible near mountains. I live in Boulder currently, but grew up north of Seattle, and it really does provide more variety in outdoor pursuits than just about anywhere.
Interesting. I can't hold it against someone for enjoying the area where they grew up. I know how it feels to have someone insult your hometown and wouldn't want to do that to anyone else. I've always enjoyed visiting the west coast.
If you ever find yourself in Northern Wisconsin, sea kayaking the Apostle Islands is pretty spectacular. Check out http://livingadventure.com/ for more info.
One other big reason: racial diversity. In much of the United States, the community is basically white race / white American culture by default, and people like me naturally end up being somewhat anomalous / outsiders.
In some places there is also racism to various extents, but even in the absence of racism, there is just a significant handicap to not being a member of the default group.
In contrast, I fit right at home in a cosmopolitan place like Silicon Valley where there isn't really a default culture. Of course, it's basically a global phenomenon that cosmpolitan cities tend to be far more expensive than the cities that more closely reflect the local culture.
This is an odd response to an article about housing costs in Seattle, one of the whitest big cities in the country in a state that is significantly whiter than my midwestern home state of Illinois. It's funny when I hear people who moved to the Pacific Northwest brag about the lack of black/white racial tension compared to much of the rest of the country. I always think it must be easy to not have racial tension when there's no black people. But of course it's the people in the middle of the country who are the real racists.
Well, Seattle isn't very strong in that regard either... It's where the Bay Area holds a distinct advantage. That said, Seattle still has a significantly larger fraction of Asians than any Midwestern or Southern city: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Asian_American...
Note that the proportion of blacks doesn't really contribute to a cosmopolitan city - it just means the city has two dominant native cultures instead of one.
I love the "American Nations" reference. I really enjoyed that book, though I don't remember it making any value judgements in regards to one region's culture being superior to another's. It mostly just presented a theory of why there is so much variation in regional cultures in the U.S. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know what the hell you are talking about or understand how referencing that book proves the supposed superiority of west coast culture.
"Better" is highly subjective. Many people, myself included, find many aspects of west coast culture cloying and suffocating. Your values are not everyone's values.
