# Your favorite cities for living



## trio_ (Oct 25, 2011)

Many rankings already out there for quality of life rankings, but what are yours, where would you want to live, more than just visiting as a tourist? I feel this is more varied and more personal as well as it takes into account more things than the standard rankings.

My selection of 10 cities in no particular order:

- London
- Paris
- New York
- Zurich
- Stockholm
- Berlin
- Tokyo
- Munich
- Miami
- Madrid


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

I'll stick to top 5 and divide between US and non-US.

US:
NY
Miami
Boston
Chicago
Washington

Outside US:
London
Madrid
Barcelona
Tel Aviv
Buenos Aires


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Any city where you can work or setup business in a dense downtown with a great skyline and live in a nice house with a car and garden all the way in the suburbs.


----------



## isakres (May 13, 2009)

I like Big Vibrant Cities for living, Small Exotic Towns are made for Tourism 

New York
London
Barcelona
Buenos Aires
Sidney
Paris
Los Angeles / San Diego
Maybe Tel Aviv and Rio as well.


----------



## hadeer992 (Mar 1, 2010)

New York 
Dubai
Chicago
Seattle
San Francisco
London
Paris 
Barcelona


----------



## Bricken Ridge (Feb 16, 2008)

My top personal favorites- enjoyed these cities so much during my weeklong visits for wine, dine, arts, hustle, bustle, nightlife, daylife, play.


Large cities:

1. Vancouver
2. Barcelona
3. Paris
4. Montreal
5. San Francisco


And the not so big cities:

1. Florence, Italy 
2. Santa Fe, NM
3: Sedona, AZ
4: Zurich
5. Quebec City


----------



## Pavlov's Dog (Aug 2, 2007)

I prefer safe, cosmopolitan, not too dense or big, not too conservative socially (ie they welcome expats), well-run cities which welcome diversity and with beautiful and varied nature close-by. I don't like flat areas either. Nor do I like muggy climates.

San Francisco
Portland
Seattle
Vancouver
San Diego
Denver
Montreal
Boston
Santiago de Chile
Florianapolis
Barcelona
Lisboa
Torino
Zurich
Oslo (my current city -despite the climate)
Stockholm 
Sydney
Melbourne
Auckland
Adelaide


----------



## lafreak84 (Oct 26, 2010)

New York City
London
Paris
Munich
Stuttgart
Vancouver
Liverpool
Stockholm
Melbourne
Maribor


----------



## terencemark (Oct 26, 2011)

hey,
did you said many rankings are out of there in sorted out by quality of life but what's yours?
ok so it's Oklahoma.


----------



## SkyBridge (Feb 15, 2006)

1. Antwerp
2. Berlin
3. Vancouver
4. Copenhagen
5. Amsterdam
6. Barcelona
7. Milan
8. NYC
9. Paris
10. London

My personal must-haves are:

- Affordable housing
- Nightlife & shops
- Fashion sense / street style
- "Creativity"
- Easy start-up city
- Car unfriendly
- International
- Historical vs. modern


----------



## RioARCHTQTO (Aug 19, 2011)

M-E-L-B-O-U-R-N-E


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

1. New York City
2. Melbourne
3. London
4. Philadelphia
5. San Francisco
6. Sydney
7. Rome
8. Milano
9. Paris
10. Amsterdam

(Honorable Mention - Chicago, Vancouver, Auckland)


----------



## Zach759 (May 20, 2010)

San Diego
Chicago
NYC 
Philadelphia
Denver


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

Well, I love my city (Londrina), my neighboorhood, my street. But I'd like to live elsewhere for a while and the list would be:

1. London
2. Paris
3. Detroit
4. Chicago
5. New York
6. Porto Alegre
7. Pittsburgh
8. Cape Town
9. Rome
10. Edinburgh
11. Auckland
12. Hong Kong


----------



## intensivecarebear (Feb 2, 2006)

Yuri S Andrade said:


> Well, I love my city (Londrina), my neighboorhood, my street. But I'd like to live elsewhere for a while and the list would be:
> 
> 1. London
> 2. Paris
> ...


:lol::nuts: Uh, have fun


----------



## JD47 (Feb 20, 2011)

My top ten would be:
1. Dublin, Ire
2. New York, US
3. Paris, Fra
4. Rome, Ita
5. Sydney, Aus
6. Barcelona, Esp
7. Melbourne, Aus
8. London, Eng
9. Zurich, Swz
10. Chicago, US
I picked Dublin cause its my home and it has a lot to give. Good nightlife, History, Art, Modern and a sexy new terminal with good transport if Metro North goes ahead and it has the safest roads in Europe and the M50 is quick and easy.


----------



## isakres (May 13, 2009)

intensivecarebear said:


> :lol::nuts: Uh, have fun


Lol true Yuri, you better stay in Londrina :lol:, or maybe explore some other cool options as Curitiba, Floripa or Rio


----------



## Yuri S Andrade (Sep 29, 2008)

intensivecarebear said:


> :lol::nuts: Uh, have fun


I will! I can picture myself living in one of those Downtown old buildings or in a quite street somewhere in the Oakland County... Gosh... I think of moving up Detroit in the list... Watch out Paris!




isakres said:


> Lol true Yuri, you better stay in Londrina :lol:, or maybe explore some other cool options as Curitiba, Floripa or Rio


I'll pass! In Brazil, besides Londrina, I'd live only in Maringá or Porto Alegre... Detroit here we come!


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I'd love to relocate to US in a permanent basis within 5-6 years.

If so, these are the American cities I'd like to live in most:

- Phoenix
- Denver
- Salt Lake City
- Houston
- Tucson
- Boise
- Albuquerque
- Kansas City


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

New York would be great. It does have a dense pedestrian oriented city centre plus one of the greatest skylines in the world and great public transportation.

On the other hand, you can still live in the suburbs whether in Long Island, NJ, Westchester or in Connecticut and have a nice house with a car and garden.


----------



## sardinianboy (Oct 2, 2011)

PadArch said:


> London
> Londinium
> The big smoke
> Cockaigne
> ...


are they ****! For a few maybe!


----------



## caterham (Jul 26, 2010)

In no particular order :
Berlin
Stockholm
Amsterdam
Firenze & Bologna
Valencia
Munich
Zürich


----------



## Jogy (Aug 30, 2011)

In random order:

Europe:
Rotterdam
London
Zurrich
Geneva
Vienna
Amsterdam
Franfkurt
Berlin
Munich

U.S.:
maybe San Francisco? (sorry guys, i don't really like U.S. cities)


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Seems like you dislike non US/European cities even more. London is a great place though.


----------



## Jogy (Aug 30, 2011)

^^
No, I like many non US/Euro cities, but I just wouldn't like to live there, 'cause there are still the best standards of living in Europe and USA - even though those cities are amazing.
Anyway I haven't visited many non US/Euro cities, so I can't reconsider it. :cheers:


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Its not very spectacular, but I love Sheffield, England

A small-mid size city. Quite a small city centre but has a great night life, and has had a lot of redevelopment and is looking pretty good. Friendly people, very cheap, low crime for a city and good transport links...

Its set in the hills and has some very nice tree lined streets in the suburbs, and modern city centre apartments...


----------



## brazilteen (Mar 20, 2010)

RANDOM ORDER.
South America:
Curitiba
São Paulo
Santiago

Europe
London
Amsterdam
Milan
Munich
Paris
Zurich
Oxford
Monte Carlo

North America
New York
Santa Barbara
Montreal
Toronto
Fort Lauderdale
Philadelphia

Oceania
Sydney
Melbourne
Auckland


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

I wouldnt recommend u Ft. Laudardale ^^. That's a boring city..


----------



## musiccity (Jan 5, 2011)

Yep, Miami is better.. Ft Lauderdale is gross


----------



## Diggerdog (Sep 24, 2008)

*Cape Town *and *Barcelona* are just brilliant - even though I am South African, I will call it a tie!
*Durban* is a very underrated, sub-tropical, warm water, great surf beachy city.

On the slightly smaller city/town front - *San Sebastian *in Pais Vasco in Spain is sublime, I could happily live there.

Honourable mentions to *Lisboa*, *Kuala Lumpur *and of course *London*.


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

I have been living in the sub-tropics for 4 years now. I think I can only live in places with a warm climate now. 

Climate can make a city so much better for living. The street life is generally much more happening.

I have to live next to the sea as well. Will want to live inland.

Barcelona
Lisbon
San Francisco
Sydney
Hong Kong


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

If u liked San Francisco then you'd love San Diego! ^^


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

-Corey- said:


> If u liked San Francisco then you'd love San Diego! ^^


Is it as much of a "city"? I do like large cities.


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

Brazzaville this time of year :yes:


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

-Corey- said:


> If u liked San Francisco then you'd love San Diego! ^^



San diego is in no way comparable to SF, buddy.. One is a world class cultural/economic center and the other is a secondary city more comparable to Miami..


----------



## sebvill (Apr 13, 2005)

Maybe because Im latino but for me the best cities to live in are in Latin America and by far. Maybe some European cities too specially Madrid, Barcelona, Paris & London. In the US i would choose NY, Chicago or San Francisco.

Ive never been to Australia but it should be nice to live in Perth, Sydney, Melbourne or Brisbane.

I wouldnt be able to live in any city in Scandinavia, Germany, China or an Arab/Muslim Country. Just for tourism.


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

sebvill said:


> Maybe because Im latino but for me the best cities to live in are in Latin America and by far.


It's cause you like having a maid. C'mon, admit it :naughty:


----------



## sebvill (Apr 13, 2005)

Hahahaha probably. I live in Europe now actually (between Lille and Paris). But im going back to Lima in December for good.


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

I knew it! :colgate:.. Its hard for us Latin Americans to give up our wonderful maids and their cooking :cheers:


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

@Motul, SD is not a very well known city but there's no way you could compare it to Miami! You don't even know the city, and before you start making false assumptions, SD is better than SF, better climate (and not rainy like SF), is America's safest largest city, over 40% with a bachelor degree (not even close to Miami), great universities (such as UCSD), nice beaches, theme parks, its downtown is as vibrant like never before, better than the dirty downtown LA, and as cosmopolita as LA or Sf are in a smaller scale, cleaner than San Francisco. SF is better if u include the surrounded counties. If u like SD better that's your own opinion, I love SF too, because it's pretty much like SD, and only a few cities in the US could compare in quality of life to SD and SF beside Honolulu. Ill post some references if you need them, . I'm on my iPhone now and I can't post them...


Ribarca said:


> Is it as much of a "city"? I do like large cities.


San Diego is California's second largest city and number 3 after SF including metropolitan area.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

-Corey- said:


> @Motul, SD is not a very well known city but there's no way you could compare it to Miami!


Here you go again Corey, crapping over Miami with less than convincing logic.




-Corey- said:


> over 40% with a bachelor degree (not even close to Miami),


Where do you get these stats? And are you looking at just the city or the entire metro area? Anyway, who cares?? Is that what makes for a great city or determines your quality of life?




-Corey- said:


> great universities (such as UCSD),


San Diego doesn't have "great" universities (just like Miami doesn't). UCSD is ranked 37 in the country. Good, but not great. 




-Corey- said:


> nice beaches, theme parks,


 

lol... _THEME PARKS_? That's what makes a great city? And better beaches than Miami? Are you sure?




-Corey- said:


> its downtown is as vibrant like never before, better than the dirty downtown LA, and as cosmopolita as LA or Sf are in a smaller scale,


 

It's certainly not more cosmopolitan than Miami. Been to Lincoln Road lately?

Anyway, I think you missed Motul's and Ribarca's point. Nobody was saying that San Diego is not a nice place. But San Francisco is indeed much more of a *city* from a traditional, urban, transit-oriented perspective. All you need to do is look at their respective densities. San Francisco (city proper) is 17,000/sq mile whereas San Diego is around 4,000. Big difference. So, yes, in that sense SD is actually much closer to Miami - a beach town with a dense business district and oceanfront, surrounded by a vast suburbia. (Except that SD has nothing even remotely comparable to Miami Beach) 

PS. I like San Diego. I am sure it's a great place to live (if you can afford it!). But your constant boosterism of SD and denigration of Miami and south Florida are a bit nauseating and without merit.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

And btw, the frequently quoted GaWC study marks Miami as an Alpha- city and San Diego as a Beta- . San Francisco is Alpha. 

I am not a big fan of these surveys, but that actually sounds about right. So enough already with this "SD is so much better than Miami" bs.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

:lol: Does anybody in real life actually base their decisions on where they'd like to live on whether a city is ranked by some organisation as Alpha or Beta?

If somebody likes SD better than Miami what's the problem?


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Jonesy55 said:


> :lol: Does anybody in real life actually base their decisions on where they'd like to live on whether a city is ranked by some organisation as Alpha or Beta?


Of course not. But the discussion has evolved from personal preferences to Corey's preposterous assertions of SD's total superiority. That's the relevance here. 



Jonesy55 said:


> If somebody likes SD better than Miami what's the problem?


Take a look at Corey's responses and tell me if the message he is trying to convey is "I like SD better than Miami" -- which would be perfectly reasonable of course -- or more like "SD is better in every way, Miami is second rate by comparison, and anyone who might want to live in Miami is misguided".


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

Fitzrovian said:


> Here you go again Corey, crapping over Miami with less than convincing logic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Couldnt have said it better kay:


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Comparing San Francisco to San Diego is like comparing Boston to Miami. Both are great cities but in completely different ways, and there are very good reasons why one might prefer the former to the latter (or vice versa!).


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

In my opinión. Top tier American cities:

NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Portland (smaller but awesome).

And that's pretty much it, in my opinion.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Motul said:


> In my opinión. Top tier American cities:
> 
> NYC, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, Seattle, Portland (smaller but awesome).
> 
> And that's pretty much it, in my opinion.


Define "top tier". If you mean "world class" (all things considered) then I would also include - at least - Washington, LA, Miami and Philadelphia. New Orleans (for history, food, architecture and nightlife) and Las Vegas (for sheer hedonistic uniqueness) as well. Seattle maybe. San Diego maybe. Portland, no way. Sorry.


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

Its just my personal opinion, having been to all those cities except for Philly.

In my opinion, top tier: Multi cultural, vibrant downtown, city life, extensive opportunities, rich in cultural life + entertainment, anti sprawl (regardless of suburbs), emphasis on mass transport instead of private (cars), varied and affordable gastronomy, extensive opportunities for human development (hobbies), densely populated, etc..


Vegas: Vague, sprawling, 

Washington: never been attracted to it, no real reason. Maybe it's too close to federal government for comfort? :? :lol:

New Orleans: great local culture and arquitecture, but missing on the Multi culturalism and city life. Not sure on advancement opportunities either. More like an awesome tourist spot.

Philly: Beautiful and historic, but somewhat decadent (part of rust belt).

Miami: My hometown (unfortunately). It lacks on most of those points. It's a nice tourist resort, but is far from being a true city (more like a huge sprawl with a nice playground: SoBe).

On the other hand:

Portland: small, but yet superbly encompasses all those points I mentioned, great city to live in.

Seattle: great music scene, authentic, out doorsy, great city life. Pales in comparison to It's Canadian counterpart (Vancouver), but a great city nonetheless.

Boston: academic (meaning young), vibrant city center, beautiful, Multi cultural, pragmatic. Nice town.

Chicago: no explanation needed.

NYC: Ditto

San Francisco: ditto x2.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

^^ Okay Motul, so you like dense, vibrant, European-style cities that have good public transportation, diversity and cultural life. 

I guess LA, Vegas and Miami are out then. Agreed. What I am curious about is why Portland is on your list while Washington and Philly aren't. Portland is very white, has a far lower population density, inferior public transportation and not much history to speak of. What's so great about it?

Seattle is another suspect one on your list... according to your own criteria. It scores high on skyline, natural beauty, outdoor activities and youthfulness. However, much like Portland, it's not very strong on density (in comparison to the east coast cities), public transportation, historical pedigree or multiculturalism.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Jogy said:


> ^^
> No, I like many non US/Euro cities, but I just wouldn't like to live there, 'cause *there are still the best standards of living in Europe and USA* - even though those cities are amazing.


That's debatable. I'd say Australian or Canadian cities offer the highest quality of life/standard of living. Those quality of life indices seem to always put them at the top of their lists. Having lived in both Europe and Canada, I'd have to agree.


----------



## OtAkAw (Aug 5, 2004)

I'm a loyal believer in "there's no place like home" but if I have to pick other places where I would like to live they would be:

Big Cities
*New York City*: culture, art, architecture, cuisine, lifestyle, the ultimate urban living
*San Francisco*: climate, culture, I dunno I feel it's a bit laid back and carefree
*Paris*: culture, art, cuisine, architecture, it's beauty everywhere
*Tokyo*: technology, lifestyle, transportation, cuisine, vibrance

Not so big cities
*Geneva*: high quality of life
*Yokohama*: Has Tokyo's charms and is nearby, but it's not as crowded and frenetic
*San Diego*: beach, sun, sand, laid-back


----------



## daniel220776 (Nov 14, 2004)

These are the best cities to live according to my personal experience:

1. Auckland, New Zealand. Amazing city and great quality of life.

Pros: -Super Clean
-Nice weather
-Good Size (around million and a half)
-Amazing landscapes (mountains and beaches) not very far from the city
-Super nice and friendly people
-Not very expensive overally compared to cities with similar quality of life

Cons: -Very far from the rest of the world (it could be a pro for some people)
-Not very culturaly diverse
-No subway or mass underground transportation system

2. Toronto, Canada

strongest feature: diversity
weakest feature: winter

3. Barcelona, Spain

strongest feature: culture and weather
weakest feature: unemployment and politics

The city where I currently live (Bilbao) ranks well in culture, landscapes & gastronomy. Is halfway in diversity, weather (temperature is OK but it rains a lot) and cost of living. And it lags in economy, politics and customer service.

cheers,


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

My favourite. Only visited twice, so maybe there are some neg. aspects I don't know about

*Beziers*, Southern France

Small city (with french messures)
Nice park and alley in the centre
Good communications-Direct trains to Barcelona/Montpellier & International Airport 
Excellent regional buses
Close to the mediterrainian
Sunny warm weather


----------



## Harry_Harry (Jan 2, 2009)

NordikNerd said:


> My favourite. Only visited twice, so maybe there are some neg. aspects I don't know about
> 
> *Beziers*, Southern France
> 
> ...


It's not really a city...


----------



## [email protected]@r (Nov 9, 2011)

New York (it is not pretty but New York, New York...), Los Angeles, Amsterdam, Tel Aviv, Sydney, Osaka, Rio de Janeiro (Barra da Tijuca)


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

I don't have much personal experience, and will just share the places I have been too.

1. Washington DC. ( plus parts of the urban city technically in Virginia and Maryland)

Pros:

-Cleaned up since the bad old days of the 1970s and 80s, crime going down
-Vibrant, traditionally urban city
-One of the best transit systems in country. Does progressive things like bike sharing, dense development focused around metro stations, etc.
-Growing fast, good economy in the recession.

Cons:

-Ultra expensive, competitive.
-Affordable neighborhoods are still ghetto, public schools are the worst.
-Federal government still the biggest part of the city.
-Seems kind of "snooty", boring, full of bureaucrats...

2. Denver

Pros

-Neat geography and climate. Cool summers, snows a lot in winter but is dry and sunny so it melts like a day later.
-Revitalized with a nice downtown, stuff like that.
-Large areas of quiet residential streets lined with trees make up parts of the urban city.
-Good transit and infrastructure in general(mega airport, upgraded highways, etc)
-(Mostly) seems clean and fresh as you'd expect Colorado to be.

Cons

-Inland and far from other cities. Sometimes things get all dry and brown.
-Avoid the dog food plant next to the interstate coming from the airport.

3. Austin

Pros

-Growing fast
-Young, vibrant culture
-Is beginning to seem "urban", at least downtown

Cons

-Kind of small
-gentrification making it less cool
-Outside the central city, its is still Texas. Conservative, stupid politics, blah.


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

isaidso said:


> That's debatable. I'd say Australian or Canadian cities offer the highest quality of life/standard of living. Those quality of life indices seem to always put them at the top of their lists. Having lived in both Europe and Canada, I'd have to agree.


Australia is amazing but it's so far out. You miss out on so many things happening in the world. Whenever I visited my brother who lived there for many years I was so happy to go back to "civilization". Sydney is still an amazing place. The harbor is one of the great places on planet earth to me.

Overall the "general" criteria they use don't fit me. I like countries where there is a sense of culture and Canada and Australia are just very young countries who have not contributed that much to world history (yet). Even though I live in a young city like Hong Kong now. There is just sense of ancient culture that runs through the veins of the people here.


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

Harry_Harry said:


> It's not really a city...


ok, then I say Montpellier then. Beautiful buildings especially the opera house. Also there are universities here so people are educated and civilized.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Ribarca said:


> Overall the "general" criteria they use don't fit me. I like countries where there is a sense of culture and Canada and Australia are just very young countries who have not contributed that much to world history (yet).


Fair enough, but I consider north American culture to be quite unique and strong. It's been the US that's spearheaded its recognition around the world, but it's still part of Canada's culture. :|

North American football, basketball, hockey, baseball, modern suburbia, the telephone, light bulb, insulin, Thanksgiving, Halloween, music, military... ?? I think Canada's made quite a significant contribution for such a small, young country.


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

I'm biased, I love my home country (The US) But I've lived in Japan and Germany for a combined total of 8 years so I have some room to judge overseas cities. But I will eliminate bias by also separating 10 US cities and 10 non-US cities. 

US Cities:
1. Seattle, WA
2. San Diego, CA
3. Boston, MA and Minneapolis, MN
5. San Francisco, CA (includes all of Silicon Valley)
6. New York City, NY
7. Portland, OR
8. Denver, CO
9. Austin, TX
10. Indianapolis, IN
I will say that California is the best place on Earth, so living anywhere there along the coast would be amazing! 


Non US Cities:
1. Budapest, Hungary
2. Frankfurt, Germany
3. Vancouver, Canada
4. Paris, France
5. Tokyo, Japan (not so sure about living long-term, so big, but maybe for 5 years while I'm young)
6. London, UK
7. Dublin, Ireland
8. Stockholm, Sweden
9. Amsterdam, Netherlands
10. Copenhagen, Denmark


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

For me, Chicago is my ideal city. Dense, livable neighborhoods and good public transit, but not as crowded and hectic as the East Coast (and much cheaper as well), four invigorating seasons, a strong sense of community but also strong international links, enough grit and old industry to have that historic, lived-in feel but (mostly) without the worn out Rust Belt feel, a thriving cultural scene, multiple world-class universities, several sports teams I follow, so on, so on.

Besides Chicago, in the US:
Minneapolis/St. Paul 
Milwaukee - Chicago's smaller, cleaner brother
Denver - location
Seattle
Philadelphia
St. Louis (maybe, but a rather rough city)

Outside the U.S.
Any city in Canada
London
Paris 
Sydney or Melbourne
Auckland

Note that New York is not on here. It would be an amazing city to visit, but for livability, most of the city is simply too crowded, too busy, too expensive, too wearing for me.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Dralcoffin said:


> For me, Chicago is my ideal city. Dense, livable neighborhoods and good public transit, but not as crowded and hectic as the East Coast (and much cheaper as well), four invigorating seasons, a strong sense of community but also strong international links, enough grit and old industry to have that historic, lived-in feel but (mostly) without the worn out Rust Belt feel, a thriving cultural scene, multiple world-class universities, several sports teams I follow, so on, so on.


Well put. This is making me wanna visit Chicago again. You should work for the Chicago tourism board (and I mean it as a compliment!)



Dralcoffin said:


> Outside the U.S.
> Any city in Canada.


_Any_ city in Canada?



Dralcoffin said:


> Note that New York is not on here. It would be an amazing city to visit, but for livability, most of the city is simply too crowded, too busy, too expensive, too wearing for me.


Again there is a lot of truth in this. As much as I love this place (and can't imagine living anywhere else in the US) the truth is it's too damn expensive! You can certainly get much more for your money in Chicago while still getting 90% of the same things.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

Portland is my ideal city. I dont like huge hectic cities, I'd rather live in a quieter setting but still have all the amenities I could ask for.


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

Fitzrovian said:


> Well put. This is making me wanna visit Chicago again. You should work for the Chicago tourism board (and I mean it as a compliment!)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thanks! I tend to get a bit passionate about Chicago, and would love to be a guide for a tour company or something similar in my spare time. 

As for Canada, looking at the cities individually, Calgary and Edmonton may be too sprawled out and middle-of-nowhere-ish for my liking (and Midwestern winters are bad enough). 

But the big three of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver all seem to be places I'd like. 

Toronto - to me, it seems to be a cleaner, more international Chicago, or a quieter and less crowded New York, which would be right up my alley.

Montreal - rich culture, rich history, and the central city looks wonderfully dense. But I'm not as familiar with it as I am the other two.

Vancouver - pretty much the same reasons I'm drawn to Seattle: dense central city, great transit, outstanding cityscapes, beautiful natural scenery. Aside from the "hometown pull" of the Midwest, the Northwest is probably my favorite part of North America.


----------



## michaelkervins (Nov 22, 2011)

My favourite cities where I want to live mostly are:
1.Switzerland
2. Canada
3. Monaco


----------



## NordikNerd (Feb 5, 2011)

michaelkervins said:


> My favourite cities where I want to live mostly are:
> 1.Switzerland
> 2. Canada
> 3. Monaco


Monaco feels very superficial, a phony pleasantville where no average people live. Almost like Disneyland. The Beverly Hills of the mediterranian. It's nice but I wouldn't like to live there even if I had the £$

I'd rather choose Switzerland which is as clean and proper as Monaco but with real people. 
Switzerland is situated in heart of Europe which means it's easilly accesible, but the weather is often cloudy so that is a negative aspect.

Sweden where I live is fairly neat and tidy but it's too remote and cold.


----------



## daniel220776 (Nov 14, 2004)

Switzerland for me is kind of overrated but it depends on what you are looking for. In some cities you can not take a shower at home after a certain hour or not even have sex propperly (because of noise in both cases)


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

daniel220776 said:


> Switzerland for me is kind of overrated but it depends on what you are looking for. In some cities you can not take a shower at home after a certain hour or not even have sex propperly (because of noise in both cases)


You're funny. I always lived there and i think that you are exagerating a little bit. Of course we are not supposed to disturb the neighborhood after 10 P.M.

And i never heard people complaining about neighbor having sex. In fact more about complaining not having sex themselves during other have ;-)

The biggest problem i had in 39 years of living here was once with the wife of my neighboor. Once she rang at my door at 2 in the night after i just stood up, walked around and went to the bathroom cleaning my hands. The more surprising: she was coming from Brasil ;-)


----------



## Arvo (Jul 9, 2005)

no one ever mentioned Singapore, why?


----------



## mw123 (Oct 23, 2009)

It is not a democracy! It is a great city to visit, eat, shop and the transportation is second to none however the government meddles in people's lives to the point where I would consider life in Singapore to be dull compared to other cities.


----------



## WasabiHoney (Jan 31, 2011)

I would enjoy living in a city with the following characteristics, in order of preference:

- lively and vibrant, with something to be done or seen no matter what day or hour
- plenty of choices in every domain, especially for personal life 
- comfortable weather: short-lasting cold season, no windy cold (a definite no-no), no excessive humidity, plenty of sunshine, if possible not very hot (unless there are nice beaches nearby)
- low crime rate
- not too much stress
- jobs easily available
- beautiful natural setting, pleasant cityscape

So here are the cities I could see myself living in, along with their drawbacks (based on what I have read):

*North America:*

Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco (*x*: earthquakes, car dependency and pollution in LA)
Miami, Palm Beach (*x*: humidity, crime)
New York City (*x*: must feel hectic and oppressing at times, shitty weather, creepy metro system)

*Latin America/Caribbean:*

Buenos Aires (*x*: must be hard to find a job)
Mexico City, Sao Paulo (*x*: pollution, high crime rate)
Honorable mention:
San Juan (*x*: choices and opportunities sound very limited)

*Africa:*

Durban (*x*: kind of isolated, could feel too provincial)
Cape Town (*x*: high crime rate)

*Europe:*

Lisbon, Madrid, Barcelona, Rome, Genoa (*x*: jobs are scarce, summers in Madrid are very hot with no beaches around)
London (*x*: crappy weather, snootiness)
Amsterdam (*x*: even crappier weather)
Honorable mentions:
Athens (*x*: crumbling economy, daily demonstrations, pollution)
Istanbul (*x*: earthquake prone, pollution)

*Western Asia:*

Tel Aviv (*x*: security could be an issue)
Honorable mentions:
Beirut (*x*: pollution, problematic infrastructure)
Dubai (*x*: too hot and humid, conservative/oppressive culture)

*Eastern Asia:*

Taipei, Bangkok (*x*: humidity)
Honorable mentions:
Kuala Lumpur (*x*: humid heat, conservative culture)
Singapore (*x*: humid heat, oppressive system)
Manila (*x*: poverty, infrastructure needs improvement)

*Oceania:*

Sydney, Melbourne (*x*: far from the rest of the world, a lot of venomous creatures)
Honolulu (*x*: very isolated, could get boring sometimes)


----------



## safiot (Oct 14, 2009)

Dubai
Paris
London
New York
Casablanca
Istanbul
Beirut


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

It's not that hard to find a job in Buenos Aires. I think it's a great city to live whilst I find other Argentinean cities to be better.


----------



## WasabiHoney (Jan 31, 2011)

^^ There has been a lot of talk about the declining economy of Argentina. That's why I thought finding a job in BA must be hard. If it's not, then it will probably become my only favorite city without any major drawback!


----------



## Guest (Dec 5, 2011)

I can imagine, from what I know that the nicest cities to live in would be Santiago de Chile, Taipei, Auckland, San Francisco and Perth, considering lack of extreme weather, acceptable density and costs of living. 




Arvo said:


> no one ever mentioned Singapore, why?


If I can advise something, AVOID IT. If you want to stay in Asia, take the trouble of learning Mandarin and go Taiwan. They have real democracy and freedom of expression, natural cityscape, more civic behavior, way better infrastructure and infinitely less stress. And much less social tensions too.


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

The biggest problem in Argentina nowadays are inflation, corruption and risky economy. Though we got a 7-9% growing tax, Kirchner economic policies still worry me. Yet it's pretty cheap and the wages are quite ok, the biggest ones in Latin America. Unemployment rates are on 6-8%, for an example. Cheers. kay: Answering the topic, I'd pick Santiago, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Porto Alegre and Curitiba in LA, considering large cities, any in Australia, NZ, Japan or South Korea, also Hong Kong, Shanghai, Qindao, Dalian, NYC, San Francisco, San Diego, Portland OR, Seattle, Denver, Chicago,Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Hartford, Philadelphia, Boston, Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal and Toronto. In Europe, I think I'd live anywhere excepting some Balkan countries and Moldova.


----------



## Sarcasticity (May 21, 2005)

michaelkervins said:


> My favourite cities where I want to live mostly are:
> 1.Switzerland
> 2. Canada
> 3. Monaco


The only city you mentioned is Monaco :nuts:

I'd say, I probably see myself living in either US or Canada other than my home country the Philippines. I don't see myself living in Europe or elsewhere where there could be a language barrier. US and Canada are very similar, although standards of living is way higher in Canada but in terms of almost everything else, I think it's easy to go back and forth between these two nations. 

Fave cities

NYC
San Fran
Montreal
Toronto
Los Angeles
Vancouver


----------



## WasabiHoney (Jan 31, 2011)

snowland said:


> Answering the topic, I'd pick Santiago, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, Porto Alegre and Curitiba in LA, considering large cities, any in Australia, NZ, *Japan or South Korea*, also Hong Kong, Shanghai, Qindao, Dalian, NYC, San Francisco, San Diego, Portland OR, Seattle, Denver, Chicago,*Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Hartford*, Philadelphia, Boston, Vancouver, Calgary, Montreal and Toronto. In Europe, I think I'd live *anywhere excepting some Balkan countries* and Moldova.


*1.* Don't you think life there is too tense and stressful? Visiting as a tourist would certainly be interesting, but living and working would be a different story.

*2.* Just out of curiosity, why these 4 cities? They're not really known for anything special, and the first two are uncomfortably cold (even for a native of Ushuaia  )

*3.* You must be referring to the poorer ones right? (Albania, Macedonia...) Not the most attractive countries indeed, but they must have improved a lot because of the recent economic growth. And life there is still slow paced, which is a good thing.


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

Copenhagen
Melbourne
Munich
Oslo
Vienna
Zürich
Lausanne (if I for some wonder would be able to speak French)
San Francisco


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

WasabiHoney said:


> *1.* Don't you think life there is too tense and stressful? Visiting as a tourist would certainly be interesting, but living and working would be a different story.
> 
> *2.* Just out of curiosity, why these 4 cities? They're not really known for anything special, and the first two are uncomfortably cold (even for a native of Ushuaia  )
> 
> *3.* You must be referring to the poorer ones right? (Albania, Macedonia...) Not the most attractive countries indeed, but they must have improved a lot because of the recent economic growth. And life there is still slow paced, which is a good thing.


1. I think Japan, South Korea and Eastern Mainland China are great countries for living. Great public transportation and urbanism, awesome urban maintenance, quick transformation (they haven't been stuck on the time) and people is polite out there. I wouldn't pick Taiwan because it's too hot.

2. Yeah, Minneapolis is so damn cold, but these 4 cities are lovely. They got an appropriate size of living, low crime rates and great wages. Moreover they're so fucking beautiful. 

3. I'm referring to Albania, Macedonia, Kosovo... indeed. I know those countries have improved a lot, but I still think they aren't on my point (for living).


----------



## WasabiHoney (Jan 31, 2011)

snowland said:


> 1. I think Japan, South Korea and Eastern Mainland China are great countries for living. Great public transportation and urbanism, awesome urban maintenance, quick transformation (they haven't been stuck on the time) and people is polite out there. I wouldn't pick Taiwan because it's too hot.


I always thought large Japanese cities were a screaming mess in terms of urbanism (despite being clean and well organized). Seoul looks a lot neater overall, but outside the central areas, it's mostly an arrangement of thousands of commieblocks. Eastern Chinese cities are also commiebock paradise, but far less organized than Seoul (the big transformation projects having mostly taken place in the central areas).
Of all these, I would personally choose Seoul. In fact, I thought about including it in my favorites, but left it out because of its cold winters and stressful life.



snowland said:


> 2. Yeah, Minneapolis is so damn cold, but these 4 cities are lovely. They got an appropriate size of living, low crime rates and great wages. Moreover they're so fucking beautiful.


Are wages there higher than in most American cities? I read Minneapolis has relatively high crime rates. As for beauty, I don't know, I never considered any of these four to be particularly beautiful. In fact, Milwaukee looked horrendous in most photos I've seen of it (but I might be wrong)


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

Japan is an organized and pretty mess. 

Milwaukee? Horrendous? Are you fucking kidding me?


----------



## WasabiHoney (Jan 31, 2011)

earthJoker said:


> Copenhagen
> Melbourne
> Munich
> Oslo
> ...


Why would someone from Zurich want to live in Lausanne? I don't think it has anything Zurich lacks, apart from a certain picturesqueness. But overall I found it to be a soulless place.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

snowland said:


> Japan is an organized and pretty mess.
> 
> Milwaukee? Horrendous? Are you fucking kidding me?


You have strange notions of urban desirability if you find Minneapolis "beautiful", Milwaukee very interesting, or the provincial backwater that is Hartford a desirable place to live.

You are in no position to lecture others, particularly using such a forceful tone.


----------



## WasabiHoney (Jan 31, 2011)

snowland said:


> Milwaukee? Horrendous? Are you fucking kidding me?


OK it's just a matter of taste. I personally don't find this kind of cityscape to be attractive:











Fitzrovian said:


> You are in no position to lecture others, particularly using such a forceful tone.


Chill out Flitzrovian, snowland was not using a forceful tone. I know him, he's a good guy


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

Fitzrovian said:


> You have strange notions of urban desirability if you find Minneapolis "beautiful", Milwaukee very interesting, or the provincial backwater that is Hartford a desirable place to live.
> 
> You are in no position to lecture others, particularly using such a forceful tone.


It wasn't a forceful tone. It was a surprising tone. Minneapolis has a shitty weather, but I find it lovely. I know WasabiHoney, that's why I felt comfortable to use this expression.


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

WasabiHoney said:


> OK it's just a matter of taste. I personally don't find this kind of cityscape to be attractive:


Well, but it's a commie suburb. Have you just looked for street level pictures? I think you could change your mind.


----------



## Sarcasticity (May 21, 2005)

Minneapolis is actually lovely. Milwaukee has the water, but I do find it to be somewhat boring.


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

Of course, it's just a matter of taste. :yes:

I love Minneapolis' old houses suburbs. Also Milwaukee's ones.

The cities in the Mid West could be boring, such as Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Des Moines... seemed to me, but I think Chicago (obviously because of its size), Milk and Minnie are exceptions.

As for Hartford, it's one of the wealthiest cities in America.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

snowland said:


> It wasn't a forceful tone. It was a surprising tone. Minneapolis has a shitty weather, but I find it lovely.


On what basis? Because it has nice lakes and pretty suburbs with big houses? Every US city does. You might as well just put every US city on your list then.

As for Milwukee, I don't know if I would use the term "horrendous" to describe it... Just "ordinary". It is no more and no less horrendous than 90 percent of other US metro areas of that size. If you are gonna put Milwukee on your list, you might as well put Cleveland and Indianapolis as well.


----------



## WasabiHoney (Jan 31, 2011)

snowland said:


> Well, but it's a commie suburb. Have you just looked for street level pictures? I think you could change your mind.


I thought it was a relatively central area. From what I know, such blocks in the US mostly exist in central areas of some older cities. Milwaukee might be attractive at street level, but I don't know... this decaying aura of a former industrial center bothers me.



Sarcasticity said:


> Minneapolis is actually lovely. Milwaukee has the water, but I do find it to be somewhat boring.


Yes Minneapolis has a more modern, glitzier cityscape, unlike Milwaukee.


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

Fitzrovian said:


> On what basis? Because it has nice lakes and pretty suburbs with big houses? Every US city does. You might as well just put every US city on your list then.
> 
> As for Milwukee, I don't know if I would use the term "horrendous" to describe it... Just "ordinary". It is no more and no less horrendous than 90 percent of other US metro areas of that size. If you are gonna put Milwukee on your list, you might as well put Cleveland and Indianapolis as well.


I find Milwaukee so much prettier than Cleveland and Indianapolis


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

WasabiHoney said:


> I thought it was a relatively central area. From what I know, such blocks in the US mostly exist in central areas of some older cities. Milwaukee might be attractive at level, but I don't know... this decaying aura of a former industrial center bothers me.


Actually I don't think that this decaying aura is there in Milwaukee just as in Cleveland or Detroit (those cities, yup). 

Sorry if you think I was offensive to you. It wasn't my intention.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

snowland said:


> As for Hartford, it's one of the wealthiest cities in America.


Please tell me you are kidding me, or at least enlighten me on what criteria you are using to judge "wealth" and how it correlates with liveability.


----------



## WasabiHoney (Jan 31, 2011)

Fitzrovian said:


> As for Milwukee, I don't know if I would use the term "horrendous" to describe it... Just "ordinary". It is no more and no less horrendous than 90 percent of other US metro areas of that size.


Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I haven't been to the US anyway, I just expressed an opinion about pictures I have seen.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

WasabiHoney said:


> Sorry, I didn't mean to offend. I haven't been to the US anyway, I just expressed an opinion about pictures I have seen.


None taken... you weren't far off anyway


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

Fitzrovian said:


> Please tell me you are kidding me, or at least enlighten me on what criteria you are using to judge "wealth" and how it correlates with liveability.


Hartford has one of the highest disposable income taxes in the US (if not the highest). So I imagine they got great wages there. It has a provincial aura indeed. The city may be boring, but it's near to NYC and Boston; so I think it's a great place to raise your kids.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

snowland said:


> Hartford has one of the highest disposable income taxes in the US. So I imagine that they got great wages there. It has a provincial aura indeed. The city may be boring, but it's near to New York and Boston and I think it's a great place to raise your kids.


Not sure I agree with your criteria, mate. If you think that you are likely to get a higher earning job in Hartford than in any other metro area on the East Coast, then I think you are mistaken. 

Look, a lot of what you say is true -- it's just that the same could be said pretty much about every other American city. Really!


----------



## WasabiHoney (Jan 31, 2011)

^^ snowland has a point, Hartford sounds like a good place for families. But as a single man (and an irredeemable bachelor ) I would rather choose NYC.


----------



## elmigri_ (Apr 22, 2011)

Sid Vicious said:


> Barcelona is not so hot, its 30C in summer


Barcelona in august can be hot during the day (it can sometimes reach 34 ° C, 95F)


----------



## Sid Vicious (Jul 21, 2011)

you can never be sure of the munich climate, one day can be 36, next day 12! happened this year end of august.


----------



## Sid Vicious (Jul 21, 2011)

elmigri_ said:


> Barcelona in august can be hot during the day (it can sometimes reach 34 ° C, 95F)


95=35btw. so this is bearable. last year I have been in marrakesh in july with temp. topping 46C.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Gobbo said:


> Yep, in fact I DID include Munich in my list
> 
> Generally I like german cities...Germany has good football, vibrating night life, nice climate (for me...), generally open and tolerant people...and it´s close to Denmark (an advantage because I don´t like travelling long..)
> 
> ...


How come Lyon is not on your list? With your criteria, it should be right up your alley just like Munich and Turin.

Bilbao as well ticks all your boxes.


----------



## Gobbo (Jul 26, 2007)

Fitzrovian:

I don´t know Lyon so well..have never been there. But I am sure it´s a nice city. I have the impression that´s it´s pretty much similar to Turin in Italy...a little more than 1 million inhabitants....nice climate...nice football....okay nightlife....good standard of life.....so yes, I could also include Lyon on my list, but didn´t because I don´t know the city very well. But what I have heard about Lyon is pretty much all positive 

Thinking about it, I could also have included cities like: Köln, Prague, Vienna, Stuttgart....but I just had to stop somewhere 

Maybe, in South America, I could also have included Montevideo in Uruguay. Nice climate for me, not so hot as in Brazil for example. And nice football. And Uruguay is richer than most South American countries...don´t know Montevideo so well, but I have the impression it´s a pretty much okay city.....also Buenos Aires seems nice, but is just too big for me...


----------



## yubnub (May 3, 2010)

Gobbo said:


> Fitzrovian:
> 
> I don´t know Lyon so well..have never been there. But I am sure it´s a nice city. I have the impression that´s it´s pretty much similar to Turin in Italy...a little more than 1 million inhabitants....nice climate...nice football....okay nightlife....good standard of life.....so yes, I could also include Lyon on my list, but didn´t because I don´t know the city very well. But what I have heard about Lyon is pretty much all positive
> 
> ...


You should put london on your list. You get Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea, Fulham, QPR, West Ham etc etc. Football heaven


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

But too big by his criteria I think...


----------



## yubnub (May 3, 2010)

Jonesy55 said:


> But too big by his criteria I think...


ah yes that's true!


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

yubnub said:


> You should put london on your list. You get Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea, Fulham, QPR, West Ham etc etc. Football heaven


London has produced 0 Champions League winners.


----------



## yubnub (May 3, 2010)

Ribarca said:


> London has produced 0 Champions League winners.


as an Arsenal fan it pains me to agree with you!


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

yubnub said:


> as an Arsenal fan it pains me to agree with you!


It's remarkable. London has so many big name clubs. Maybe this year! Perhaps the problem lies exactly in the fact that there are so many clubs in London alone. The competition for talent is just too big and the fan support is divided as well.


----------



## Skyprince (May 2, 2006)

my list...Ive been to many places and outside Malaysia the No.1 country I want to live is definitely * Oman*. I love to travel to exotic places ( usually the least developed ones ) for short period but for long-term living give me a highly accessible place with top-notch lifestyles, cosmopolitan society ( I don't like largely mono-race society ) , minimal traffic, "global-minded/outward-looking" local population like the Gulf Arabs , affordable nice food ( Asians like ma are crazy/obsessed about food ) , very low to almost zero crime rate, warm weather, high income level, great infrasrtucture, 

1) Oman ( Muscat ) 
2) Oman ( Salalah ) 
3) UAE ( Dubai-Sharjah- Ajman metro ) 
4) UAE ( Al- Ain )
5) UAE ( Abu Dhabi )


----------



## Sid Vicious (Jul 21, 2011)

Al Ain really? not much to do there! when I was there the temp. was 48C, july.
not so comfortable.


----------



## Skyprince (May 2, 2006)

Sid Vicious said:


> Al Ain really? not much to do there! when I was there the temp. was 48C, july.
> not so comfortable.


For short-period tourism ? Yeah nothing much to do there. But for living ? It is a great place to me. It's not as hectic as Dubai and it's not too quiet and sterile as Abu Dhabi. Very comfortable place to live in, with many beautiful malls, the city centre full of traidional shops, nice date trees, wide roads, the nice Emirati locals and many foreigners.

And in UAE ventilation is excellent , I'd rather stay indoor during most of daytime.


----------



## WasabiHoney (Jan 31, 2011)

Skyprince said:


> ...for long-term living give me a highly accessible place with *top-notch lifestyles*, cosmopolitan society ( I don't like largely mono-race society ) , *minimal traffic*, "*global-minded/outward-looking*" local population like the Gulf Arabs , affordable nice food ( Asians like ma are crazy/obsessed about food ) , very low to almost zero crime rate, *warm weather*, high income level, great infrasrtucture



*1.* Just curious to know, what exactly for you defines a top-notch lifestyle? Giant malls, and a car for every member of the family? Because other than that, I don't know what there is in Oman and the UAE that Malaysia doesn't have already.

*2.* I have heard that traffic in Dubai-Sharjah is horrendous.

*3.* Other than possessing the latest technological consumer goods, I wouldn't really call them "global-minded" or "outward looking"  They're still far too conservative in my opinion.

*4.* Weather there is something more than just "warm" :lol:


----------



## Gobbo (Jul 26, 2007)

Double post, sorry, so I cancelled this


----------



## Gobbo (Jul 26, 2007)

I would never like to live in an arab country. For two reasons: too warm climate and too uptight morale (no beautiful half-naked people at beaches and so LOL)...

That been said, some arab cities like Dubai certainly have an interesting architecture and better living standards than many other countries...but still: 40 degrees is waaaaaaaay to hot for me and as a lover of freedom and great night life I don´t like their uptight sexual morale, too conservative for me...

SHOULD I have to choose an arab country, I would maybe say Morocco...not so bad living standards and the morale is probably a little less conservative than in many other countries in that region....but still: che climate isn´t really my style LOL


----------



## Skyprince (May 2, 2006)

WasabiHoney said:


> *1.* Just curious to know, what exactly for you defines a top-notch lifestyle? Giant malls, and a car for every member of the family? Because other than that, I don't know what there is in Oman and the UAE that Malaysia doesn't have already.
> 
> *2.* I have heard that traffic in Dubai-Sharjah is horrendous.
> 
> ...


On Gulf Arabs- many of them are conservative in their daily lives and action, yet very global-minded and curious about different world cultures . It's not impossible to have both. Probably this is mostly due to their "central location" of world trade and tourism. I didn't find this say, among most East Asians & Southeast Asians ( except for Filipinos maybe, maybe due to Latin influence ) 


Top notch living... its again depends on how we personally define it. But I am amazed by the lifestyles in the Gulf- soo many restaurants ( even many cheap Lebanese and Indian resto ) offer delivery service , food price in restaurant is cheap which means less home-cooking and frequent dining in restaurants , having buffet lunch/dinner in 4 or 5-star hotels is a norm among many professionals , ther e is cosmopolitan society ( still need to work more to attract Latin Americans, though ) , vast variety of shops from super high-end to the most traditional ones, there are products from almost alllover the world
etc. I love it very much :applause:



Gobbo said:


> I would never like to live in an arab country. For two reasons: too warm climate and too uptight morale (no beautiful half-naked people at beaches and so LOL)...
> 
> That been said, some arab cities like Dubai certainly have an interesting architecture and better living standards than many other countries...but still: 40 degrees is waaaaaaaay to hot for me and as a lover of freedom and great night life I don´t like their uptight sexual morale, too conservative for me...
> 
> SHOULD I have to choose an arab country, I would maybe say Morocco...not so bad living standards and the morale is probably a little less conservative than in many other countries in that region....but still: che climate isn´t really my style LOL


It a personal choice, but coming from tropical country, I definitely love warm weather. Plus, I know that it's hard for me to live in places like coastal Yemen or Southern Egypt due to poor ventilation/insulation during extreme Summer, but hyper-rich Gulf states like UAE, Oman etc have *excellent ventilation/insulation* in their homes and buildings. 

They don't have nighlife etc but why they need so ? Unlike most of Western Europe and Australia where shops/restaurants are mostly closed after 8pm and cities become almost dead , cities in UAE and Oman are full of shops still open till late midnight, there are many 24-hour hypermarkets in Dubai ( !! ) etc which keeps them very lively all the day. Crime rate is extremely low, thus it's perfectly safe to stay outdoor at late night. 

On Dubai- I love the wonderful mix of old and new... Sheikh Zayed Road is full of hypermodern slyscrapers and trendy malls but *most parts of Dubai are traditional*, with very charming old-day streetshops full of Emirati, Indian, Pakistani and Iranian traders :cheers:

And finally....and most importantly (?) ...... I love the atmosphere in UAE and Oman ...which I cannot describe here by words . I love the sights of locals wearing their traditional Arabic dress, I love the sights of date/palm trees lining the streets , I love the road signs, I love listening to local Emirati/Omani music, I love to see many Pakistani restaurants selling biryani, I love the sights of mosque in every corner of city/towns, I love to see their decorative fountains, I love the clear blue skies , I love the smell of Arabic perfume/ frankincense when I entered locals' house etc :cheers:


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Skyprince said:


> They don't have nighlife etc but why they need so ? Unlike most of Western Europe and Australia where shops/restaurants are mostly closed after 8pm and cities become almost dead


That's true for shops in many countries, shopping is mostly considered a daytime activity (except for supermarkets and convenience food stores which are open later). But its not the case for restaurants in all the European countries I've been to, they are usually open at least until 10pm-11pm even in small towns in northern Europe. In southern Europe or bigger cities of northern Europe later and of course the bars and other nightspots are open later too.


----------



## Sid Vicious (Jul 21, 2011)

in Berlin shopping is possible to midnight! also there are on every corner little shops that open 24/7. you can eat around the clock in thousands of little restaurants. and I hope for you that you dont want to compare Berlins worldfamous nightlife with arabic nightlife. that would be silly indeed!


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Sid Vicious said:


> in Berlin shopping is possible to midnight! also there are on every corner little shops that open 24/7. you can eat around the clock in thousands of little restaurants. and I hope for you that you dont want to compare Berlins worldfamous nightlife with arabic nightlife. that would be silly indeed!


Similar in the big cities here, there are always little corner shops open but it isn't usual to go shopping for clothes or electrical goods at 10pm, that's the time that people are in bars and restaurants, theatres, cinemas or music concerts.

The major stores and shopping streets/malls are busiest from mid-morning, through the afternoon and into early evening, then other leisure activities take over.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

Late night shopping doesn't make a city exciting IMO.


----------



## Gobbo (Jul 26, 2007)

LtBk said:


> Late night shopping doesn't make a city exciting IMO.


I agree, even that it´s a nice thing. But I prefer a vibrating night life. And with that I mean discos, bars, clubs eccettera


----------



## Skyprince (May 2, 2006)

Sid Vicious said:


> in Berlin shopping is possible to midnight! also there are on every corner little shops that open 24/7. you can eat around the clock in thousands of little restaurants. and I hope for you that you dont want to compare Berlins worldfamous nightlife with arabic nightlife. that would be silly indeed!


As mentioned in my post , apart from "formal reasons" like great infrastructure, very low crime rate, etc there are also "*informal reasons*" why I love Arabian Gulf countries i.e. I love the atmosphere in UAE and Oman ... I love the sights of locals wearing their traditional Arabic dress, I love the sights of date/palm trees lining the streets , I love the road signs, I love listening to local Emirati/Omani music, I love to see many Pakistani restaurants selling biryani, I love the sights of mosque in every corner of city/towns, I love to see their decorative fountains, I love the clear blue skies , I love the smell of Arabic perfume/ frankincense when I entered locals' house, I love the sights of traditional souqs, I love the high % of migrants from South Asia who are really good in communication etc :cheers:

These "Informal reasons" can be more important than "Formal reasons" when considering our favourite places to live in.


----------



## Skyprince (May 2, 2006)

LtBk said:


> Late night shopping doesn't make a city exciting IMO.





Gobbo said:


> I agree, even that it´s a nice thing. But I prefer a vibrating night life. And with that I mean discos, bars, clubs eccettera


Every country/region has its own norm, if u ask many Westerners "nightlife " always can be related to bars, discos, clubs, etc while for Arab Muslims or a person like me it's more into late night shopping , late night dining etc . So it depends on individuals and region, how u grow up, your social background etc.


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

@skyprince

"global minded-outward looking" Arab states. I would assume you are a Muslim from Malaysia, explain to us why they treat those migrant workers from Indonesia, your fellow Muslim brothers from Indonesia, like dirt. Is that what you meant by "global minded"? I'm not even going into discussion with you regarding Filipino migrant workers in the Middle East. Just your Muslim brothers.


----------



## Skyprince (May 2, 2006)

jbkayaker12 said:


> @skyprince
> 
> "global minded-outward looking" Arab states. I would assume you are a Muslim from Malaysia, explain to us why they treat those migrant workers from Indonesia, your fellow Muslim brothers from Indonesia, like dirt. Is that what you meant by "global minded"? I'm not even going into discussion with you regarding Filipino migrant workers in the Middle East. Just your Muslim brothers.


Because 

1) Apart from strong demand, Gulf Arab nations & Malayisa are generous enough to open their doors very widely to menial-labour jobs

2) Gulf Arab nationas & Malaysia are surrounded by many lesser-developed *large nations *with active labour migration . There is too much supply to fill the limited demand, and this naturally, tend to drag down the salary level. 
Put any Western country into our locations and see what happens then..

3) The migrants who are "treated badly" are mainly the lowest-paid ones, just like many lowly-paid Malayisan workers in Malayisa. Profesional medium-to-high-paying Indians/Pakistanis in Gulf & Indonesians in Malayisa are rarely "suffering" and generally have great life


----------



## Gobbo (Jul 26, 2007)

Skyprince said:


> Every country/region has its own norm, if u ask many Westerners "nightlife " always can be related to bars, discos, clubs, etc while for Arab Muslims or a person like me it's more into late night shopping , late night dining etc . So it depends on individuals and region, how u grow up, your social background etc.


Sure, that´s true 

I suppose that arab cities don´t have so many bars, discos, sex- and swingerclubs as western cities...and honestly that´s the reason why I find arab culture too conservative. Because I like that sort of nightlife - and personally when I talk about nightlife I am not talking about going for shopping.:lol:

Besides, here in Scandinavia we do have shopping-possibilities after midnight. In my city we have several Seven Eleven-shops which are open 24/7/365. And many supermarkets are open until 22.


----------



## jbkayaker12 (Nov 8, 2004)

Skyprince said:


> Because
> 
> 1) Apart from strong demand, Gulf Arab nations & Malayisa are generous enough to open their doors very widely to menial-labour jobs
> 
> ...


Keep spinning it but quite frankly I'm not surprised with your reply and I'm not at all surprised at the behaviour of the Arabs. I empathize to all those who have to go to the ME to earn a living. Goodluck to all of them, for sure they will need it.


----------



## Skyprince (May 2, 2006)

I love Arabs. Ive met people from different backfgrounds and I must say that Arabs are one of the most pleasant people to be with. 

Don't worry, am not shocked by your statement because, before my first visit to Middle East in 2006 I also had neutral to pretty bad impression on people of Middle East but that visit really turned my perception upside down on Arabs , especially the Gulf Arabs. I had extremely wonderful experience in the Emirates and Oman, how great the hospitality by Emiratis, Omanis and expats I met there.


----------



## dexter26 (Feb 24, 2008)

It might very well be true a lot of what you're saying, Skyprince... I have no particular reason to doubt it.

But I see statement about a lot of shops and even restaurants closing at 8pm in many western countries were debated a bit. Even in Oslo, we have 2 main chains of convenience/food stores open either late evening or some of them 24/7, 7-Eleven and Deli de Luca, in addition to this the (mini)supermarket chain Kiwi has many of their stores open until 11 pm, together with the extra-small grocery chains Bunnpris and Joker (more like small cornerstores). Restaurants are, a lot, open to 11 or 12 pm, some are longer and especially longer in the weekends. Bars and clubs are open until 3 am in weekends incl. friday and usually 1 pm on normal days (can vary on normal business days - some have 3am on thursdays as well for instance, this varies a bit), although our stupid politicians have started a debate to restrict opening hours for bars and clubs (it should rather be liberalized even more).

Beside this there are 2 Bunnpris stores open 24/7 in central areas and at the central station there is a (small) supermarket open from 5am-24 except saturdays and sundays.

Oh and I forgot the kebab and other fast food places that, some of them, can be open to as late as 5am in the weekends and usually either 1 or 2am on regular days.

And this is a country which I have heard from many Europeans (even, who should lnow a bit better) that they think of it as conservative and old fashioned. At least in Oslo this is not the case, F.ex. Britain has more strict opening hours except for a few clubs - exceptions - in the biggest cities.

I'm not saying you should come live here. I would just like to generally clear up misconceptions concerning Scandinavia, because many have certain beliefs about it. 

PS. I know many will not agree with me, but I find Oslo more tolerant and liberalized than Swedish cities personally, with Copenhagen even more liberalized and tolerant than Oslo. So there are internal differences even in Scandinavia. 

Personally I find Norway and especially Oslo underrated on most peoples lists, mostly because they rate it as a bit stiff, old-fashioned, conservative, boring and little liberalized. Of course you can't expect, Amsterdam, Barcelona, San Francisco in such a small and northern city as Oslo, but it is far more tolerant, open, multicultural and also longer opening times than many think. The bad side, commerce wise, is kind of small-scale shopping, not a enormous number of different choices both shop- and productwise, almost all supermarkets are fairly small compared to places like the US and many other countries. Things are generally a bit small-scale here.

And of course it's the climate which to many isn't one they favor, I see that one


----------



## Sid Vicious (Jul 21, 2011)

in my experience arabs are the most unfriendly people I ever met.


----------



## dexter26 (Feb 24, 2008)

^^ As a Scandinavian, I don't think I'd find myself as "at home" in arab countries as Skyprince does, Vicious, so I partially agree with you there... 

I'm more like some of the other guys that's been posting here, in that European and secondary North-American cities are the places I find myself most at home in.


----------



## Skyprince (May 2, 2006)

There is difference between "being rude" , "being unfriendly" and "being expressive". The latter is correct- Arabs are very expressive people and they tend to speak their mind directly, which I truly like, but then many people especially from "less-expressive" cultures wrongly perceive their expressiveness as "being rude".


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

Skyprince said:


> There is difference between "being rude" , "being unfriendly" and "being expressive". The latter is correct- Arabs are very expressive people and they tend to speak their mind directly, which I truly like, but then many people especially from "less-expressive" cultures wrongly perceive their expressiveness as "being rude".


^^ QIA. In Hong Kong I had the same impression with the Cantonese when I came here first as those people seem to have with Arabs. People here are rather loud (Cantonese sounds pretty harsh as a language) and expressive. It's hard to judge on appearances if you don't speak the language.


----------



## nicdel (May 13, 2011)

Skyprince said:


> *I love Arabs. Ive met people from different backfgrounds and I must say that Arabs are one of the most pleasant people to be with. *Don't worry, am not shocked by your statement because, before my first visit to Middle East in 2006 I also had neutral to pretty bad impression on people of Middle East but that visit really turned my perception upside down on Arabs , especially the Gulf Arabs. I had extremely wonderful experience in the Emirates and Oman, how great the hospitality by Emiratis, Omanis and expats I met there.


really?! I guess "real" Arabs are different from those residing in Europe as immigrants. For Instance, the Arabs in Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium etc. are one of the most criminal ethnic groups and in Berlin people of Arab origin committ up to 30% of all violent crimes and they constitute 3% of the total population. However, these people are probably no "real" and "decent" Arabs, but failed immigrants&refugees from Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Northern Africa....different situation than meeting Arabs in UAE or Egypt.


----------



## dexter26 (Feb 24, 2008)

^^ Yeah it's more or less the same thing in Oslo, quite a few problems with various Arab minorities BUT there are very few, almost none, from the arab countries that Skyprince is talking about. More from North Africa (especially Morocco, Algeria) and a few of the other countries in Middle East like Lebanon, Iraq, Iran (I know Iran isn't a arab country... But still middle eastern and muslim though). Of all people from middle east and north Africa I have to say all in all Iranians are some of the nicer ones, by my impression. 
I also think - at least in my city - Lebanese are mostly OK, they are not the biggest troublemakers. 

I have even had serious trouble with Moroccans myself so I even personally know about some of these problems. There are some seriously maladjusted people from NA and Middle East, but it is a shame that the actually good middle easterns, which I'm sure exists, seems to not be immigrating as much to Europe.


----------



## Sid Vicious (Jul 21, 2011)

I will tell you an experience with the gulf arabs. all people were queueing up in a row for the flight to Doha( from KL btw.), suddenly a bunch of arabs came and didnt queue up, instead they were pushing dircectly to the counter. when I wanted to point the arabs to the end of the row they tried to ignore me.


----------



## Gobbo (Jul 26, 2007)

dexter26 said:


> ^^ Yeah it's more or less the same thing in Oslo, quite a few problems with various Arab minorities BUT there are very few, almost none, from the arab countries that Skyprince is talking about. More from North Africa (especially Morocco, Algeria) and a few of the other countries in Middle East like Lebanon, Iraq, Iran (I know Iran isn't a arab country... But still middle eastern and muslim though). Of all people from middle east and north Africa I have to say all in all Iranians are some of the nicer ones, by my impression.
> I also think - at least in my city - Lebanese are mostly OK, they are not the biggest troublemakers.
> 
> I have even had serious trouble with Moroccans myself so I even personally know about some of these problems. There are some seriously maladjusted people from NA and Middle East, but it is a shame that the actually good middle easterns, which I'm sure exists, seems to not be immigrating as much to Europe.


Yep, I have met a few Iranian people and they are almost always pretty nice persons. Just a shame that they have such a bad regime in Iran. That people deserves better than that!

Generally I also have a good impression of Palestinian people. Once I played for a palestinian football team here in Denmark (I was the only Dane) and most of them were nice guys. Ok, there are some young palestinian guys who are troublemakers, but mainy, I think, because many Palestinians have a difficult life...not because they are bad people.

Talking about muslims and arab people in general, I think that many times you only see one side of it. People see terrorists and fundamentalist and then they think that all arab people are fanatics. Which is absolutely wrong. Most arabs I have met were moderate muslims, not fanatics. 

But generally it´s true that arab governments are much more conservative than we are in the west. Some are authentic regimes. But somehow I feel that most arab people do not necessarely like their own governments, that´s why we have seen so many conflicts in arab countries lately. Arab people want more freedom and there certainly IS a gap between governments and normal people in arab countries. I am sure that most arabs who flee to the west wan´t more freedom, because else why should they flee? 

Therefore I believe that most arab people who come to our countries just wan´t more freedom and a better life, but then many are disappointed by seeing that it´s not all that simple. And then some of them, especially teenagers and young men, become frustrated and some get into crime, in most cases because of frustration and desperation. I thinkt that it´s all a little complex and it´s just too easy to say that they become criminals because they are bad people. Many times they come here with good intentions, but then they are disappointed and frustrated and maybe they experience racism and discrimination, and then it starts to go wrong...

But of course, this is a little bit off topic 

Back to topic: because of the very conservative way most arab countries are ruled, I wouldn´t like to live in an arab country. I am far too liberal to this. But that doesn´t mean that I don´t like arab PEOPLE or respect their culture. I just don´t like arab governments and their excessively severe sexual morale.....that´s why I couldn´t live there...


----------



## Skyprince (May 2, 2006)

dexter26 said:


> ^^ Yeah it's more or less the same thing in Oslo, quite a few problems with various Arab minorities BUT there are very few, almost none, from the arab countries that Skyprince is talking about. More from North Africa (especially Morocco, Algeria) and a few of the other countries in Middle East like Lebanon, Iraq, Iran (I know Iran isn't a arab country... But still middle eastern and muslim though). Of all people from middle east and north Africa I have to say all in all Iranians are some of the nicer ones, by my impression.
> I also think - at least in my city - Lebanese are mostly OK, they are not the biggest troublemakers.


That's one of the many reasons why I cannot live in lesser-developed northern Arabia ( though I'd love to travel there ) and why I want to live in orderly, neat, and ultra-developed Gulf states ( UAE, Oman, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait- Kuwait can be too cold and too hot for me , though ) 




Sid Vicious said:


> I will tell you an experience with the gulf arabs. all people were queueing up in a row for the flight to Doha( from KL btw.), suddenly a bunch of arabs came and didnt queue up, instead they were pushing dircectly to the counter. when I wanted to point the arabs to the end of the row they tried to ignore me.



Because again, Arabs are very expressive- their outward attitude tend to reflect who they actually are. Your dealing with them *can be the best, and can be the worst too*- I actually had some of the worst encounter in my life with Arabs - but vast majority of Arabs I met in my life are extremely kind and have really nice attitude. So, in the Middle East, if you mix with the right people, you're living in near-utopia and you are very well taken care of , but if you mingle with the wrong people ( who are in the minority).....

The Gulf is really progressive & fast-changing region- an example: I remember the 1st time I visited UAE & Oman 5 years ago the locals tend to drive like crazy and "women driving" is considered an absurd thing by many but when I visited there last month there is a noticeable improvement in driving standard ( even the Sultan of Oman took this very seriously ) and local women driving is a norm nowadays. Even many of my Omani friends kept telling this to me and proud of the progress happening in their society

====================================
In UAE, I always thought I would prefer places like Abu Dhabi but then Abu Dhabi is too sterile and too quiet for me, and their malls ( even the renowned Marina Mall !) are very modest . Still Dubai with its WOW factor rules


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Skyprince said:


> Take my daily routine
> 
> My house is comfortable indoor, then when I get into the car again it's comfortable and can be too cold ( due to Air-conditioning ) , then from office car parking to my office I have to walk around 10 minutes ( which is still comfortable ), hardly I get sweaty walking in the morning.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I guess you have to do that to keep comfortable in very hot climates. I prefer temperatures that are comfortable without aircon so you can spend time outside on streets which I much prefer to malls and walking around parks, beaches, countryside, looking at buildings, sitting outside eating and drinking etc rather than being restricted to hiding indoors.

20-25c is ideal for me, 12-20c is fine with a bit of extra clothing, 25-30c is ok as long as you don't want to be too active, more than that I don't like. Less than 12c isn't ideal either but as long as you wrap up warmly then you can have fun down to -10c if skiing for example.


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

It seems that Tromso has the same kind of weather of Ushuaia... Maybe colder, dunno, but I don't think so due to maritimity.


----------



## Troms (Nov 27, 2011)

snowland said:


> It seems that Tromso has the same kind of weather of Ushuaia... Maybe colder, dunno, but I don't think so due to maritimity.


Yes, the type of climate is quite similar, but Tromsø is distinctly cooler during winter, therefore it is much snowier than Ushuaia. Tromsø is one of the snowiest coastal cities in the world. I personally love that kind of weather


----------



## Francisco94 (Dec 30, 2011)

San Francisco bay area seems like a very good place to settle, specially fo young ppl like me. There are plenty good jobs, nice colleges and schools, low crime in some places, enviable weather.
I would move anytime.


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

blantyre bazaar said:


> San Francisco bay area seems like a very good place to settle, specially fo young ppl like me. There are plenty good jobs, nice colleges and schools, low crime in some places, enviable weather.
> I would move anytime.


San Francisco is a beautiful city, and it would be on my preferred list save for two things: a very high cost of living, next to only New York in the country, and unless you use its very good public transit system, the traffic is horrific due to geography and density.


----------



## Sarcasticity (May 21, 2005)

I'm not surprised by the mentions of San Francisco. I've been to alot of beautiful cities, but San Fran stood out as one I would love to settle in.


----------



## Sid Vicious (Jul 21, 2011)

yep, San Fran is beautiful!


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

I'm going to say: 
USA
1. Seattle (mainly outside the core though)
2. Boston 
3. San Francisco/ San Jose 
4. San Diego 
5. Indianapolis (very underrated, but very nice city with the nicest people I've ever met)
6. Portland, OR
7. Burlington, VT (underrated small city)
8. New York City
9. Denver 
10. Raleigh
Worldwide outside USA:
1. Sydney
2. Vancouver
3. dusseldorf
4. Budapest
5. Munich
6. Copenhagen
7. Stockholm
8. Osaka
9. Wiesbaden
10. Vienna


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

royal rose1 said:


> I'm going to say:
> USA
> 1. Seattle (mainly outside the core though)
> 2. Boston
> ...


Nice ranking;-)

I personnaly like SF much more than BOS but have to admit that i know both only from a point of view of a tourist.


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Metro007 said:


> Nice ranking;-)
> 
> I personnaly like SF much more than BOS but have to admit that i know both only from a point of view of a tourist.


Could I ask why that is so? I personally think the first 4 are interchangeable depending on the person  so I don't blame you. I think if weather is taken into account San Fran could be #1, but I also have a deep affection for Seattle.


----------



## musiccity (Jan 5, 2011)

(in no order)

*United States*

-Seattle, WA
-San Diego, CA
-Savannah, GA
-Wilmington, NC
-Portland, ME
-Albaquerque, NM
-Flagstaff, AZ
-Anchorage, AK

*Canada*

-Quebec City
-Calgary
-Vancouver

*Latin America*

-San Jose, Costa Rica
-Mendoza, Argentina
-Miraflores, Lima, Peru
-Santiago, Chile
-Valdivia, Chile

*Europe*

-London
-Dublin
-Edinburgh
-Munich
-Garmisch-Partenkirchen
-Prague
-Innsbruck
-Bilbao
-Granada

*Asia*

-Kuala Lumpur
-Tokyo

*Middle East*

-Beirut
-Tel Aviv

*Africa*

-Cape Town
-Durban

*Australia/Oceania*

-Melbourne
-Sydney
-Hobart
-Auckland


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

musiccity said:


> (in no order)
> 
> *United States*
> 
> ...



Wilmington? Really? Can I ask why? I have a house there and I lived there for 2 years and I'm not sure I would say it's in the same league as the others. 

It's "liveable" but I wouldn't say completely enjoyable, not very exciting overall.


----------



## musiccity (Jan 5, 2011)

royal rose1 said:


> Wilmington? Really? Can I ask why? I have a house there and I lived there for 2 years and I'm not sure I would say it's in the same league as the others.
> 
> It's "liveable" but I wouldn't say completely enjoyable, not very exciting overall.


I really enjoyed the city when I visited, pretty downtown and the beach is nearby


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

royal rose1 said:


> Could I ask why that is so? I personally think the first 4 are interchangeable depending on the person  so I don't blame you. I think if weather is taken into account San Fran could be #1, but I also have a deep affection for Seattle.


I just prefered SF because of the hills around the bay and the charm of the streets with cable cars. And of course the beautiful Golden Gate bridge. And i like beeing in only 1h of flight in San Diego and having nice beaches and a nice climate. And for the nice parks in California/Nevada in 'vicinity'.


----------



## yubnub (May 3, 2010)

musiccity said:


> (in no order)
> 
> *United States*
> 
> ...


Garmisch-Partenkirchen, great choice (although not really a city). Any town(s) sat next to a mountain with a rude name gets my vote (ive been there twice and would love to live in that area one day)


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

yubnub said:


> Garmisch-Partenkirchen, great choice (although not really a city). Any town(s) sat next to a mountain with a rude name gets my vote (ive been there twice and would love to live in that area one day)


Too far from the coast though, I'd like proximity to both mountains for skiing/hiking and to coastline!


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

musiccity said:


> (in no order)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


lol at Lima being the only city where you specifically mentionned a district


----------



## Marsupilami (May 8, 2005)

my list:

*North America *
-Portland
-Providence
-San Francisco
-Boston
-San Diego
-Calgary
-Ottawa
-Guadalajara
-Puebla
-Guanajuato

*South America*
-Punta Arenas
-Puerto Varas
-Bahia Blanca
-Viña del Mar
-Vitoria
-Temuco
-Bogota
-Montevideo

*Europe*
-Dubrovnik
-Tallinn
-Praga
-Birminham
-Milan
-Barcelona

*Asia*
-Tel Aviv
-Estambul
-Kuala Lumpur
-Beirut

*Africa*
-Durban
-:shifty:

*Oceania*
-Honolulu
-Auckland
-Sidney
-Wellington
-Papeete


----------



## musiccity (Jan 5, 2011)

yubnub said:


> Garmisch-Partenkirchen, great choice (although not really a city). Any town(s) sat next to a mountain with a rude name gets my vote (ive been there twice and would love to live in that area one day)


That's where I stayed when I was in Germany, love the city (town) !


----------



## musiccity (Jan 5, 2011)

Jonesy55 said:


> Too far from the coast though, I'd like proximity to both mountains for skiing/hiking and to coastline!


The beach is overrated IMO. I always get sunburnt, sand in my eyes, and saltwater up my nose.. pass!


----------



## yubnub (May 3, 2010)

Jonesy55 said:


> Too far from the coast though, I'd like proximity to both mountains for skiing/hiking and to coastline!


tsk some people want it all  Vancouver sounds like the place for you


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

yubnub said:


> tsk some people want it all  Vancouver sounds like the place for you


Yes, that's an option, or somewhere at either end of the Pyrenees. I've been told there are ski resorts on Corsica, that might be nice, and even the most mountainous part of Japan is never too far from the coast.


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

royal rose1 said:


> I'm going to say:
> USA
> 1. Seattle (mainly outside the core though)
> 2. Boston
> ...


If you don't mind my asking, why no other Midwestern cities other than Indianapolis? Yeah, our winters are a bit rough, but the Midwest has some very nice urban areas at a much lower cost of living than the coasts. Columbus (very similar to Indy but a bigger college), Kansas City, Minneapolis/St. Paul, much of Chicago, etc.


----------



## Francisco94 (Dec 30, 2011)

*AFRICA:*
Windhoek, Namibia
Mutare, Zimbabwe
Gaborone, Botswana
Dakar, Senegal
Victoria, Seyshelles(cant spell)
Tunis, Tunisia
Gaborone, Botswana
Nelspruit, South Africa

*EUROPE:*
Funchal, Portugal
Florence, Italy
Dublin, Ireland
Frankfurt, Germany
Istambul, Turkey(in the nicest suburb) 

*AMERICAS*
San Francisco
Portland
Vancouver
Ottawa
San Jose
San Diego
Denver
Guadalajara
Honolulu
Havana
Montevideo
Santiago, Chile
Florianópolis, Brasil

*Asia*
Kuala Lumpur
Tel Aviv
Doha
Osaka
Seoul
Tokyo
And 100s of japanese towns.

*Oceania & Pacific*
All New Zealand and Australian populous cities.


----------



## WasabiHoney (Jan 31, 2011)

Jonesy55 said:


> Too far from the coast though, I'd like proximity to both mountains for skiing/hiking and to coastline!


Come to Lebanon then!  There are several ski resorts, located anywhere from 45 minutes to 1:30 hour from the coast. And winter in coastal areas is usually very mild, which means you can both ski and swim on the same day!

I think you might also like the following cities, all located in coastal areas with decent winter weather and close to ski resorts:
Limassol, Cyprus
Antalya, Turkey
Patra, Greece
Nice, France
Sochi, Russia


----------



## megacity30 (Oct 8, 2011)

Has anyone in this thread considered the local language (English or otherwise) while creating their "list of favorite cities for living" for a truly fulfilling life?

I see Japanese-speaking, Portuguese-speaking, Chinese-speaking, German-speaking, Arabic-speaking, Greek-speaking etc cities in these lists- I hope we do realize English is not as widespread as we may believe... or are most of us multi-lingual? :cheers2:


----------



## Francisco94 (Dec 30, 2011)

It's not as if we're going to live in those cities anyways. Just 4 tha lulz!


----------



## musiccity (Jan 5, 2011)

megacity30 said:


> Has anyone in this thread considered the local language (English or otherwise) while creating their "list of favorite cities for living" for a truly fulfilling life?
> 
> I see Japanese-speaking, Portuguese-speaking, Chinese-speaking, German-speaking, Arabic-speaking, Greek-speaking etc cities in these lists- I hope we do realize English is not as widespread as we may believe... or are most of us multi-linguists? :cheers2:


I lived in an Arabic speaking city and did just fine.


----------



## Francisco94 (Dec 30, 2011)

musiccity said:


> I lived in an Arabic speaking city and did just fine.


I also lived in a english-speaking country without speaking a single word of it. Now, 3 years later i am fluent in english. So, at least for me language isn't that much of a problem as we are humans and humans have the ability to adapt to pretty much anything.


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

megacity30 said:


> Has anyone in this thread considered the local language (English or otherwise) while creating their "list of favorite cities for living" for a truly fulfilling life?
> 
> I see Japanese-speaking, Portuguese-speaking, Chinese-speaking, German-speaking, Arabic-speaking, Greek-speaking etc cities in these lists- I hope we do realize English is not as widespread as we may believe... or are most of us multi-lingual? :cheers2:


I lived in Germany 6 years on a military base and I loved it! It can be pretty overwhelming to not speak the language at times though.
I also lived in a German town of 500 for a few months, which was interesting, but enjoyable for sure.
And I went to a Hungarian middle school for a month one time, and still
Enjoyed myself, it's what you make of it. If you don't try to learn the language or meet people, then your experience will be lackluster.


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Dralcoffin said:


> If you don't mind my asking, why no other Midwestern cities other than Indianapolis? Yeah, our winters are a bit rough, but the Midwest has some very nice urban areas at a much lower cost of living than the coasts. Columbus (very similar to Indy but a bigger college), Kansas City, Minneapolis/St. Paul, much of Chicago, etc.


I don't mind answering at all! If you look at my list I also left out a lot nod southeastern cities, but that's a different subject. 
I lived Indianapolis when I went there last year, I've really only gotten the chance to go in depth in cincinatti, Louisville, Chicago, and Indianapolis. 
I'll start with the city most others mention, Chicago. I loved Chicago, I think it's a beautiful, clean city, but I had a homeless guy threaten to fight me while I was there because I didn't buy a postcard from him. Also, I spend a lot of time in NYC, and using that as the control, when I went to Chicago last year on a mild day in April, the streets were dead, the city was hardly alive and I find that unattractive. I also think Chicago has way too many drug problems in the burbs and in the southern part, I'm also not a fan of it's decreasing population within the city limits, it's a sign of submission. I feel it's a declining city or if nothing else, a stagnant city, and that is unattractive to me. I was about to write Chicago anyhow though just for the more affluent suburbs that are supposed to be amazing places to live. 
But to sum up my disposition with the Midwest, the cities are too far from ocean or mountains, they seem to usually have high crime, a lot of cities are geographically boring, the summers are too hot, winters too cold, they seem to usually lack outstandingly beautiful nature, and most of the cities seem to be receding. 
I think the obvious outliers are Indianapolis, minneapolis, and Columbus. An believe me, I considered Minneapolis a lot, but Columbus is just too ordinary to really compare with cities like Seattle, San Diego, or coastal cities. And Minneapolis' problem with me wasn't so much it's cold weather, as much as it's homeless population downtown, who I feel don't represent the city well. But I'll put Minneapolis around #13 and Columbus probably 16.


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

Interesting that I feel exactly the opposite about Chicago. It is certainly one of the (if not the most) liveable big city in the USA, IMO.

The flight from the city into the suburbs in the last 10 years is driven more by the search for cheap housing (during the height of the housing bubble), than it is by crime (which has been declining conistently over the years). The core city is simply getting much too expensive by Midwestern standards, but it remains very affordable compared to any other city of its size.

If I bothered with every homeless guy who has threatened me (or, in one instance, urinated in front of me as a provocation), I would have left Manhattan a long time ago. And being aggressively followed by a homeless guy once in San Francisco after leaving the Opera late at night certainly didn't stop me from coming back. The fact of the matter is that such extreme contrasts in poverty and wealth are a fixture of all the US cities that remotely interest me. If anything, the homeless in Chicago are less visible compared to SF and NYC because the former administration under Daley was not very charitable and systematically purged them from the streets of Downtown Chicago.

It only goes to show that perception is a very quirky thing. To call Chicago stagnant indicates to me that you don't know the city very well -- at least, that's my perception.



royal rose1 said:


> I don't mind answering at all! If you look at my list I also left out a lot nod southeastern cities, but that's a different subject.
> I lived Indianapolis when I went there last year, I've really only gotten the chance to go in depth in cincinatti, Louisville, Chicago, and Indianapolis.
> I'll start with the city most others mention, Chicago. I loved Chicago, I think it's a beautiful, clean city, but I had a homeless guy threaten to fight me while I was there because I didn't buy a postcard from him. Also, I spend a lot of time in NYC, and using that as the control, when I went to Chicago last year on a mild day in April, the streets were dead, the city was hardly alive and I find that unattractive. I also think Chicago has way too many drug problems in the burbs and in the southern part, I'm also not a fan of it's decreasing population within the city limits, it's a sign of submission. I feel it's a declining city or if nothing else, a stagnant city, and that is unattractive to me. I was about to write Chicago anyhow though just for the more affluent suburbs that are supposed to be amazing places to live.
> But to sum up my disposition with the Midwest, the cities are too far from ocean or mountains, they seem to usually have high crime, a lot of cities are geographically boring, the summers are too hot, winters too cold, they seem to usually lack outstandingly beautiful nature, and most of the cities seem to be receding.
> I think the obvious outliers are Indianapolis, minneapolis, and Columbus. An believe me, I considered Minneapolis a lot, but Columbus is just too ordinary to really compare with cities like Seattle, San Diego, or coastal cities. And Minneapolis' problem with me wasn't so much it's cold weather, as much as it's homeless population downtown, who I feel don't represent the city well. But I'll put Minneapolis around #13 and Columbus probably 16.


----------



## Dralcoffin (Feb 27, 2010)

royal rose1 said:


> I'll start with the city most others mention, Chicago. I loved Chicago, I think it's a beautiful, clean city, but I had a homeless guy threaten to fight me while I was there because I didn't buy a postcard from him. Also, I spend a lot of time in NYC, and using that as the control, when I went to Chicago last year on a mild day in April, the streets were dead, the city was hardly alive and I find that unattractive. I also think Chicago has way too many drug problems in the burbs and in the southern part, I'm also not a fan of it's decreasing population within the city limits, it's a sign of submission. I feel it's a declining city or if nothing else, a stagnant city, and that is unattractive to me. I was about to write Chicago anyhow though just for the more affluent suburbs that are supposed to be amazing places to live.
> But to sum up my disposition with the Midwest, the cities are too far from ocean or mountains, they seem to usually have high crime, a lot of cities are geographically boring, the summers are too hot, winters too cold, they seem to usually lack outstandingly beautiful nature, and most of the cities seem to be receding.


I'm strongly biased for Chicago, but I'll answer your concerns:

1. The homeless guy. Find a big city where you will not run into such people; it's merely bad luck that it happened to be Chicago that it happened to you. New York and Los Angeles have much larger homeless populations, yet both of them are on your list. Twenty years ago, Chicago was much closer to your perception of it as a crumbling city overrun by poverty and the homeless, but it has reshaped itself and especially its downtown, and part of that means most of the homeless have been displaced from the central city. There will be bad apples everywhere, and what you experienced could just as easily been San Francisco or Seattle or Los Angeles. 

2. The dead streets. What time of day were you on the streets, and more importantly, what time? Chicago's downtown (the Loop) gets pretty empty after five o'clock, but that's because the pedestrians are in different parts of the city. The entire North Side from Michigan Avenue up through Lincoln Park, Lakeview, Rogers Park, etc. are all crowded with people throughout the day and well into the night, and the same goes for several scattered areas throughout the city. Chicago is a city where geography is important, similar to a more urban Los Angeles: there's bad areas, but there are many good areas, and the good areas are growing and expanding.

3. Yes, there are areas of the city with drug and crime problems. But New York has a much greater population living in similar poverty and drug conditions, and the same for Los Angeles, areas of San Francisco, so on. To me, a successful city manages to keep these problems contained in the bad neighborhoods and out of downtown and the successful neighborhoods, and Chicago achieves this well. Sure, the crime rate is higher than any of us would like, but it's a crime rate contained in about one third of the neighborhoods that you just don't go into. Avoid them, and Chicago is a remarkably safe big city. I have been in Chicago nearly every year for the past ten years, and the most trouble I had was a street vendor passing out bumper stickers and asking me to pray with him for a second.

4. The city population dip was a surprise, since most of Chicago is much more active and busier than ten years ago. Part of it is that the vast housing projects came down in the past ten years, and most of the former residents bolted out of the city. That had the dual effect of dumping close to 200,000 people out of the city, and decreasing the crime rate. As well, Chicago's cost of living has gone up quite sharply in the past ten years as it becomes a more attractive city for urban living, and poor neighborhoods are starting to be priced out of the central city. Outside of New York, Chicago is seeing some of the widest gentrification in the country, and part of that is seeing poorer families replaced by single yuppies or couples, which means a population dip. Still, in the end, it's just a number, and the metro area has a faster growth rate than New York or Los Angeles. New York grew by a mere 2%, and both Minneapolis and St. Paul lost people, but nobody considers them stagnant. The downtown core of Chicago saw sharp population gains on the level of San Francisco and Seattle; the population drop is due to the poorer neighborhoods dissolving. As the central population continues to reach critical mass and gentrification rewrites whole neighborhoods, I expect this trend to turn around and Chicago to post an increase next census, and I plan to be part of that increase.

5. The weather: Coming from California, our weather doesn't look appetizing, I know. But I grew up in the Midwest, with this weather, and I could never imagine living somewhere with near-constant conditions. California weather just seems _boring_ to me; I'll take the "wait five minutes and it'll change" any day. It's all a matter of personal taste.

To close, I know Chicago has problems and a rather bad image, but they are problems common to all cities, and the beautiful thing is that cities change. Chicago is seeing in my opinion some of the most remarkable urban change in the country, as it continues to shed its Rust Belt image and instead is revitalizing into a refreshed national center with the likes of New York and San Francisco. I am drawn to the city in large part because I am drawn to that sweeping change, and I cannot wait to play a role in the continuing revitalization of the Windy City. Stagnant? No--just the opposite. I feel Chicago is on the cusp of becoming another urban success story, like New York in the 1990s or Washington DC this past decade.

I understand someone not wanting to live in the Midwest; I have no desire to live anywhere (except maybe Philly) on the East Coast nor California, and we agree on avoiding the South. As well, I like my cities a bit grittier than most people, and find suburbs usually very boring and monotonous. But I just wait to keep spreading my enthusiasm for the city of Chicago. Nelson Algren had it right: "You may well find lovelier lovelies, but never a lovely so real."


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

I'd also live everywhere in Australia & NZ.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

^^ Even in the middle of the desert, hundreds of kms from the nearest shop or road?


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

I never mentioned Los Angeles, I hate Los Angeles, Chicago is leagues ahead of LA haha. But it was good to hear all that you have to say. I just think that Chicago is often placed in the same league as NYC, yet the development is much slower paced, skyscrapers are hardly being built, and the city as I mentioned isn't growing. I just think to be livable you have to live in a city that feels like it's really on it's way up. 

Also, both of you guys really seemed offended by the homeless person thing, while I agree that NYC and LA have later homeless people, I've never seen more verbal, in your face homeless people than I saw in Chicago. 

And I stayed in Chicago all day, not just a couple hours, yet the town was virtually dead, me and my friends were the only people at the bean in millennium park when we went. I noticed magnificent mile was significantly busy, but that was it. 

I do want to mention, I still love chicago, my father is from Galesburg, IL so it's a city that holds a lot of relevancy in our family as it is the nearest big city to him. But I don't feel it's weathered time as well as NYC has, and neither has it really become a truly amazIng city in the same league as NYC. Injust feel like the huge swaths of ghetto take away from the city, I've been to all the ones in NYC and they don't even compete. Likewise, Chicago has failed to really attract foreigners like NYC, id miss the huge Asian population and significant foreign born european population. 




Dralcoffin said:


> I'm strongly biased for Chicago, but I'll answer your concerns:
> 
> 1. The homeless guy. Find a big city where you will not run into such people; it's merely bad luck that it happened to be Chicago that it happened to you. New York and Los Angeles have much larger homeless populations, yet both of them are on your list. Twenty years ago, Chicago was much closer to your perception of it as a crumbling city overrun by poverty and the homeless, but it has reshaped itself and especially its downtown, and part of that means most of the homeless have been displaced from the central city. There will be bad apples everywhere, and what you experienced could just as easily been San Francisco or Seattle or Los Angeles.
> 
> ...


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

royal rose1 said:


> Also, both of you guys really seemed offended by the homeless person thing, while I agree that NYC and LA have later homeless people, I've never seen more verbal, in your face homeless people than I saw in Chicago.


Why should I be offended? I am just saying that you are more likely to encounter aggressive homeless people in NYC and SF than in Chicago. And frankly, it doesn't take away one bit from my enjoyment of these cities.

And for the record, the most aggressive encounter I had ever had with a homeless guy was not in any of these cities, but in Helsinki, and the verbal part of the abuse was exchanged partly in English, and partly in French. It was quite interesting, to say the least.



> And I stayed in Chicago all day, not just a couple hours, yet the town was virtually dead, me and my friends were the only people at the bean in millennium park when we went. I noticed magnificent mile was significantly busy, but that was it.


That puzzles me a bit, because I have been to "The Bean" many times since the park opened in the Spring of 2004, and that place is never dead -- even in the dead of Winter.


And you neglect to mention the time. Have you ever been to Central Park or Prospect Park at night? Well, it is quite dead -- simply because they arrest people loitering there after a certain hour of the night. Perhaps you were at The Bean right before or after Millennium Park is supposed to close?



> I do want to mention, I still love chicago, my father is from Galesburg, IL so it's a city that holds a lot of relevancy in our family as it is the nearest big city to him. But I don't feel it's weathered time as well as NYC has, and neither has it really become a truly amazIng city in the same league as NYC. Injust feel like the huge swaths of ghetto take away from the city, I've been to all the ones in NYC and they don't even compete. Likewise, Chicago has failed to really attract foreigners like NYC, id miss the huge Asian population and significant foreign born european population.


I live in NYC, and frankly, many people I know here who are familiar with Chicago think that it is an amazing city. It is typical of people not well versed in either city to say such things as you say here. But that is understandable, since what makes a city liveable varies a lot according to one's maturity, and one's life experience.

I don't think the "huge swaths" of iffy neighborhoods here in NYC take away anything from the urban experience. So why should it be in Chicago? For better or for worse, such contrasts have been integral to the American urban experience. To say otherwise would be to live in Disneyland.

Chicago doesn't have to be in the same league as NYC. It is on a league on its own, with its own rich history and spheres of influence. One might like NYC better because it is bigger, or that it is denser, or it has 10 times more of this or that compared to anywhere else. But is bigger, and denser and "more is more" any better than what makes a city truly liveable?

Perhaps it is time for people in this thread to start questioning their priorities. Else, time, a greater sense of maturity, and the demands of everyday life will find a way to alter these priorities -- whether you like it or not.


----------



## Kiboko (Nov 30, 2011)

My favourite cities for living: 

Berlin
Dusseldorf
Copenhagen
Antwerp
The Hague
Barcelona


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

tpe said:


> Why should I be offended? I am just saying that you are more likely to encounter aggressive homeless people in NYC and SF than in Chicago. And frankly, it doesn't take away one bit from my enjoyment of these cities.
> 
> And for the record, the most aggressive encounter I had ever had with a homeless guy was not in any of these cities, but in Helsinki, and the verbal part of the abuse was exchanged partly in English, and partly in French. It was quite interesting, to say the least.
> 
> ...


I don't mean to sound like I'm fighting you, or talking bad about Chicago at all, because I promise I am not. I think Chicago is a great place, but I think it lacks the "livability" factor. I questioned putting NYC on my list because I don't think most people could live here, "if I can make it here, I can make it anywhere" is definitely not just a cliche phrase in NYC, it's 100 percent true, as you probably know. A little off topic btw, but where do you live in NYC and how do you like it? I'm on the Upper East Side of Manhattan on 86th and I really love it, but I always wonder how other people feel about this place. 

Also, I must write a disclaimer, we drove to Chicago for the weekend from my college in Raleigh, NC, so we only had a full day in the city before we had to drive back, it was in January last year, I believe it was the 25th. Anyway, that was the only time I'd been in Chicago ever. And I did love it, and it probably has the most to do of any city I've been to outside of NYC, and I've been to 3 continents, so that is a huge compliment haha. I actually intend to drive through and stop there on a roadtrip this summer! 

All that being said, I just feel like Chicago, of all the huge cities I've been to (2,000,000+) has done the worst job in terms of securing it's ghettos and really making sure the city as a whole feels safe. Undoubtedly, I felt safe downtown, but I had 3 or 4 homeless people yell at me. I won't lie, the homeless people definitely took away from the experience. 

And the time I went to "the bean" was about 9 in the morning, so perhaps that's why it was so desolate? We had to though, it was the only way that worked with our plans. 

And as I previously mentioned, I feel like in a changing world, if Chicago doesn't speed up development it's going to fall into irrelevancy. The city that invented the skyscraper needs more! I enjoy that the city is more progressive than NYC when it comes to heights of buildings, heck they approve any building that is over 1500 feet haha. But they don't build enough, it's pathetic that the waterview hasn't been taken care of yet, it sits there like an empty shell, and it's truly sad to see. 

I guess all my opinions are truly from the perception of someone who has spent a lot of time in NYC. I also spend a lot of time in Raleigh, NC, one of the fastest growing US cities, and let me say, it is also lackluster in development despite growing at an alarming rate. 

I think Chicago has some work that needs to be done, it feels like a big version of Baltimore right now, a nice city at the core, surrounded in many directions by ghetto. When I think Chicago deserves to feel like a big version of Boston. A city where the ghettos are hard to find, and the inner city is beautiful, historic, and truly magnificent. 

I'd like to see Chicago work to attract more immigrants too from Asia and Europe. It has a huge Polish American population, but I feel like the prominence of European culture is disappearing in favor of Latin culture, which is truly sad.


----------



## royal rose1 (Oct 4, 2009)

Kiboko said:


> My favourite cities for living:
> 
> Berlin
> Dusseldorf
> ...


Berlin is about as good of a choice as Warsaw, Berlin is truly the only German city I've ever hated. The bias of this list if phenomenal haha. 

But I do agree with Copenhagen and the Hague.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

snowland said:


> Honestly Berlin doesn't atract me at all.


I've never been to Germany, but people I trust keep telling me that Berlin reminds them of Toronto. I thought it was a weird pairing at first. I suppose I'll have to make a trip to see for myself.

*Of cities I've been to*
1. Toronto
2. Montreal
3. London
4. Paris
5. Helsinki

*Cities I think I'd live in*
1. Melbourne
2. Vancouver
3. Calgary
4. Tokyo
5. Berlin


----------



## style (Dec 29, 2006)

royal rose1 said:


> Picky much? Hate the US and Italy? Not sure you'll like anywhere


I don't hate US, just I don't like it. American way of life is not suitable for me.



Sarcasticity said:


> I don't know how you could hate your own country. Italy is awesome! Well, I haven't been there but it seems like a really beautiful, romantic country full of history, architecture, and wonderful culture and food!


With romanticism, history and architecture you won't live. Nowadays Italy is a old, neglected country, with poor infrastructures, poor job opportunities with ridiculous wages compared to other EU countries and governed by ignorance and mafia (not "killer" mafia, but "white collar" mafia). 
I have a master's degree in comunication, marketing and sport management and I am currently unemployed in Milan, not in Sicily or Calabria. Trying to relocate abroad for me will be difficult because I only speak italian (useless) and poor english (like many italian guys) and for qualified/suitable jobs abroad full professional english is a must. But is the only option to improve my living condition.


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

Much of what you've said is true. Italy looked amazing to me when I was there, but it didn't look to have a great public transportation at all.

Valencia and Barcelona are amazing cities and have great transportation networks, but its locals are currently suffering a lot with unemployment. So why would you choose them if you're actually unemployed and having trouble in Italy? 

Cheers.


----------



## style (Dec 29, 2006)

snowland said:


> Much of what you've said is true. Italy looked amazing to me when I was there, but it didn't look to have a great public transportation at all.
> 
> Valencia and Barcelona are amazing cities and have great transportation networks, but its locals are currently suffering a lot with unemployment. So why would you choose them if you're actually unemployed and having trouble in Italy?
> 
> Cheers.


I like Barca and Valencia very much and I would like to live in but, as you said, now it's not the right time to find a job there. Infact I'm looking for a job in other countries like Netherlands, Denmark and Switzerland, very developed countries with high quality of life, good wages and not so expensive (like Scandinavian countries). 
But, if these cities won't suffer this crisis, I would def choose them.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Switzerland and Denmark are about as expensive as it gets I think!


----------



## Motul (Nov 8, 2003)

Dralcoffin said:


> If you don't mind my asking, why no other Midwestern cities other than Indianapolis? Yeah, our winters are a bit rough, but the Midwest has some very nice urban areas at a much lower cost of living than the coasts. Columbus (very similar to Indy but a bigger college), Kansas City, Minneapolis/St. Paul, much of Chicago, etc.


You're lucky he atleast mentioned 1 Midwest city :lol:.. Dont push it..


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

style said:


> I like Barca and Valencia very much and I would like to live in but, as you said, now it's not the right time to find a job there. Infact I'm looking for a job in other countries like Netherlands, Denmark and Switzerland, very developed countries with high quality of life, good wages and not so expensive (like Scandinavian countries).
> But, if these cities won't suffer this crisis, I would def choose them.


Like Jonesy55 said, both Switzerland and Denmark is as expensive as it gets. Of course you are at average earning more there than in Italy to offset this cost, but the same goes for other expensive countries like the rest of Scandinavia which you mentioned, too.


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

style said:


> I like Barca and Valencia very much and I would like to live in but, as you said, now it's not the right time to find a job there. Infact I'm looking for a job in other countries like Netherlands, Denmark and Switzerland, very developed countries with high quality of life, good wages and not so expensive (like Scandinavian countries).
> But, if these cities won't suffer this crisis, I would def choose them.


I understand. I've lived in Spain and I'd love to another time, but now it's not the right one, I think. I also think the same way for living in Italy.

Denmark and Switzerland, like they said, are very expensive. Netherlands, Germany (unless it's a minijob), Austria, Belgium and the UK look to be great spots nowadays.


----------



## style (Dec 29, 2006)

Galro said:


> Like Jonesy55 said, both Switzerland and Denmark is as expensive as it gets. Of course you are at average earning more there than in Italy to offset this cost, but the same goes for other expensive countries like the rest of Scandinavia which you mentioned, too.





snowland said:


> I understand. I've lived in Spain and I'd love to another time, but now it's not the right one, I think. I also think the same way for living in Italy.
> 
> Denmark and Switzerland, like they said, are very expensive. Netherlands, Germany (unless it's a minijob), Austria, Belgium and the UK look to be great spots nowadays.


It's all true, but Italian Switzerland is "cheaper" than other parts (like Zurich) and I have the advantage of speaking italian language.
The problem with Austria and Germany is that the primary language is German, spoken by 90 milion people, meanwhile Dutch and Danish are more limited (infact people from this country are practically bilingual). Same problem with Belgium and French.
UK means 90% London, super expensive city and full of italians. Infact I don't like it 
In any case my primary choice would be Netherlands

Ps: Galro, you live in the most expensive city I ever visited


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

Of course, living in Switzerland has the advantage, that you already speak a national language, even when you don't live in the Ticino this has its advantages. 20% of the Swiss population have Italian roots, and many of them still speak some Italian.


----------



## Galro (Aug 9, 2010)

style said:


> The problem with Austria and Germany is that the primary language is German, spoken by 90 milion people, meanwhile Dutch and Danish are more limited (infact people from this country are practically bilingual).


I think the same applies to all Nordics countries, not only Denmark. Most people here where I live can speak close to fluent English, although some have a weird accent.  



style said:


> Ps: Galro, you live in the most expensive city I ever visited


Yeah, it's not the cheapest of cities.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

style said:


> UK means 90% London, super expensive city and full of italians. Infact I don't like it


UK is only 12.5% London and the rest is much cheaper


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

Look, Sweden is growing like an emergent country. Good spot nowadays though very expensive.


----------



## pbrdpbrd (Jun 8, 2009)

*The Secret is Out*

^^Ok some cities get great reviews and are great to visit but horrible to live in...

Example:

San francisco....so pretty..... and yes so expensive...when you live in a city you need a place to live... when you know how much costs a dwelling (buy or rent) in San Francisco that is when the fun ends.... most people in the Bay area spend most of their income in housing or spend a lot of time on congested freeways as they live faraway to be able to afford the cost of housing.

New York.... so exciting!.... a one bedroom condo in Manhattan for a cool $1,000,000 dollars... nice.... can you afford it? probably not, even if I had a million dollars would I sink the money in a one bedroom apartment? 

Los Angeles... Hollywood... sunny beaches... ok so you got a good job in the San fernando valley and scrapping some change you buy a condo in that area. A few months later you get laid off, now you get a similar job offer in Orange county, you still need to pay the mortgage so you take the job, and spend countless hours on freeways commuting to work. That is the common story in Los Angeles, you get trapped commuting in its vast clogged freeway system. Actually ,Living in Los Angeles can be resumed as life spent mostly sitting in your car in a clogged freeway.

I particularly like Phoenix and Las Vegas.... yes it is hot but we have houses with air conditioning and swimming pools. I paid $60,000 for a forclosed home with 3 bedrooms, mountain views, and a beautiful swimming pool. Not far from me I have vast open areas with natural parks, skiing, deserts, lakes etc. If I want the hussle and bustle of a big city I hop on a cheap Southwest Airlines flight and I am in L.A. in one hour. It is quite clear to me that the secret is out: Phoenix and Las Vegas are great places for living.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Yeah, but you have to ask, why are people happy to pay so much more to live in some places rather than others? Is it that they are simply seen as far more desireable places to live?


----------



## WasabiHoney (Jan 31, 2011)

pbrdpbrd said:


> ^^Ok some cities get great reviews and are great to visit but horrible to live in...
> 
> Example:
> 
> ...


I like your point  But as Jonesy55 said above, the more "desirable" for living is a place considered, the more expensive it tends to be. You get what you pay for, in some sense.

However, this is often misleading in my opinion. For instance, I spent a couple of years in Switzerland, widely considered as one of the most livable countries worldwide. And I can tell you, life there is plain miserable. You spent all your day at work or school, and when you come back home in the evening you just stay in or go to sleep, because there is absolutely nothing to be seen or done outside. If you try calling your friends, they will just let you know they don't have time. Yes wages are high, but you spend the largest part of your wage on every kind of imaginable bills (rent, municipal taxes, civil insurance, health insurance...), which keep coming so often it becomes nerve racking. A friend of mine once fainted in the railway station, so as you expect they called him an ambulance. Three weeks later he received a 800$ bill for the ambulance (and he was unemployed). Is that what people refer to as "livability"?

Anyway, I didn't include any Swiss city in my list for this reason (or German or Scandinavian for that matter, because life there must be similar), although these are generally considered as the most livable ones. Of the cities I have been to, I still consider the Mediterranean ones to be the most livable, despite their chaotic urbanization, high unemployment, and generally low ranking on livability indices.


----------



## snowland (Aug 20, 2011)

WasabiHoney said:


> I like your point  But as Jonesy55 said above, the more "desirable" for living is a place considered, the more expensive it tends to be. You get what you pay for, in some sense.
> 
> However, this is often misleading in my opinion. For instance, I spent a couple of years in Switzerland, widely considered as one of the most livable countries worldwide. And I can tell you, life there is plain miserable. You spent all your day at work or school, and when you come back home in the evening you just stay in or go to sleep, because there is absolutely nothing to be seen or done outside. If you try calling your friends, they will just let you know they don't have time. Yes wages are high, but you spend the largest part of your wage on every kind of imaginable bills (rent, municipal taxes, civil insurance, health insurance...), which keep coming so often it becomes nerve racking. A friend of mine once fainted in the railway station, so as you expect they called him an ambulance. Three weeks later he received a 800$ bill for the ambulance (and he was unemployed). Is that what people refer to as "livability"?
> 
> Anyway, I didn't include any Swiss city in my list for this reason (or German or Scandinavian for that matter, because life there must be similar), although these are generally considered as the most livable ones. Of the cities I have been to, I still consider the Mediterranean ones to be the most livable, despite their chaotic urbanization, high unemployment, and generally low ranking on livability indices.


I share the same impression.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

$800 for an ambulance? :nuts:


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Ambulances are MUCH more expensive in the US. Between what employers pay (if you're employed at a job with benefits) and what individuals pay, we spend more on health care than we do on vacations for example, by a large margin...and that's just insurance, not the added costs of getting injured or sick! Having cancer can be like buying a house, even with some types of insurance.

As for favorite cities, while I love Seattle more than anything, it's not #1 on my list by objective, non-emotional metrics. That might be: 
--Sydney
--Tokyo
--London
--New York
--Hong Kong
etc.

Of course, that assumes a life of leisure, which is unrealistic, and having enough money to live centrally. In Seattle that's possible, but it would be difficult in most of the best cities.


----------



## WasabiHoney (Jan 31, 2011)

^^ How much more expensive? So you get to pay like half your monthly wage if you're unfortunate enough to have an ambulance called? :lol: Jesus!

Anyway, I always wondered why healthcare in the US is so expensive, and why it isn't covered (at least partially?) by the taxes you pay, which I heard are astronomical. I read about a girl whose family went completely broke because her mother had cancer (and ultimately died of it), that's just inhumane. I know you have world renowned hospitals there, but what's the point if most people can't afford proper treatment?


----------

