# Cities without problems: Could be regarded as boring cities?



## Occit (Jul 24, 2005)

*Cities without problems: Could be regarded as boring cities??*

I have a dilemma, and is about the idea of leaving my city to a more quiet and without much trouble as my city (Caracas). For example, this city has a lot of crime, disorder, chaos, heavy traffic, things always happen, there are political events, social unrest, urban conflicts, problems when it rains, chaos in the subway, daily protests everywhere, etc. I told a friend that I was tired of so many problems and I wanted to go to live in a city like any Scandinavian city, and he ask me "why? certainly in those cities nothing happens, being so little problematic and very orderly, surely you will live boring, you won't have anything interesting for surviving and to strive goals for (especially because I work in civil protection and is my daily struggle to improve the city). 

That left me pensive. What do you think?

Some pics:

Caracas without metro service:










Traffic jams:










Delinquence:










Floodings










Protests


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Uhmmm... I guess it all depends on your definition of _"boring"_. If you regard the above as _"fun"_ then you will be unhappy moving. Stay put, and hope
you make it through another exciting week! :yes:


----------



## Gerrad (Dec 17, 2006)

I find dodging random gun play always adds to my daily excitement quotient. 

But in all seriousness, there is nothing duller than sitting in traffic.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Gerrad said:


> But in all seriousness, there is nothing duller than sitting in traffic.


Especially when the road is flooded out!


----------



## Occit (Jul 24, 2005)

Thats true, sitting in the traffic is duller, instead i use the subway in rush hours, at least to watch different faces and touch bodies xD ...


----------



## Nouvellecosse (Jun 4, 2005)

I think cities without problems could be better regarded as "imaginary" cities.

Some cities may have more problems than others, but they all have problems.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

you can be bored anywhere; the excitement comes from understanding the problems and working for their solution.


----------



## capslock (Oct 9, 2002)

I sorta know what you mean. I'm a Londoner but did part of my studies in Copenhagen. I loved the place and the country, and it was fantastic how organised it all was, and how it all just worked... but after a while I did start to miss the spontenaity of London, which aruably comes hand in hand with it's problems.

That said, I'd say gaining an understanding of a different way of living is _always _worth doing. If you hate it, you'll appreciate your city all the more. If you love it, you'll see your city's problems afresh and will know better what you want to change. Most likely you'll get both, but bottom line is you'll know more.

So if you get the chance, do it.


----------



## capslock (Oct 9, 2002)

Incidentally, while I was there even Copenhagen had 'problems' with drunken eskimos on the streets, an ongoing feud between two rival biker gangs, oh and it's quite an expensive city... but really - it's no Caracas


----------



## VBurd2128 (Jul 20, 2010)

I think it's all about balancing the amount of excitement (and what kind) with your comfort level/need for excitement. Also, your current city looks like it has a bunch of problems that are/could be fairly dangerous/disruptive. Cities can be exciting without constant riots/protests/flooding/etc. 

If you are considering a move and don't want to give up excitement for some stability, you could always consider a city that has a ton of things going on all the time and is chaotic... but it's an organized chaos, as in the city is crazy but overall it has it together.


----------



## Occit (Jul 24, 2005)

Well, an important issue too is the size of the city... for example NYC, Tokyo or London, could be as funny but safer than mine... :?


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

I think you could substitute these gangfights and flooding, in another city with varied cultural venues, such as music concerts, theatre, sports, restaurants, bars, etc... People do many things to prevent themselves from getting bored, that have nothing to do with risking your life.


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

If you aren't a boring person yourself, you can have fun everywhere.


----------



## VBurd2128 (Jul 20, 2010)

earthJoker said:


> If you aren't a boring person yourself, you can have fun everywhere.


I agree and feel the saying "If you are bored, you are boring" are words to live by.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

If gang fights and shootouts make someone bored (in whatever country), then this people should join the military or the local police! If you country's military is active and take tours to hot spots like Afghanistan or Iraq or even some peacekeeping missions like Haiti, you will see a lot of action.

Having been myself robbed at gunpoint three times, I see no "fun" in crime, whatsoever. And with Internet, Facebook, MySpace, all online entertainment possibilities, external options for socialization are less important.

The comment about touching others' bodies in an overloaded subway is just gross IMO. Then they don't understand why most people, having the opportunity to do so in the Western World and beyond, dodge public transit for the comfort and privacy of car - even with the perspective of jams.


----------



## TohrAlkimista (Dec 18, 2006)

I think the only city, which might be defined as 'without problems', is Bandar Seri Begawan in Brunei.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

No city is without problems, though some obviously have more than others. 

I would say though in response to a previous post that if you simply want to socialize via the internet without physically coming into contact with other humans why live in a city at all? You can do that far more effectively in a remote forest or desert, where there are no people there is no chance of crime or unwanted interaction.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Jonesy55 said:


> No city is without problems, though some obviously have more than others.
> 
> I would say though in response to a previous post that if you simply want to socialize via the internet without physically coming into contact with other humans why live in a city at all? You can do that far more effectively in a remote forest or desert, where there are no people there is no chance of crime or unwanted interaction.


Not exactly. What I meant (but is somehow off-topic) is that I believe social networks and remote interfaces will play a major role in first connecting people. Then, of course, most people would still want to hang out with people they've met online, and living in the middle of a forest can render that impracticable - and expensive to buy foods, drive a car, have electricity delivered and so on.

What I think is that the "social fabric" will become less and less important for any given city as the possibilities if offers for people who are like-minded to meet, greet, work and so.

Sure, I do believe some venues and social occasions and activities like clubbing or religious temple will survive and thrive, but I guess (just guess) social codes 40 years from now will render totally unacceptable to start a random talk, say, at a train car or in the line for anything, as we'll be totally absorbed by our gadgets, augmented reality devices and so. So the city concept will lose one of its features (random personal connectivity).

If you doubt me, take a look how the 10 y.o. kids are behaving now. They text each other across a park instead of merely talking to them. Times are changing.

Sorry for the off-topic.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

^^ how boring and dull.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

And totally untrue...:|


----------

