Well Naptown is incredibly, intensely, soul-suckingly boring.  Hence NAPtown.  

That said, it is possible here, as in other small cities, to be very involved in local efforts - we are hungry for fresh energy.  See Brian Payne's article on Creative Entrepreneurism, here.  The idea that one can consume lots of culture in big cities but can create that culture in small cities is very true.  There are some fun things happening (very very slowly) here.

Ratio is an excellent design firm here, and Browning Dierdorf Mullins Day (something something...) is too, as is Axis.

If I were looking for a medium sized city to which to relocate, I'd consider Milwaukee.  it seems very cool.  Or Flagstaff AZ.

I have to say...I love the post and agree with mostly everything you stated.  I myself am from Indianapolis and just graduated with my Master of Architecture.  I often struggle with this same issue.  Should I go to the big city or should I stay at home?  Should I be the small fish in the big pond or the big fish in the small pond?  I think now is a great time to consider smaller markets for a number of the reasons you suggested above:  it's much cheaper, much more opportunity to have a "voice", still open to new ideas, growing, and just not as overly hectic.

The one thing you don't really mention, however, in your point about having a voice is that I think you have much more potential in a smaller market like Indianapolis to have a big impact design-wise.  Honestly, Indianapolis is not chalk full of great architecture firms.  Really, I feel the city could use a number of new, innovative smaller firms and I feel the market could support it.  Indianapolis is still a growing city and is full of opportunities.

I think your best option could possibly be to even open up your own practice in a city like Indianapolis.  You have the ability to control what goes out the door and the ability to make a big dent in the local design community.  Something for you to consider (and honestly something I have been considering as well).

I think the typical career path is school > big city > smaller market where you see an opportunity to provide services.  This is particularly true if you're starting your own firm someday (or maybe 'carpetbagging' in), and if you already have connections in the city you're in.

One thing I've noticed about American cities I've been to is that they tend to have some 'good' areas that have at least some of the culture/amenities/lifestyle of a large 'urban' city, and then 'generic' areas where life looks a little like every setting in the movie Office Space.  There are people that are drawn to each type of 'area typology', and you'll probably want to market accordingly.

This observation leads to a possible metric to compare American cities (in lifestyle terms, which I think directly relates to how 'receptive' the area is to what I'd consider 'good' design) : the 'good area'/'crap area' ratio.  Seattle, for example, has a significant portion of its city limits filled with the 'good' areas (of varying 'goodness') and quite a bit of spillover of the 'good' type of area into the surrounding suburbs.  Places like Phoenix, Vegas, or Orlando may only have tiny nuggets of 'good' areas in a sea of 'crap', by comparison.  Intensity matters, too; you could argue that there is a lot of 'crap' around the greater Chicago area, but there are a lot of 'good' areas here and there and a very intensive 'good' area at the core.

In terms of living, the 'good' areas in any city are going to be more expensive (unless the culture of the city wildly favors schlocky suburban newness to older historic buildings, in which case the historic buildings are undervalued), but may be less expensive than the 'good' areas in a city with a higher 'good'/'crap' ratio.  Plus, they tend to attract a certain kind of person that will have the foresight to value what good design can do.

Of course, there are outliers.  After all, there are Louis Kahn buildings in Dallas, which has some nice areas, but also Fort Worth and Arlington right next door.

controlling what goes out the door is maybe possible in a small town, but controlling what comes in seems to me to be the hard part. 

Your salary will be that much smaller in a smaller city. Your tax burden will be lesser though, so you will still come out (slightly) on top.

There are plenty of small American cities that have great architecture scenes. Progressive designs and all. These markets are the ones that have been affected by the recession the most, so moving right now would be an uphill battle. 

Never heard a single nice thing about Indianapolis, so it just may be a hidden gem. All the hyped places have a huge market saturation (of unemployed).

I did the small city thing for almost three years (after being in a huge city), and it was professionally extremely stagnant. Cost of living almost made up for it though. Now I'm back in a big city, and there are a fuck-ton more opportunities to be had. Much higher bills, but also more mentally stimulating work. 

If this depression ever ends, I would like to try a smaller city again. Right now it makes sense to be where actual work exists.

First thing is first:  When you quit your Chicago gig, send me a message so that I can take over.

Now, on to your other points.  Don't get so caught up in the "cost of living."  You may hate the CTA, but $2.50 will get you from one side of town to the other.  That cannot be beat, especially if you are going to spend 2 hours a day stuck on the freeway (I like listening to NPR, but even if I "consider all the things" I still hate traffic with a bloody passion).  Once you factor in your car payment, car repairs, your gas, your mortgage, your HOA dues, your land taxes, your lawn maintenance (why do people continually fool themselves into thinking they need a huge lawn?), etc etc etc you'll quickly learn to put less value into the "cost of living" estimates.

I used to live in a mid size city, and it took me at least 20 minutes to get anywhere.  Not only that, the options of things to do were limited, I felt constantly held back by the lack of culture, the lack of progressiveness, and the overall stagnation of the city I used to live in.

You think you'll get to control more of the design.  Well, yes and no.  You might be given more responsibility, but remember that in a small market city, you're clients are likely to be local, and they are likely to have smaller wallets and be less in favor of progressive architecture.  Educating a client to the benefits of modernism is a daunting task in smaller cities, and even if they are likely to be swayed, they in all likelihood will not be able to afford your design proposal. 

I flat out disagree with your assessment that smaller cities are void of progressive architecture because they lack the talent.  Even if that were true, it would only be a small part of the equation.  Smaller cities lack the progressive architecture because they often don't have the money, and they often have local clients who view progressive architecture as an unnecessary luxury.  The "low taxes" that draw people to these cities are the very reason why there is often a lack of money to fund public projects, and the architectural culture of some of the smaller cities are often rooted in conservatism (architecturally speaking, although there is probably some political overlap).  Its why every single library or police station or public school in these cities look the exact fucking same.

To parrot Koolhaas:  "The city is all we have."

And the Bulls will win a championship within 5 years.  They are one role player away from getting to the finals.  And with the new salary cap that is likely to come into play, I don't think Miami will have the cash to repair their team to the point where they will dominate the East.

also consider what you may save in rent you must add reliable transportation. you can't hop the red line in indianapolis.indy has a growing arts community and some cool and talented people live there and there is some good energy in revitalizing some areas. the real issue is though that all markets large and small have been f'd up over the last few years and just because there may be fewer competitors for the job you may want, there are also fewer jobs period. big cities without money sucks though.

Are you married? Do you have kids? If the answer is no to both of those questions, do whatever pleases you, you likely have few real obligations, and can lead your life to your own satisfaction. A large exciting city and professional career are probably your top priorities.

A spouse and children will change everything. Decisions are no longer your own. Your own satisfaction (on all levels) is weighed against the satisfaction and well-being of your family. Professional satisfaction is only one small factor in a larger life calculus. Honestly family will lead you to places you never thought you would go, and it's amazing how much satisfaction you can find in those places.

However, I'm not sure I would jump into family life and aspire to that lifestyle before I had a family.

Some really great info and perspective here!   'Necters are a smart bunch.

As jump says, and newguy reinforces, the talent pool exists in smaller cities but the risk-taking, progressive developers/moneyed clients are few.  Risk-takers don't go to small cites to "make it", they go to big cities with lots of opportunity.

As won says, if you don't have a family this is definitely the time to try a new place!  But I'll counter by saying I made a huge leap to a new place at age 38 with a 2 year old, and my husband and I don't consider this our final home by any means - you CAN move around and start over with family, it just carries more emotional weight.

I'm also VERY embarrassed that I didn't mention my other small-city choice, which is probably #1 on my list but not my husband's (there's that factor of which won spoke...): Louisville.  L'ville is such a cool town, like Austin but less hype.

I have a slight problem with newguy saying that these smaller markets are not devoid of progressive architecture but they lack it because they don't have the money.  That's often the problem I have with much of the architecture profession and many others have.  We are under this perception that money allows you to be progressive and if you don't have it, you simply can't be.  For me, there is more pleasure in coming up with a progressive solution at an affordable price...allowing good design to be accessible to a broader audience.

i don't think it is a lack of money, simply a lack of interest.  there are always outliers though and if you can find the market why not? 

Smaller market cities provide opportunities to get involved in a community by joining community groups that aren't either bought or politically willed to connected people like they are in the big 3, thereby providing the opportunity for young design talent to have a voice that would otherwise be drowned out by the independently wealthy architects who have nothing better to do with their trust funds than play architect.

there are many opportunities for start-ups/young architects to get involved in big cities - but this usually means going out to under-served communities/neighborhoods outside the core in order to have a voice.

Very interestiing discussion with good points leading to a number of possible conclusions.  The midwest town (small city) where I went to school was noteworthy for being able to attrack faculty with impressive credentials.  Why were they willing to come to this place when they could probably get good positions at name schools in Boston, New York, etc?  Well, as it turns out, having spoken to a number of them I found out that by locating in such a place they could have the benefits of a very nice lifestyle on a teaching salary and they were within driving distance (long, but doable) of Chicago, New York, Atlanta, etc.  Even better (at least in those days - before 9/11), they could hop on a plane and be in any of the big eastern or southeastern cities/towns in an hour to two hours...and for relatively low cost (again, this is a few years ago).  It was not uncommon for these people to hop on a plane and take in an exhibit or see a show, or go to a concert in Chicago or New York and be back at work on Monday morning.  They were able to afford nice houses or condos (whatever they preferred) and for those with families, it was the best of both worlds.  I don't know if this type of lifestyle is as doable, now, as it was then, but it is something I have always thought about.

Sorry..."attract" rather than "attrack."  Not sure where that came from, other than the fact I am only on my first cup of coffee.

first off i love chicago. hands down if i was to pick a "big" city to live in Chi-town would be ahead of say NYC. that being said i do think that while yes it is hard to control what comes in "although i suppose jump meant as in work to an office?) metaphorically or in terms of development. in a smaller town it is also very easy to get involved civically and feel like you are making a difference/being heard. I know in the last few years post grad school as i have become involved and joined more local govt boards etc i feel very "plugged in" and it has helped me be more productive/thoughtful/creative/fufilled in other areas of my life. 

also i think MixmasterFestus is totally right when he writes

One thing I've noticed about American cities I've been to is that they tend to have some 'good' areas that have at least some of the culture/amenities/lifestyle of a large 'urban' city, and then 'generic' areas where life looks a little like every setting in the movie Office Space.

For instance i think the quality of life from an urban standpoint is pretty good in my smaller town (mostly thanks to university/creatives/old hippies) in terms of "urbanism" but that is because i choose a particular lifestyle. there are plenty of folks i know/work with that live way around from the core and commute and live a McMasion, big-box existence.  to each their own....

rusty, your time in a "small" city was in Portland, right?  I mean Portland is by no means a big city - though Seattle is - but it's a very hot, desirable place to live right now.  So it has some of the negatives (unemployment pool, cost of living) of bigger cities - I know three different people planning moves to PDX right now, and as we know from this thread the opportunities are very challenging there right now.

portland looks like a fun place to be.

i guess the problem is to find a small city that wants creative people.  my biased impression is that many just don't want creative architects flouncing around, which is fair enough.  flouncing can be quite distracting and always leaves a mess.

in defence of big cities i know that it is harder for us to work in tokyo because the competition is insane, but on the other hand we are only able to work in japan at all because we are in tokyo where the opportunities are also set before us like a shmorzaborg.  the talent pool we have to draw on is also phenomenal, literally non-existent in many parts of the world.  crazy craftsmen doing crazy things no on else does, world-class artists nobody has heard of, etc etc.  that makes our job better and our work better too.

downside is the long commutes.  1 hour minimum to go anywhere by train, longer if we take the car.  if it were possible to have all the cool stuff in a small town setting i would move in an instant.

portland looks like a fun place to be.

i guess the problem is to find a small city that wants creative people.  my biased impression is that many just don't want creative architects flouncing around, which is fair enough.  flouncing can be quite distracting and always leaves a mess.

in defence of big cities i know that it is harder for us to work in tokyo because the competition is insane, but on the other hand we are only able to work in japan at all because we are in tokyo where the opportunities are also set before us like a shmorzaborg.  the talent pool we have to draw on is also phenomenal, literally non-existent in many parts of the world.  crazy craftsmen doing crazy things no on else does, world-class artists nobody has heard of, etc etc.  that makes our job better and our work better too.

downside is the long commutes.  1 hour minimum to go anywhere by train, longer if we take the car.  if it were possible to have all the cool stuff in a small town setting i would move in an instant.

Donna, I was in NC prior to PDX. Both felt tiny after years in NYC. After I GTFO'd out of PDX, I went to a place that actually had JOB's.

LOL

Great thing about smaller cities, is that they are much, much cheaper than the biguns. I flounced around PDX like I didn't care what the name of my chicken was. I was 'bicycle right this, and bicycle right that' between dumpster diving sessions. But then the 90's ended and I had to get a real job again.

During the great depression I also had the chance to travel a lot (which was not a possibility when I worked 9-9 with 2 weeks of vacation a year if they let ya), and I was blown away at how cool a lot of 'second tier' American cities were. A lot of them grew up over the course of last 10 years to a point where even a whiny New Yorker could find plenty of fun stuff to do that didn't involve cow tipping or muddin'. "Urban renewal" worked out in a whole lot of unexpected places.

Never been to Louisville though. Heard nothing but awesome things. Indianapolis, not so much. 

Bucks07,

I figured someone would take some issue with what I said.  So I should clarify myself a bit.  I agree with you that an architect has to come up with an affordable solution.  And I certainly don't think that "good" architecture HAS to be expensive.

I do, however, think that good architecture is often (not always, but often) more expensive at the beginning.  As architects, I think we have to justify this upfront cost by making the case that spending more now will save the client/city money down the road, and in the end the cost becomes justified, as it is more of an urban investment rather than a line-item cost.

I think a problem I always experienced with the mid-size city I lived in was that even though this investment is understood, the wallets simply can't afford it, and often times smaller cities look to things like new development away from the urban core to save costs, which eventually lead to things like further urban sprawl, costlier infrastructure projects, muddied public transportation efforts, etc.

This may be limited to the city I lived in (NC) but there is often a culture of independence.  Citizens want large swaths of land, their own home, a large driveway at the end of their cul-de-sac, low taxes, and the liberty to spend their money how they see fit.  Then they wonder why it takes them 50 minutes to get to and from work every day, or why it takes them 10 years just to get a proposal for some sort of public transportation system that won't even serve the majority of the citizens.

Also, I think there is a culture of resistance.  People who enjoy the "small town" mentality.  So there is often a lack of political will-power to do something bigger, and as a result, a lot of the architecture, in my opinion, is limited and contextually irrelevant.

Sorry, it wouldn't let me edit my last comment.

I've done both. As a graduate, the place to be is clearly the big city then later you're more comfortable and can choose.

In theory the world needs more "good places" because the really good ones get congested and also suffer rising living costs as a result of their sucess. However lack of ambition is a problem in smaller towns (I've heard it said that raising city dwellers expectations would be a problem by local councillors). I've also noted that sucessful places generate more work because people value them and are invested in them and tend to want to see them improve rather than move. I have a feeling some architects move to perhaps too small places, depending on age, experience and family, but discover they cannot afford the luxury of being too local! In my experience too, North America is very patchy in terms of good and bad bits, normative, ordinary or everyday seems not to be well done that often, a product of wealth distribution I think?

Personally, I think the small and mid-size cities and even small towns are the next frontier. There is plenty of untapped potential out there for people that bother to venture outside of what they understand to to be acceptable (hip) places to live.

When I lived in a small city, I traveled a lot more internationally and domestically and had nicer stuff, because I could afford it.

sazerac - it's always perspective. if you're looking to move to indy (or wherever, really) and expect to find as large and thriving a 'design oriented' community as that which exists in a place like chicago.... you'll probably be disappointed. even in atlanta, where there are opportunities to capitalize on (in terms of doing interesting projects), the overall scene isn't even playing in the same league as boston (my previous destination). it was a real shock and adjustment.

two things to keep in mind in a smaller city - unless there's a good university program to plug into, it's going to be harder to sustain a local dialogue with other like minded professionals. not impossible, but there just won't be the institutions like the chicago architecture foundation or 4-6 other institutions that always seem to have programs and opportunities going on. you might get 1-2 outside the aia. the other is that, from my experience,  you're either going to be accepted quickly and (if you're so disposed) have the ability to generate new work as the 'shiny new toy' on the block. or.... you're going to find out that it's going to take a while to really dig in and firmly entrench yourself into the community (most places are like the former, but you never know).

finally, consider what opportunities you might be missing by leaving chicago - that's an awfully big city with an awful lot of people from whom you might be able to find an awful lot of work. if you're content to just work for a firm... i understand and, yes, a smaller city will afford a higher quality of life (the salary difference isn't that big, although there's no way indy's cost of living is 28% of chicago - you're talking housing costs only and even then may not be comparing true apples to apples. everything else is going to be like 5-8% difference). however, the pool of work in indy is going to be correspondingly smaller. if i were starting a small firm, i'd like to be in a bigger pool and figure out where no one else is fishing and try my luck there, rather than be in a really small pond with a comparatively high amount of other fishermen. but, that's just me.

After I GTFO'd out of PDX, I went to a place that actually had JOB's.

rusty! - where is that place that actually has jobs?

Canadia.

To elaborate on that, Canadian government anticipates a great shortage of architects for next 20 years and are planning to import a bunch of them from Sri Lanka I presume. 

I can't picture you Yankees actually making the jump, just talking about it.

I do remember reading something awhile back about a shortage of architects in Canada. I thought that would have petered out by now. Hmm...I am part French Canadian. I suppose I could learn the lyrics to Oh Canada.

so you think i should head back to winnipeg rusty?  i hear flouncing is mildly tolerated there now.

i did go back for job interview a few years back and it was very tempting just to be able to work in english again but the sheer quiet of the place was a real shock.  i think it would be necessary to go into decon for a month before i would be in right frame of mind.

but perhaps things are changing.

As Gregory says, a smallish city benefits greatly when it has a university within it.  Naptown does not have one.  And his comments on cost of living are right on too: when I moved here from Philly, housing costs were lower, but groceries were actually higher - hard to believe that a suburban location in the middle of the heartland can have higher produce prices than downtown Philly!  Plus I spend a ton on vehicles, money I never had to spend in Philly.  There is no train in Naptown, and the bus system ranks something like100th in the nation despite the city being 12th for population.  Ugh.

newguy,

I don't disagree with many of the statements you make.  Sometimes "design" can indeed cost more and it can be difficult to convince clients of the upfront costs to this.  

I will say, I'm not quite sure the logic that building outside of urban areas is cheaper and that is why people often go that route.  I agree you can often get a larger piece of land, but there are often government programs in place to encourage people to build in urban areas (though they often involve income stipulations).  

I do think, though, that this is not just a smaller city issue but an issue for all cities to deal with.  I believe Chicago lost 200,000 residents from 2000 to 2010 while Indianapolis actually gained residents.  So...people across the country are not moving into these urban settings as much as we often believe them to be...though I do think the younger generations are much more interested in this type of lifestyle.  

Height limit is about 30'-0" for the suburbs. Projects are going to be short and small outside of the city. Do you enjoy T.I., remodels, and residential additions? Architect in projects of that scale aren't needed when the contractor takes over. I wish leaving the city would solve it all and make me happy.  

donna - i'm in your boat. if you can somehow make the housing work, i'd vote for a city with great public transportation. the time/money/hassle drain of cars just sucks, especially with atlanta being so laterally spread out. it's worse than l.a. in many respects. 

groceries fluctuate - milk,  for example, is about 70c cheaper per gallon at whole foods in my hood than at publix (and the regular stuff, not organic). 

so, in that vein, it may almost be better to find a really small town than a second tier city. at least in a small town, you start to take the car travel out of the equation. for example, i just went back home to the fla gulf coast (yeah, seaside. i grew up next door to it. go figure) - the town architects at alys beach are 'young' by all the ways we define it and they're getting to do some amazing public infrastructure projects there - bridges, towers, streetscapes, public structures. they'll have a portfolio, after 10 years or so of doing that, which would rival any young architects (and i'm going to say they absolutely should deserve far more attention from the mainstream press than they'll ever likely get - they're certainly as talented as most of the pretenders out there, despite the conventions they've chosen to work within ). so, moving somewhere like that, in the middle of nowhere, could work in some circumstances. certainly the overall quality of life is high. i'd imagine marlon blackwell would say the same thing out in fayetteville. 

maybe we both need to relocate to louisville? that rex project should have plenty of space for two offices...

Take that Canadian Government "Canada has a shortage of architects" thing with a grain of salt. I think somebody read a report or something. The industry is small, statistically take up for architects services is low and the registration procedures are unfunded, costly and slow. Technologists now, or young CAD fodder that's another issue.

I'm not a demographer,but to speculate:

1. The east coast (Boston to DC) develops into a super large interconnected urban center.

2. Baby boomers move out of suburbs to 2nd tier cities e.g. Buffalo, NY to retire.

3. Hipsters move to 2nd tier cities e.g. Buffalo to escape high rent and still be only a few hours train ride from large cultural centers such as NYC.

4. Small art community is created in Buffalo and thrives.

5. The architect among them designs retirement/2nd homes for said baby boomers, earns a handsome living, and lives happily ever after.

6. Boomers never retire. Only jobs to be had are in call centers that support Indian customers.

7. Jesus returns riding a scooter, but he act like he don't know us. Word "hell" officially replaced in bible with "Buffalo, NY".

8. Cubs win the world series.

the end!

Really a career from designing 2nd/retirement homes for baby boomers? Ok maybe the downtown art center too..Its hard work when you have to predict the shape of society/demographics & geography just to operate?

seattle's a big city? heck no!

i think the biggest difficulty to moving to a smaller environment is finding the right one... and then getting your foot in the door.

to me, that would be the biggest difficulty in making that leap. i'd love to - especially an art-centric, university-affiliated tier 2 city... but i'm guessing you'll probably run into a number of already unemployed architects there. is there actual demand in smaller cities right now?

also, can we all agree the cubs should just quit? they will never... ever... ever win another world series.

I've been looking into such a move myself lately, for reasons unfortunately I don't control.  At first I was really excited about the idea of being back in a small pond, for a few reasons - mainly cost of living, but also the quieter pace of life & fewer people / buildings.  (Yes, architects can get sick of buildings.)  However, now that I am splitting my time between my city and this other city (well, Omaha, for the record) I'm surprised to find that a lot of my assumptions were totally wrong, and the picture ain't looking as good as I thought it would.

a) cost of living is a total lie.  It's impossible to compare apples to apples when looking at the difference between something like Chicago and something like Indianapolis.  In Omaha, the groceries and gas are quite shockingly cheaper than in my big city, and we were psyched for the rents - when we saw them on paper.  We quickly learned, however, that even though the rent is low, there is such low competition in the rental housing market that all the apartments were f'ing foul.  We're talking nasty, falling apart 60s kitchens, carpet that multiple tenants have ground cigarette butts into, horrible smells, tiny windowless "lofts" that aren't lofts but really just have a bedroom with 3/4 height walls in order to "make up for" the lack of a window (two wrongs don't make a right!).  The building code there is way less stringent than the one in my big city and not in a good way.  In order to live in a place we considered semi-decent we ended up having to go so much higher in rent that we are literally paying more than we were paying in the big city.  Also, in the aforementioned car vs. train question, the train is definitely cheaper / less hassle.  Plus we found out that property taxes are way higher in this city so the house we thought we would finally be able to afford is looking much closer to the price in the big city.

b)  in theory, the opportunities for good design should be higher in a small city - less competition and all that.  But one thing we are finding is that the people who live in small cities (on the whole - obviously this is a generalization) do not seem to have as much interest in, or care for, design.  I'm not sure if it's just due to lower exposure, or what.  I have two photographer friends who have just moved to two different small cities and both are struggling - not with finding clients, but with finding clients who understand the worth of quality.  That said...

c) surprisingly, there are a handful of stand-out projects in this one small town (Omaha) that prove that the good design can get done.  And not only that, but to my great surprise, these projects are more adventurously designed than 99% of the new buildings I've watched go up in my big fancy-architecture city in the last 10 years. 

And by "handful" I mean literally 4-5 projects that I've seen so far.  But still, everything in my big city is so gentrified that at this point every developer is just aping his neighbor, in order to build for some supposed 'resale value' that evidently requires the exact same building built over and over again.  Even the big office towers look absolutely identical.  Total waste of architecture.  Most of my big city is banal design - but at least it's not actively ugly, as much of Omaha is.

So I guess I'm saying I thought I'd love the mode of living in Omaha and hate the architecture but instead I'm finding that the bits of good architecture are better than I thought (although against a background of either low-quality design or active ugliness) but the mode of living is so sad compared to the lifestyle I had in the big city. 

My earlier comment about the market and demographics..it occurred to me that Palladio did something like that by tapping into the villa/farm need at the start of his career in Italy, but just going after the baby boomers maybe a little lazy. Anyway I agree with Mantaray, you have to find the right mid-size city and you may, following some sucess, move on or at least expand geographically, being committed to a place is one thing, but cutting yourself off from opportunity another. Afterall many mid-size cities build their "good" buildings, if they have them, using "stars" from elsewhere.

As Architects I think we should always prioritise the transportation and if the links are bad don't do it, also I think we should resist the thirty-something flight from the city, so often the big house, cheaper lifestyle thing is just another commercial pressure.

hm i dunno about the quality of architecture in small cities idea. 

if it's there i am guessing it was not by a local more often than not.

  i grew up in a really small town then moved to a middling city that had fantastic architecture 100 years ago and not so much now.  but in comparison to london and now tokyo it is hard to say the architecture level comes remotely close.  quality of life is another question altogether, as is career path and cetera.  but when it comes to seeing the world's best, and a lot of it all in one spot kinda thing, there is nothing like a world class city for delivering the goods.

I'm from Austin.  It's a wonderful mid-size city and you don't need me to convince you.  But despite the building boom and bust of this past decade, Austin still doesn't feel very urban outside the downtown/ university area.  The central neighborhoods have a very low density and the transportation is a joke.  They even built a new commuter rail that goes nowhere important.  All that to say, most Austinites still live a very suburban lifestyle, where getting in the car, paying high property taxes are commonplace.  If you're not ready to buy, it's slim pickings for central apartments.  Recalling what mantaray wrote, they are  mostly refurbished wood frame structures built in the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Some are even sold as "lofts" which is a weird real estate phenomenon.  But the nightlife is great, lots of pretty people, lots of music.  It's a great place to have a family.  I should know, I grew up there.  But working as an architect in Austin has its drawbacks.  With the exception of the new W hotel, most high rise developments are designed by outside firms, Dallas, Houston, and beyond.  The real action is at the high end residential level.  As amazing as some of these hidden gems are, they don't really feed back into an urban density that is much needed.  All high occupancy housing projects cater to people with above average incomes, leaving middle class people with very few options, other than the suburbs, rental homes or some crappy apartment away from all the good stuff.  Thus, you have to be somewhat privileged to live close to the center of this mid-size city.  It wasn't always like that, but this is the direction things are moving in.  Austin always makes for great first impressions for outsiders, but living an urban lifestyle as a resident is a bit harder to achieve.

when looking at second tier cities, you might want to look at how their housing market is doing overall. if it's super sick (as the list is below), that's a double edged sword: it may be cheaper to buy for yourself, but it probably also means the overall amount of projects going on right now is not so great as well. so, if you take a 20 year horizon, yeah, maybe you can move there now, figure out how to survive and hope that as things get better, your investment will pay off...

Atlanta has the nation’s fourth sickest housing market among the country’s largest 75 metro areas, according to a new analysis.

Tucson had the worst market, followed by Indianapolis and Memphis, according to the 24/7 Wall St. website. It pulled Census data on the 75 largest metro areas and ranked the cities with the highest overall vacancy rates for both homeowner vacancy and rental vacancy for the second quarter of 2011.

Atlanta had a homeowner vacancy rate of 5.4 percent and a rental vacancy rate of 11.8 percent, the website said.

“The city, which had a significant influx of new residents, particularly from the northeast, has been hit hard,” the website said, citing our higher than average unemployment rate.

Ten Sickest Housing Markets

1. Tucson

2. Indianapolis

3. Memphis

4. Atlanta

5. Baton Rouge

6. Dayton

7. Detroit

8. Kansas City

9. St Louis

10. Oklahoma City

For the record, sometimes the presence of a uni only makes a small city worse.  It DEFINITELY depends on the uni.

GW: Do you have a link for that?  Usually, I don't trust the methodologies of any of those 'top ten' lists; vacancy rate isn't necessarily the only factor, for example.  (Incidentally, I read 'sickest' and first thought it was meant in the 'slang' sense, as in, 'man, that private jet is so sick!')

Also, not every university town is Waco ;-)

I have observed that the presence of a university does not necessarily improve things in a small city. Campus type designs hold the university apart from the existing town and academics are commonly inward looking and disinterested in the community. As a group they travel(& work) a lot and so do not engage much.

The bigger problem is that the wrong kind of campus only dumps screaming drunk teenagers into your neighborhood, not arts and culture.

mixmaster - unfortunately no. and i don't trust these things much either, although some of these seem like no-brainers.

in thinking about small university towns, of course it's going to be relative. athens, ga, for example, is a great little town that has an outsize influence from the university. football saturdays suck for townies. same with auburn, al, where i went to school. but both are nice enough places - and the universities vibrant enough - that it works, at least for me.

hudson valley as maybe a haven for what the OP and others are looking for? hip, small, cool, a short train ride into nyc...