Best U.S./Canadian Metros to Live In

Ideal Metro

These are cities that are perfect or nearly perfect and have almost everything I want. Unsurprisingly, only two made the cut.

1. Seattle, Washington

Seattle is a fantastic area to live. The biggest pluses are the city itself is great with a neat downtown, great skyline, and cool culture off the Puget sound and with all the coffee vibes. Seattle, of course, has fantastic jobs, making it a great place for young professionals. Perhaps the best part of living in the area is the location. Washington state has so much to offer, and 3 of the best national parks in the country are within a 3 hour drive- North Cascades, Olympic and Mount Rainier. The latter two are especially beautiful and full of trails. Within an even shorter driver, however, are countless other forests and parks with fantastic views and trails. It is a little far from the true coast but Puget sound is large and makes up a bit for that.  Also within 3 hours are two other fantastic cities, Portland Oregon and Vancouver Canada. I consider the weather overall to be a plus. Yes, the winter rain is likely cold and dreary. There isn't much snow, which has both pros and cons to it. However, the toughest season to run/live in, the summer is usually 10 degrees colder than much of new England and much cooler than a lot of the country.

No place is perfect and the big downsides is the Seattle metro is really urban and without quiet suburbs. If you live outside a certain space, it's probably not ideal to commute in. If you live within the commuting space, it's likely a busy area. Seattle also has a really bad homeless problem and the areas to run within the city are fairly small and limited, at least compared to some of the better U.S. cities for running. 

2. Boston, MA

Boston is the Seattle of the East Coast for me. Great jobs, and generally a fantastic city and metro. I'd argue the weather is worse considering the heat in the summer, but it's also nice to get some snow in the winter. The two big advantages of Boston over Seattle are much better suburbs and being right on the coast. In Seattle, you have to drive several hours to be at the true ocean. In Boston, it's technically right there and there are quiet beaches within half an hour. For Boston, the state of Massachusetts is so densely populated there are fantastic suburbs to live in anywhere from 20 minutes to 70 minutes out of downtown all the way to coastal New Hampshire and even Maine. You can live in quiet communities and still be in the metro and work a great job in the city. Looking at other metro areas, I think Boston is the best U.S. metro to live in a quiet community but still work and have easy access to a bustling, thriving city. There aren't really a lot of downsides to living/work in/near Boston, but the reason it loses out to Seattle is the nature is simply not at the same level. However, there's still so many great cities and towns in New England, most of which are within a 3 hour drive. But if you want truly huge mountains and grand national parks, there isn't much here (still some very nice mountains and Acadia, but a much smaller scale)

Good Fit Metros

These metros are still pretty great, with many reasons to live there. However, there aren't as many draws as the top category/there might be more drawbacks.

3. San Francisco, California

San Francisco is, in my opinion, the best city in the United States. The location, cultures and places within the city are fantastic. It also has some of the best jobs in the country and is the best running city in the country with the massive Presidio and Golden Gate Park. Throw in many additional paths and lots of runnable mountain singletrack in the nearby vicinity with sweeping ocean views and this city/metro is a winner for trail runners. It's such a beautiful location to be and the weather for those who hate heat can't be matched (yes, it's foggy but you won't suffer in the summer). 

The major downside is that the Bay Area is it's so urban. Seattle has suburbs, they just aren't as quiet and spread out as I'd like them to be. San Francisco is super urban and congested. The suburbs have the same feel. I don't know if you can get within commuting distance of the city and live somewhere that feels quiet and isolated.

4. Portland, Oregon

Portland takes a major victory over Seattle and San Francisco (and most West Coast cities) in the suburb department. Portland itself is less congested and crowded than most west coast cities and has huge tracts of forest within the city proper. When it comes to the surrounding suburbs, the urban sprawl is nothing like many west coast cities and there are plenty of great, quiet communities to live within. Oregon has plenty of beautiful nature and better as well as more accessible beaches than its neighbor Washington. Plenty of great running in the area as well. 

The downside to Portland is lack of coastline. It's far from the ocean and unlike Seattle doesn't have a huge body of water adjacent to it. While the culture is special there, it lacks the high job market that San Francisco and Seattle have. Without the ocean, it's also pretty hot sometimes in the summer. 

It's worth noting than San Francisco and Portland also have horrible homeless problems, something common in West Coast cities.

Above Average Metros

These are metros that have a lot of great draws to them, but also have some major drawbacks.

5. Minneapolis, Minnesota/Madison, Wisconsin

The big draws to these Great Lake states is the great cities of Madison and Minneapolis, fantastic suburbs with plenty of running options, and the brutally cold and snowy winter. While I don't think that weather would be right for me full-time, It'd be a lot of fun to live somewhere with a ton of snow and cold. Madison is obviously the nicer city overall, but Minneapolis is larger and has more influence. They both have many places to run, including both parks and bike paths both within their city limits and throughout their metropolitan areas. Both have phenomenal suburbs, easy enough to get into the city from but not super urban either.

The drawbacks here are huge. Maybe the cold, snowy winters would be more miserable than fun. The hot mosquito filled summer would be tough. The biggest thing is the lack of coast and nice areas to visit. Basically you go to the lake every once in a while, and that's about it. 

6. Vancouver, British Columbia

Vancouver is an incredible place, possibly having the most beautiful nature being on the water and next to massive parks, mountains and forests. It's basically a better Seattle and has a fantastic parks system/places to run. It doesn't seem quite as sprawling and it's likely to have better suburbs than Seattle. 

Still, it has it's disadvantages. I'd have to move out of the country which is probably the biggest thing. The jobs probably aren't as good as the ones in Seattle. The skyline is weirdly very ugly and the buildings look like ones in third world countries.

Okay Metros

7. New York City, New York

New York undoubtedly has incredible jobs and work opportunities. It also has a unique blend of cultures and you can find most attractions or food without going too far. Unfortunately, the congestion is unbelievable and living outside the city isn't that much better given 3 of the 4 options are urban dumps- Western CT, NJ, or long island. The only respectable option is NY north of the city and while there are beautiful spots and towns there, the commute into and out of the city surely is terrible regardless of what you take, and with no ocean, it gets very hot in the summer. 

8. Denver, Colorado

Denver's a great city and you have plenty of great suburbs to live in. The running overall is pretty good given the access to mountain trails within an hour and the amount of bike paths in the areas. I believe the jobs are pretty good well. Colorado in general is just a beautiful state with a fantastic mountain culture.

The big downside to Denver is the altitude and weather. Altitude clearly has long term aerobic benefits, but I'm so used to training at sea level that that huge adjustment doesn't feel right for me. For racing, you'd have to fly or go on a long drive somewhere every time you want to pursue a target race because racing at altitude is just a lot tougher. The weather is terrible in my opinion with massive swings from morning chills to mid-day scorching heat. Not a fan of that kind of variation at all.

9. Washington, D.C.

This is the last city I'd be willing to live in, as it has culture, history, attractions and fantastic suburbs. The running, both in and out of the city is amazing. The very high heat and humidity ruins this city but it's still probably better to live in than anything else not on this list and has access to nice parks not too far away.

Reasons why these cities were excluded:

San Diego- never gets cold, lack of exciting places to visit outside the immediate vicinity

Chicago- crime is too high/too many neighborhoods/suburbs to avoid, minneapolis and madison are nearby and are simply better

Miami- horrible weather year around

Montreal/Toronto/Quebec- oppressively cold winter isn't worth the challenge of moving to a new country