Rethinking Retirement: Why Expensive Cities Are Rising in Retirement Rankings

[Flyfish1]

Boston is a wonderful city. Although sections are certainly at risk of rising seas in the future. Of course same with NYC.

 

[marko]

Like everything else, it depends on how much money you have. Moving to downtown Boston, NYC or San Francisco (or Paris, London, Rome or Tokyo) can be fabulous as long as you can afford it. Nothing like a doorman, security and a $200k parking spot for the Bentley.

If you're on a shoestring and have to settle for towns just outside of the city, it kind of changes the benefits. Beacon Hill ($3M homes) is indeed quite nice. Chelsea, 2 miles away, not to much.

Money simply provides insulation from discomfort, danger and inconvenience no matter where you live.

 

[audreyh1]

A new retirement ranking is turning old assumptions upside down: expensive places like New York City/San Francisco/Boston/Seatle now score high because healthcare, walkability, and daily convenience matter more with age than low taxes alone. Meanwhile, The Villages in Lady Lake, Fla, for example, ranks dead last. It’s the largest retirement community in the United States but scores near the floor on every metric that predicts long-term urban vitality.

The newest retirement rankings suggest retirees may value healthcare, walkability, daily convenience, and long-term independence more than low taxes and low cost. Is the real shift simply that retirees are starting to rank “aging well” above “paying less”?

Top:
1. New York City — 66.4
2. Durham, NC — 65.3
3. Ann Arbor, MI — 64.4
4. Boston, MA — 63.9
5. Seattle–Tacoma, WA — 63.8
6. Washington–Arlington, DC — 63.8
7. Frederick, MD — 61.8
8. Albany–Schenectady, NY — 61.4
9. Raleigh, NC — 61.4
10. San Francisco–Oakland, CA — 61.0

Bottom:
250. The Villages–Lady Lake, FL — 32.9
249. Spring Hill, FL — 34.1
248. Vero Beach–Sebastian, FL — 34.3
247. McAllen, TX — 35.1
246. Myrtle Beach–North Myrtle Beach, SC — 36.3
245. Brownsville, TX — 36.4
244. Indio–Palm Desert–Palm Springs, CA — 36.8
243. Port Charlotte–North Port, FL — 37.3
242. Ocala, FL — 37.4
241. Beaumont, TX — 37.8

Retire to New York City? New index redefines what makes a great place for retirees

The new Geography of Prosperity Index ranks 250 urban areas in America that raises questions about the future livabilty of .many popular retirement destinations

finance.yahoo.com

https://geographyofprosperity.com/gop/home

Ha ha we’re living near the bottom. Living in walkable towns is not a good option here, but we live on a city edge, so out of the hustle and bustle. And we have large nature/wildlife parks within walking and cycling distance of us which are much appreciated. Yes, we have to drive for groceries and errands maybe once or twice a week, but are otherwise away from crowded, busy, and loud areas. And you can’t beat the winter weather. Also medical care here is very good, not an issue.

Also after retiring we lost any desire to live in a large city. This ultimately chased us out of Austin TX. It’s a lovely city with tons of great resources, but just too many people moved in and the traffic became horrendous. Dense urban living is not for us.

 

[Kings over Queens]

Like everything else, it depends on how much money you have. Moving to downtown Boston, NYC or San Francisco (or Paris, London, Rome or Tokyo) can be fabulous as long as you can afford it.

If you're on a shoestring and have to settle for towns just outside of the city, it kind of changes the benefits. Beacon Hill ($3M homes) is indeed quite nice. Chelsea, 2 miles away, not to much.

I've been poking around because this topic interests me, and found a report issued by NYC that states their over 65 population is booming, and one key factor is rent control, and other services underwritten by the City. I thought that was interesting.

Still looking for migration trends. While people may respond to 5 criteria in a poll for an index, that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as taking action with their feet and actually moving to those places. The OP shared a index ranking and I'm wondering if actual migration patterns support it.

 

[Onda]

OP is busy enjoying beautiful day Will comment later

 

[OneBean]

This is an interesting article for me. I’ve lived my entire life in relatively rural low cost of living areas - southeastern Kentucky and northeastern Tennessee - and I have zero desire to retire in one. Overall medical care is subpar, nothing is walkable, and the low cost of living includes almost zero social services. I watched how hard that made the last years of my mother’s life and combined with me being completely politically incomparable with these areas I have no desire to stay. I’m spending the next few years taking my vacations in large but walkable cities to figure out where I want to go once I fully retire and I’ve accepted having to work a bit longer and save more to be able to afford it. Admittedly I am mainly interested in the northeast to still be a reasonably close flight to my extended family (in addition to not having an aversion to cold weather) so some of the list isn’t for me, but I’m glad people are realizing not everyone has the same goals for retirement locations. My son should be 25 and fully launched by the time I retire and I intend to stay single so I am excited to find the city that is the best fit for me to build the next part of my life in.

 

[engineernerd]

I've been poking around because this topic interests me, and found a report issued by NYC that states their over 65 population is booming, and one key factor is rent control, and other services underwritten by the City. I thought that was interesting.

Still looking for migration trends. While people may respond to 5 criteria in a poll for an index, that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as taking action with their feet and actually moving to those places. The OP shared a index ranking and I'm wondering if actual migration patterns support it.

Rent control does nothing to get people to move to NYC, but it does keep longtime residents married to the apartments they've been living in for a really long time.

We lived in NYC while I was a kid, and some of our friends lived in VERY crowded conditions in rent-controlled apartments that had been perfect for their parents before they were born but were a real stretch with the kids added into the mix!

 

[Dtail]

Ha ha we’re living near the bottom. Living in walkable towns is not a good option here, but we live on a city edge, so out of the hustle and bustle. And we have large nature/wildlife parks within walking and cycling distance of us which are much appreciated. Yes, we have to drive for groceries and errands maybe once or twice a week, but are otherwise away from crowded, busy, and loud areas. And you can’t beat the winter weather. Also medical care here is very good, not an issue.

Also after retiring we lost any desire to live in a large city. This ultimately chased us out of Austin TX. It’s a lovely city with tons of great resources, but just too many people moved in and the traffic became horrendous. Dense urban living is not for us.

To some extent the same for us. Even though we live in Tampa, it is in the northeast corner named New Tampa, which is effectively a suburb of Tampa. Our complex is super quiet and well kept.
We do have all our stores and doctors within 20 minutes and the medical coverage and knowledge is excellent.
35-45 minutes to special events/eating downtown.

 

[Gumby]

We moved into our retirement town on the Connecticut coast 37 years ago, but we retired only 7 years ago. If we didn't live here, we'd live over in Mystic (where we lived while I was a submariner).

 

[38Chevy454]

Funny thing is, I wouldn't live in big city with dense urban population if it was free. I can't stand big city living in an apt/condo/high rise; give me space and my own SFR. You can have the big city crime, noise, crowding, no parking, politics, subway and public transit, and overbearing rules.

 

[Onda]

There is too much focus on New York City simply because it ranked first, while #2 and #3 — Durham and Ann Arbor — are much smaller and arguably more realistic options for many retirees. The truly interesting part is not New York itself, but the criteria behind the ranking: climate resilience, social cohesion, governance, population renewal, and automation readiness.

This would not be my primary filter. It is an interesting secondary filter though.

 

[Onda]

Am I limited to only two out of the five?

How about a ranking of the five, from most important to least.

1. governance and foresight
2. social cohesion
3. automation readiness
4. population renewal
5. climate resilience

I will only expand on one:

Social cohesion becomes especially important in retirement because daily life depends more on the quality of the surrounding community once work no longer provides structure or regular social contact. A place where people trust each other, public life functions well, and neighborhoods feel stable often matters as much as climate or health care, because it directly affects long-term comfort, safety, and sense of belonging.

 

[TripleLindy]

Funny thing is, I wouldn't live in big city with dense urban population if it was free. I can't stand big city living in an apt/condo/high rise; give me space and my own SFR. You can have the big city crime, noise, crowding, no parking, politics, subway and public transit, and overbearing rules.

I completely understand the desire for rural living. Living in a large metro area doesn’t mean living in a high rise or a congested area, though. There are plenty of multi-acre homes in our town, all while being in the 4th most populous area in the U.S., and we have one of the lowest crime rates in the country, ranked as the 7th safest in the country.

I would consider high-rise living, though, primarily for the lock and leave convenience. There are a couple of condo towers on a nearby lake in our town, but they start around $2m and have $25k HOA fees.

 

[Chuckanut]

Good medical care and adequate public transport ion for when driving becomes a less than desirable way to get around are certainly important. That's a big plus for big cities.

Overall, I find these ratings on the best cities and states to retire in to be mediocre at best. They often vary significantly from year to year which makes me suspicious.

 

[Flyfish1]

We moved into our retirement town on the Connecticut coast 37 years ago, but we retired only 7 years ago. If we didn't live here, we'd live over in Mystic (where we lived while I was a submariner).

We retired to the CT coast 3 years ago just down the road from Mystic. Lovely area and some very good restaurants! Funny - most of my neighborhood are retirees.

 

[Kings over Queens]

I will only expand on one:

Social cohesion becomes especially important in retirement because daily life depends more on the quality of the surrounding community once work no longer provides structure or regular social contact. A place where people trust each other, public life functions well, and neighborhoods feel stable often matters as much as climate or health care, because it directly affects long-term comfort, safety, and sense of belonging.

Yes, thanks. I read the report in Yahoo and followed the link in it to the geography of prosperity page where the 5 criteria were defined.

 

[SnowballCamper]

The newest retirement rankings suggest retirees may value healthcare, walkability, daily convenience, and long-term independence more than low taxes and low cost. Is the real shift simply that retirees are starting to rank “aging well” above “paying less”?

No. from the link,

Developed jointly by HumanChange and Motivf over the past year, the Index evaluates 250 American metro areas across five equally weighted dimensions: Population Renewal; Climate Resilience; Automation Readiness; Social Cohesion; and Governance & Foresight. Each dimension reflects a structural system that research shows will increasingly determine whether a community can sustain opportunity over the coming decades.

I went and looked at the data sources. It's a general mashup of data already out there weighted to their purposes. A project for a masters degree student transformed into clickbait IMHO.

 

[Taco]

Which two of those five would you call unimportant in retirement?

That's kind of a loaded question, because clearly there is a difference between being unimportant and being less important than other things.

For example, factors commonly considered important to retirees (access to good doctors / healthcare, cost of living, weather) are indeed much more important, to me, than "automation readiness".

It is interesting that this ranking did not actually survey retirees and ask whether climate resilience, automation readiness, etc were important to them. They just thought those things should be. And then created the ranking based on what they thought should be important to other people.

In your original post you said:
"The newest retirement rankings suggest retirees may value healthcare, walkability, daily convenience, and long-term independence more than low taxes and low cost. Is the real shift simply that retirees are starting to rank “aging well” above “paying less”?"

I disagree somewhat with this summary. It implies a change has occurred. For retirees to be valuing something more, for a shift to be occurring, then real people need to say so. A researcher creating some criteria, and then creating a ranking, doesn't mean that what the ranking shows is actually happening.

Note that the The Villages, last on the list, continues to grow.

 

[Flyfish1]

OP is busy enjoying beautiful day Will comment later

View attachment 62975

I know that area. It really is beautiful. Kids both live in Boston. Two problems: Psychotic drivers and in that area no place to put my workshop. Even my children have morphed into crazy drivers....lol

 

[Onda]

I know that area. It really is beautiful. Kids both live in Boston. Two problems: Psychotic drivers and in that area no place to put my workshop. Even my children have morphed into crazy drivers....lol

Drivers = MassHoles

 

[Kings over Queens]

I'd not rate NYC high on "climate resilience" with Hurricane Sandy coming to mind, but TEHO (To Each, His/Her Own). I think an increased interest in expensive places mostly reflects retiree finances.

Below is how "climate resilience" is defined for the purpose of this ranking or index.

Since Superstorm Sandy hit, there have been sweeping changes to the building codes with a focus on climate change including impact resistant windows. But the changes run deeper and are not necessarily tied to storm resilience.

Here are 3.

1. New construction or renovations/additions of a certain size must have solar panels. (Local law 92/94)

2. Wood burning fireplaces were banned in new construction in 2015, and existing wood burning fireplaces are strictly regulated.

3. In 2023 NY (state) banned gas stoves in new construction with implementation to be staged at various times but with full compliance by 2030 for residential and 2035 for commercial structures. The ban was signed into law but the Governor has paused implementation.

NYC prides itself on having very stringent energy codes.

Home - Mayor's Office of Climate & Environmental Justice

 

[gwill1010]

"Researchers compiling the new index evaluated five characteristics: climate resilience, automation readiness, social cohesion, population renewal, and governance and foresight."

Just what I'm looking for in a retirement location...

Holy crap

 

[Onda]

Below is how "climate resilience" is defined for the purpose of this ranking or index.

Home - Mayor's Office of Climate & Environmental Justice

View attachment 62979

Please don't twist facts. This ranking states only:

Climate and Extreme Weather Resilience captures both environmental risk and institutional readiness. It assesses exposure to extreme heat, flooding, drought, fire, and storms, alongside a region’s capacity to plan, adapt, and recover.
Prosperous places aren’t those untouched by climate and extreme weather—they’re the ones investing early, reducing risk, and building systems that can withstand repeated shocks.

 

[Ronstar]

Living in a big city would drive me crazy. Our census tract has a population density of 64 people per square mile, and I consider it crowded. I’d like to move somewhere far less populated.

 

[Diogenes]

How about a ranking of the five, from most important to least.

1. governance and foresight
2. social cohesion
3. automation readiness
4. population renewal
5. climate resilience

None of these five is crucial to me. I care somewhat about social cohesion and population dynamism, by which I mean both churn and growth. It would be unpleasant to live in a locale where most residents were born within a 50-mile radius. Indeed, I would prefer a place with a maximally high percentage of foreign-born folks and non-US citizens. I'd also like to be somewhere with a large percentage of college-grads, and ideally, with a significant fraction of folks with a graduate or "professional" degree... understanding, of course, that that's hyper-local and hardly ascribable to an entire metro-area.

As for the matter of expenses or COL, I'm far more concerned about state/local income taxes and property taxes, than I am about housing-costs or the price of gas. The ideal place would actually have costly housing, but low (or zero) state/local income taxes.