What is the a good city now for mid-income childless ? More fun activities, concerts ect and low taxes that go to roads and public transport and not schools, parks and libraries.
The city is young and reasonably liberal and strikes a fine balance between urban living and outdoor activities. Our live music scene is also the best in the nation.
There is no state income tax either, so with an annual income of $75k, you will save $4k a year compared to California. Sales tax is also lower by a percent or two.
Of course, they don't have the "cool" factor of SFO or NYC etc.
It is cheap though, and some of the cities have decent (and improving) culture, considering how inexpensive they are.
Source: lifelong Midwesterner, lived in four Midwestern states.
It's only a few hours drive from the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness (massive wilderness area), two hours from Lake Superior/the North Shore (skiing/mountain biking/hiking), and incredibly close to thousands of lakes/cabins (very few of which are manmade). MSP airport is also a major hub for Delta and has affordable/quick connections to nearly every major market (either directly or via ORD). Culturally it has renowned theatres (second only to NYC in per capita theatre seats) and has decent nightlife/culture. It's as car dependent as any American city but has a huge bike culture (possibly the #1 bike city in America?). Diversity is also growing - my local school district in a relatively affluent suburb has 160 languages being spoken. There are also 17 Fortune 500 companies in Minnesota and a healthy economy (with plenty of IT jobs).
I'm lived here for 10 years after moving from New Zealand so am well aware of what coastal/mountain living is like. I've also spent time in London, Sydney, Chicago, DC, Boston, San Francisco, Madrid, Hong Kong, LA, Paris, and Copenhagen so have a sense of what living in a more well known city is like. Like I said, it's not NYC or SFO but it's definitely not what most people expect. The local joke is that it's impossible to get people to move here but then no one leaves because of how good the wages are compared to the cost of living and amenities.
Then again, maybe Minneapolis is part of a Northern identity that some have kicked around!
Couldn't disagree more, there are thousands of lakes in the midwest. Northern Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan are huge forests with countless natural lakes for hunting, hiking, fishing, camping, ATV, etc. Plus there are the great lakes which are basically like an ocean.
If you like outdoor activities, hike, or get a canoe or a boat and you'll never be bored in summer. In winter, get a snowmobile or get into cross country skiing and you'll never be bored.
> It is cheap though, and some of the cities have decent (and improving) culture, considering how inexpensive they are.
This is true and very important. You can still easily live "the American dream" (easily own a house, newer cars, have a family, go on vacations, shop, save) on an average middle class income in the midwest and the south. Living comparable in western coastal states of CA/OR/WA would require easily 2.5x-6x or more the income for the same results.
Maybe Denver ?
Colorado has relatively low tax rates and Denver is sort-of-kind-of-almost a real, functional big city downtown.
If you're at all inclined towards weekend-outdoorsy things, it might be a good choice.
Personally, if I had to choose a city besides San Francisco (where I live) I would choose Minneapolis, but it's not for everyone (and MN taxes are relatively high).
The theater district is (I am told) the largest outside of NYC (although I'm not sure by what metric). Regional theater is pretty big here as well if you want to see stuff outside Broadway, etc.
There are many concerts in the city, but Columbus and Pittsburgh are both reasonable drives and get a lot of concerts. Several of the venues (The Grog Shop, Aurora, Beachland Ballroom) get up and coming acts and musicians from large bands doing solo projects, often for low prices as well.
Housing is affordable, for the most part, although downtown housing is close to capacity at the moment due to lots of young people moving downtown. Outside of downtown, I am a fan of both Lakewood (westside, cheaper) and Shaker Heights (eastside, more expensive), both of which have access to light rail to downtown. Some of the cheaper suburbs are mostly 1960s housing stock, built in the era of GI mortgages, so they look kind of same-y, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. There are also parts of the area (like East Cleveland), which are probably undesirable to live in.
Cleveland offers a decent amount of outdoor activity as well. Obviously, the lake and river are available for many different outdoors activities (Kayaking, Canoeing, Jet Skis, swimming, boating) and there are several beaches. The metro parks system has parks around the outskirts of the entire city. Cuyahoga Valley National Park is a short drive south. You are within driving distance of Wayne National Forest, Hocking Hills, and Allegheny National Forest. Many other outdoors areas in eastern PA are within a reasonable drive.
I'm not sure I agree w.r.t. taxes paying for parks and libraries. I enjoy both of those things and think they are valuable. Additionally, Cleveland (and Ohio in general) has a pretty great library system. Living in Cleveland, you have access to every Cleveland and suburb library (via ClevNet) and the Cuyahoga County Public Library, including eBooks and Audio Books. You also can order books from any Ohio Library via OhioLink.
Taxes are a problem, I think, with Cleveland. The city and most of the suburbs have a local income tax (between 1 and 2% flat rate usually) and the state of the roads and public transit does not seem to reflect the tax rate (although some areas are better than others). Sales tax is the highest in the state at 8% (compared to 7% elsewhere in OH), although food is tax-free. It is lower than Chicago (10.25%) and higher than Pittsburgh (6%).