# How would you rate the quality of life in your city?



## Dr_Cosmo (Nov 8, 2010)

ajaaronjoe said:


> Because the British people never class themselves as European, and the Great Britain/the United Kingdom doesn't want to be part of EU, which is a devil state designed and ruled by greedy Germany and French for their own benefits. Thanks god we are still using our most stable currency £ and we never hang their ugly EU flags in our streets. But, if your a yank please keep trying to get your own Empire like UK controlled and dominated 1/3 of the world, largest and greatest empire in human history. Besides, stop killing the innocent people, if you want to invade other countries do it on your own. :bash: BTW i forget to say UK is the most militarily powerful nation in EU and has the biggest military budget in the entire Europe and ranked 3rd in the world just after the US and China. Do you know that the United States was founded by the 13th British colonials and the name New York was named and given by the British


You seem to live in the past like many Englanders. The British Empire has ceased 50 years ago.

Cities are bound to countries. NYC, DC and L.A are great and powerful because the USA is great and powerful.

Berlin and Paris are powerful because these cities are running the European Union.

London has, according to my information, no influence in Europe, it has only the UK.


----------



## intensivecarebear (Feb 2, 2006)

ok I'll do Cairo, Egypt

Pros:
-Incredibly safe city, especially if you're a dude
-truly 24 hour city, cafes are great and stay open late
-if you're a foreigner the cost of living is very cheap
-beautiful Islamic and Coptic landmarks
-lots of history
-in spite of its problems, people are generally friendly 
-the city feels 'real' and isn't disneyfied at all
-great weather in the winter and in general in the evenings (in summer)
-amazing metro system...very clean too

Cons:
That said....
-incredibly polluted and dirty
-lots of poverty and misery
-police corruption and abuse....lack of basic human rights
-not many people who are accepting of differences i.e (religious, cultural, etc.)
-horribly hot in the summer
-backwards mentalities
-huge wealth disparity
-no edgy or interesting nightlife for a city its size due to conservative culture
-very very difficult to meet and have fun with the opposite sex 
-lots of cheaters and thieves (due to poverty naturally)
-can be lonely and anonymous
-can be intimidating if you're a blonde or white-looking female


----------



## ajaaronjoe (Mar 1, 2010)

Dr_Cosmo said:


> You seem to live in the past like many Englanders.


Its called pride 


Rank	Country	Score
1 United States	90.62
2 United Kingdom	65.04
3 Russia	63.03
4 France	62.00
5 Germany	61.93
6 China	59.10
7 Japan	57.84
8 Canada	57.09
9 South Korea	53.20
10 India	50.43

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_National_Power
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power



> NYC, DC and L.A are great and powerful because the USA is great and powerful.


It depends on how you measure, US has almost $14 trillion debt, the worst healthcare system among developed nations, US even owes $511.8 billion to UK. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt i like LA because of it's in a sunny sate and has wonderful weather. 



> Berlin and Paris are powerful because these cities are running the European Union.


Get your facts right, EU laws are made by Brussels. EU is designed by Germany and France for their own profits. You can ask to the people in UK, nobody wants the UK to be part of EU and fortunately they are still keeping their own currency. 



> London has, according to my information, no influence in Europe, it has only the UK.


Obviously not, as i told you before. UK doesn't want to be part of EU, so why do you expect them to influence the entire Europe?(you mean including Russia) Germany and France are the largest trading partners unlike the UK it's largest trading partner is the US, and it's biggest export partner is also US. As far as i am concerned UK is a completely different country compared to other countries in Europe. Please leave the UK alone and let it remain in English speaking world (not european) :cheers:


----------



## Isek (Feb 13, 2005)

ajaaronjoe said:


> Its called pride
> 
> 
> Rank	Country	Score
> ...


:lol: That's a truly educating Wikipedia article. There is even one translation into Tiếng Việt. :lol:


----------



## Dr_Cosmo (Nov 8, 2010)

ajaaronjoe said:


> As far as i am concerned UK is a completely different country compared to other countries in Europe.


Different ? It is a European country with European history and European ethnicities. It has chosen not to influence Europe politically or economically, thats why London is far less important for Washington or Beijing. The first address is Berlin than Paris and a bit Brussels. The Brussels people usually get in line with Germany and France because they are most respected and connected in the EU.


----------



## ajaaronjoe (Mar 1, 2010)

Dr_Cosmo said:


> London is far less important for Washington or Beijing


You have changed the subject, we are not talking about the ****** (future superpower) or DC (capital of falling superpower). 



> The Brussels people usually get in line with Germany and France because they are most respected and connected in the EU.


Its good to see German & France getting along so well. We all know what﻿ its like when they don't :|


----------



## niterider (Nov 3, 2009)

ajaaronjoe said:


> It depends on how you measure, US has almost $14 trillion debt, the worst healthcare system among developed nations, US even owes $511.8 billion to UK. http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/data-chart-center/tic/Documents/mfh.txt i like LA because of it's in a sunny sate and has wonderful weather.


'Worst' eh...hardly. If by worst you mean universal access - agreed, but the quality in the US is vastly superior to anything you get in England. They simply took the path that it is up to the individual to take responsibility of their own live and choose the insurance they consider most approprite...remember you get taxed far less there. 
I've used the NHS in the UK - If im sick I need to book a few days in advance to see an doctor...I'll get seen for maybe 10mins max. Doctors have been incompetent and downright wrong. Many hospitals are just - dirty - and people have no privacy in crap shared rooms. Treatments are basic and take longer.



ajaaronjoe said:


> It Get your facts right, EU laws are made by Brussels. EU is designed by Germany and France for their own profits. You can ask to the people in UK, nobody wants the UK to be part of EU and fortunately they are still keeping their own currency.


True. It might be geographically close to Europe, and indeed willingly cooperate on certain issues, but culturally it is sees itself closer to those in places like Australia and Canada and to a lesser extent the USA


----------



## [email protected] (Jan 17, 2004)

Here's my rating for the 4 cities I've lived in so far (Heidelberg, Taipei, Amsterdam, Shanghai)

*HEIDELBERG, Germany: 7.0 / 10.0*

*Pros*
- Nice historic old town
- Nice scenery
- Good public transportation system for a city of its size

*Cons*
- Much too small for my taste (145k)
- High rents
- Lack of large scale events
- Next major airport is 85km away


*TAIPEI, Taiwan: 9.0 / 10.0*

*Pros*
- Some of the friendliest people I’ve encountered anywhere on this planet
- Very affordable
- Spectacular landscapes and national parks are just a short 15 minute ride outside the city
- Great public transportation system
- Extremely safe

*Cons*
- Frequent earthquakes
- Humidity in the summer is almost unbearable


*AMSTERDAM, Netherlands: 8.5 / 10.0*

*Pros*
- Fantastic old town with quaint canals
- Very cosmopolitan
- Highly-educated, multi-lingual population
- Good public transportation system
- Strong economy
- Better nightlife than some cities 5 times the size

*Cons*
- Extremely expensive (rents, eating out)
- Some unsafe districts
- Very high petty crime rate (I gave up owning a bicycle after having 3 stolen within my first couple of weeks there)
- Too cold in the summer and too much rain throughout the year


*SHANGHAI, China: 5.5 / 10.0*

*Pros*
- One of the largest cities in the world
- Great subway system
- A skyscraper paradise
- Still very affordable
- Great selection of restaurants & shops

*Cons*
- Very rude public behaviour (No queuing, spitting, noisy people, no consideration for the well-being of others)
- Horrible traffic & horrible driving skills
- High income inequality
- Noisy & Polluted
- Widespread corruption
- Oppressive society with internet censorship and no freedom of speech
- Humidity in the summer is almost unbearable


----------



## ajaaronjoe (Mar 1, 2010)

niterider said:


> True. It might be geographically close to Europe, and indeed willingly cooperate on certain issues, but culturally it is sees itself closer to those in places like Australia and Canada and to a lesser extent the USA


Exactly, you got the point. Id rather see the UK working together with it's cousins Australia, Canada, New Zealand and (United States) rather than EU. I even wish the location of UK was closer to Australia or Canada than in Europe :lol: Commonwealth Nations Rule :horse:


----------



## Dr_Cosmo (Nov 8, 2010)

ajaaronjoe said:


> I even wish the location of UK was closer to Australia or Canada than in Europe


There are 3 superpowers today on the globe, the US, the EU and China (in the future).

The UK does not have influence in any of these entities, thats why London has long ago ceased to be important. 

Actually you are the best proof. A Londoner who rather wants to deal with geopolitical midgets like Canada or Australia has stopped his desire to rule with the big boys... I knew it .


----------



## ajaaronjoe (Mar 1, 2010)

Dr_Cosmo said:


> There are 3 superpowers today on the globe, the US, the EU and China (in the future).


do you think i don't know that?:|
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_superpowers



> The UK does not have influence in any of these entities, thats why London has long ago ceased to be important.


Why would i want the UK to be part of EU or to influence its power among European countries? Let me tell you something if you don't know, UK has the 2nd biggest GDP PPP in EU after Germany, UK has the biggest military budget in the entire Europe, which is way bigger than germany or france or russia whatever you say, UK is one of nuclear weapons states out of 2 in EU, Royal Navy (Blue Water Navy) and Royal Air Force are the biggest and most powerful in EU(2nd in NATO after the united states). UK is arguably the most influential nation in Europe. i could go on like this all day but i think its is more than enough. ok



> Actually you are the best proof. A Londoner who rather wants to deal with geopolitical midgets like Canada or Australia has stopped his desire to rule with the big boys... I knew it .


All i want is to withdraw the UK from the corrupt EU, thats in a bad shape. I am fed up of seeing useless laws made by brussels and bailing some Europe's third world countries out every single day. PS London aint a joke, its the world's largest Financial centre, economically most powerful city on earth and the richest city in the whole Europe nufff said :hilarious:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_centre


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

ajaaronjoe said:


> You have changed the subject, we are not talking about *the ******* (future superpower) or DC (capital of falling superpower).
> 
> Its good to see German & France getting along so well. We all know what﻿ its like when they don't :|


hno:

Anything else while you're still here?


----------



## ajaaronjoe (Mar 1, 2010)

@Dr Cosmo,,,PS i aint being cocky or arrogant, i am just trying to prove that your facts are bullocks, the way you look on UK is like UK is some sorta third world nation, no military or political power or anything like that. your just funny when you cant see that UK is militarily the msot powerful nation in European Union. By the way, my favourite countries in the world are Australia, Canada, Spain and Florida (not country but its a state in US).


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

"******" is a highly racist and completely unacceptable word on this forum (or anywhere, for that matter). You're brigged.


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

ajaaronjoe said:


> You can ask to the people in UK, nobody wants the UK to be part of EU and fortunately they are still keeping their own currency.


I do.



niterider said:


> '
> 
> True. It might be geographically close to Europe, and indeed willingly cooperate on certain issues, but culturally it is sees itself closer to those in places like Australia and Canada and to a lesser extent the USA


It's true that most people in the UK see the UK as being culturally non-European and more like Australia, Canada, or the US, but that doesn't make it true.


----------



## niterider (Nov 3, 2009)

DanielFigFoz said:


> I do.
> 
> 
> 
> It's true that most people in the UK see the UK as being culturally non-European and more like Australia, Canada, or the US, but that doesn't make it true.


Yes but the vast majority don't. The thing is, outside of the 'capital' London ...which couldn't be farther from representative of British culture or society if it tried, most people are deeply suspicious of the EU and Europe in general. Fine to holiday there or trade, but nothing more.
As for culture, it does partly make it true - culture is essentially how people think and live their lives and here, rightly or wrongly, most people just do not see themselves as European and furthermore resent being 'told' they are.


----------



## groentje (Apr 15, 2006)

Brussels: 7 to 8
PRO
Affordable housing
Trams!
Lots of historical buildings
Lots of cafés with a great choice of beer
Many parks
CONTRA
Political nonsense that exists on the national level, exists in Brussels, too. 
Public transport could do better
Too many cars
Some beautiful buildings were neglected and/or torn down to be replaced by something hideous.
some city parts are rundown and less safe, although no no-go areas exist.


----------



## IrishMan2010 (Aug 16, 2010)

DUBLIN:

Pros:
Phoenix park
Nice Georgian architecture
Amazing nightlife
Mild weather
History

Cons:
Public transport is not up to standard (rely too much on cars and buses)
Urban sprawl
Filthy dirty in some places
Serious drug problem
Traffic


----------



## Dr_Cosmo (Nov 8, 2010)

DanielFigFoz said:


> It's true that most people in the UK see the UK as being culturally non-European and more like Australia, Canada, or the US, but that doesn't make it true.


Correct. The Brits are fantasizing. Obviously the UK has taken over the last 1000 years the same cultural path as the rest of Western Europe. Britain is neither Arabia nor China nor India. It is very much France, Germany, Scandinavia (seen from a global perspective).

While the Brits are driving on the wrong side, the irrational believe of a supposedly non-European heritage still holds I guess.:crazy: Another basic psychological problem for them is probably the island situation. Britain just has no neighbours, all of Europe does and feels geographically connected.

When I see how Britain blocks everything in the EU I seriously ask myself why Europe does not kick them out, the UK seems to be a kind of pain in the ass, politically spoken.


----------



## kix111 (Jun 14, 2007)

If you have $$$ Shanghai is definitely one of the best city in the world for city life.


----------



## nonotz (Jan 10, 2011)

the topic of this thread is "How would you rate the quality of life in your city?"

its certainly a personal view..
nothing to do with those number


----------



## WooWoo (May 25, 2010)

Getting on topic of this thread

*Manchester, Great Britain*

5 Pros
Great night life
Clean city center
Greet green spaces
Beautiful landscape
Really diverse, you can do anything there really!

5 Cons
Youth crime (on the decrease but still not good)
Too much rain  one of the wettest cities in the UK
Cold in the winter
Not enough highrises 
Some of the suburbs are pretty rough

Rating: 7/10 



Deanb said:


> what are you trying to prove?
> London's got a shitty climate and it, along with NYC share the 1st place globally... it would NEVER beat NYC...


One thing i did want to pick up on however is the climate remark. London is drier than NYC and quite a lot of places in Europe and indeed the world. Its more or less as dry as places like Sydney and Jerusalem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Climate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyc#Climate

Sorry for going off track, just cant help myself when someone is wrong :lol:


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

*Houston:*

*Pros:*

It's relatively diverse and thanks to the energy industry you have highly educated immigrants from all over move here. Houston also has the most consulate offices outside of New York City.

Relatively laid back compared with other cities

Art Scene

Restaurant scene (pretty much any ethnic cuisine can be found here)

Central location within the US along with proximity to most of Latin America

Renewed interest in reviving downtown

Expanding it's mass transit system

Relatively affordable compared with other US cities along with many of the same amenities.

*Cons:*
Weather (during the winter it is nice but in the summer it's just too hot outside).

No mountains nearby and downtown is located away from any significant body of water even though Galveston Bay and the Gulf of Mexico are not too far away. That being said the tropical vegitation makes up for it though.

Still too car orientated

The backward state government tends to hinder any progress to making cities more livable (other cities such as Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio are also affected by this despite their forward thinking leadership.)

Air pollution is still pretty bad.

Those tacky billboards alongside the freeways (although there is an ongoing effort to remove them).


----------



## Hia-leah JDM (May 7, 2007)

*ORLANDO*

*Pros -*

Real young population
Wonderful Downtown 
Lots of activity in reviving the urban core
Diverse population
Theme Parks
Weather
great airport
relatively affordable
Decent dining options
*Cons -*

Mega sprawl
Traffic
nonexistent public transportation
Theme Parks (yup)
Not the best public education
No real distinction
Not on the coast
Tiny Downtown (but great)

*MIAMI*

*Pros -*

Booming urban core
Real diverse population
Beaches
Weather
Exciting art scene
Great location for travel/business to Latin America and Europe
abundant entertainment and world class events
Excellent nightlife
Shopping
The Miami Heat
Great dining
*Cons -* 

Traffic and drivers
Limited mass transit
Suburbia/Car oriented
Location to travel from car
Flat topography
Faulty public education
Corruption at state and local level
Not enough green space
Can be real expensive

I'm still figuring out *Jacksonville*.


----------



## Zach759 (May 20, 2010)

*Kansas city*

pros
+great restaurants and shopping centers
+friendly people
+everything is NOT in a central location
+transportation

cons
-litter
-it's next to Kansas
-public transportation

8/10


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

WooWoo said:


> One thing i did want to pick up on however is the climate remark. London is drier than NYC and quite a lot of places in Europe and indeed the world. Its more or less as dry as places like Sydney and Jerusalem
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Climate
> 
> ...


That is so true. London is a lot drier than what people think. Even English people put it in the 'Its in England so its going to rain' bracket.

22.976 inches of rain isn't much at all. In the summer this shows as the grass in the parks starts to go a bit brown in places

"London is a relatively dry city with regular but generally light precipitation throughout the year, with an average of 583.6 millimetres (22.98 in) every year. This is lower than many cities such as New York, Paris, Sydney and around the same as Jerusalem and San Francisco." from wikipedia


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

Deanb said:


> what are you trying to prove?
> London's got a shitty climate and it, along with NYC share the 1st place globally... it would NEVER beat NYC...


London vs NYC is such a pointless debate! 

They are BOTH the worlds most famous cities and get a huge amount of tourists each year! I personally put them BOTH at number 1!

They are both VERY different and not comparable at all.

Its like comparing Los Angeles and Nanjing!


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Love London and NY as well. But London does have a "dampness" problem. It isn't so much that it is raining measurable amounts, the problem is that it is quite often foggy to the point of drizzle or very light rain. 

SF has the same problem: not much rain actually precipitating but frequent fog and drizzle. 

Conversely, most of Hawaii gets much more measurable rain than London. Clear and warm 95 percent of the time and pouring buckets from time to time.


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

I love both The Big Apple and The Big Smoke  Two greatest cities


----------



## GZT (May 17, 2010)

*Ghent* (Belgium)

+ A historical centre that is one of the most beautiful in entire Europe.
+ Small, yet not too small (200.000 inh.)
+ Beautiful city with diverse architecture (old and new) and the centre was just renovated this year
+ Increasing facilities for bikes
+ Efficient and not too expensive public transport
+ Close to Brussels, Antwerp, Paris & London
+ Many young people going to uni & college
+ Totally safe
+ People drive calm and chill

Cons:
- Weather
- Could be a bit bigger
- Still needs more facilities for bikes
- Moroccans & some immigrant hoods
- Roma gypsys flooding the city

8.5/10


----------



## Skyland (Jul 3, 2005)

*Vienna, Austria*

Vienna (1.7 M people) was ranked highest in Quality of Living by the Mercer Study 2010 http://www.mercer.com/articles/quality-of-living-survey-report-2010

*Anyway here are my Pros:*
- Very beautiful city, lots of historic architecture, very urban downtown
- Culture (Lots of theaters, opera, museums - modern/historic, art galleries...)
- Excellent restaurants
- One of the best public transportation systems in the world
- Good nightlife - particularly in summer along Donaukanal
- Open to skyscrapers (new 220 m building U/C) and modern architecture
- Lots of construction going on e.g. 3 new train stations
- relatively cheap rents (compared to London, Munich or Paris)
- Good flight connections, airport only 20 min from downtown by cheap train
- Awesome weather in summer: Dry and hot
- Lakes in the city for swimming in the summer, Forests within the city for hiking
- 1h to the Alps for skiing and hiking/climbing, 4 h by car to Adriatic sea (Slovenia, Croatia)
- 3 countries can be reached within an hour by car (Slovakia - 45 min to Bratislava, Czech Rep - 1.5 h to Brno, Hungary - 2 h to Budapest)
- International significance (UN, OSCE, OPEC HQ in Vienna) 

*...and Cons:* 
- Grey and cold winters
- In some districts: too many unfriendly retirees, some people xenophobic
- Some houses outside downtown really need to be renovated, at least some paint
- Foreign population mainly from East and South-Eastern Europe (mainly F-Yugos, Turkey) as well as Germany, not many immigrants from countries outside Europe
- Located far from the other main cities in W-Europe (Paris, Amsterdam, London, Madrid)
- Shops close at 7PM during the week and at 6 PM Saturdays (though there are some exceptions)


----------



## Eduardo L. Ramirez (Jul 24, 2008)

ajaaronjoe said:


> Its called pride
> 
> Rank	Country	Score
> 1 United States	90.62
> ...


I really like England but honestly, I think this "Ajaaronjoe" individual has made that wikipedia entry itself or something like this. I had a look at the source shown at wikipedia and it has the UK not even in the range of a second place -nowhere!

http://www.fgu.edu.tw/~academic/up1/malayconference1/paperscollection.files/conferefncepapers/chang.pdf


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

Wikipedia survey is a joke they even put Ethiopia above Singapore, Sweden, Israel, New Zealand and Norway etc :nuts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_Index_of_National_Capability
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_powers


----------



## dj4life (Oct 22, 2009)

SO143 said:


> Wikipedia survey is a joke they even put Ethiopia above Singapore, *Sweden*, Israel, New Zealand and *Norway *etc :nuts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_Index_of_National_Capability
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_powers


Yeah, what is Northern Europe? Just a few neutral, mostly silent, calm countries, lol.  Seriously, if i was able to changet the ranking, i'd put these naitions to the top, since it is a power of mentality that rules there.


----------



## Norf_London_boi (Nov 5, 2010)

poshbakerloo said:


> That is so true. London is a lot drier than what people think. Even English people put it in the 'Its in England so its going to rain' bracket.
> 
> 22.976 inches of rain isn't much at all. In the summer this shows as the grass in the parks starts to go a bit brown in places
> 
> "London is a relatively dry city with regular but generally light precipitation throughout the year, with an average of 583.6 millimetres (22.98 in) every year. This is lower than many cities such as New York, Paris, Sydney and around the same as Jerusalem and San Francisco." from wikipedia


The problem with the climate in London is not so much the rain, rather the fact that the default weather is grey skies from horizon to horizon. In most other parts of the world, grey skies = it's going to rain soon, so most foreign visitors interpret the London climate as really rainy because of the greyness. 

In fact you can go weeks and weeks without a single drop of rain, but you can also go for weeks without seeing the sun either - particularly at this time of year hno:


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

yep London it hardly rains, and neither is it constant drizzle or fog, which is in fact very rare (the old romantic, foggy streets of fame was actually *smog* from the Victorian times through to the 1950s, when the Clean Air Act cleaned up all the industry from the city - after 12,000 people died in one such 'pea-souper' in 1952).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog

















So the smog is gone, and it's the driest part of the country with about half the rainfall of NYC, and on a par with Tel Aviv, Melbourne etc - but, it being overcast is it's default weather from autumn through to spring. If one should slate London, it's not on the nonexistant rain, drizzle or fog, but the nonexistant sun most of the year.


----------



## WooWoo (May 25, 2010)

Norf_London_boi said:


> The problem with the climate in London is not so much the rain, rather the fact that the default weather is grey skies from horizon to horizon. In most other parts of the world, grey skies = it's going to rain soon, so most foreign visitors interpret the London climate as really rainy because of the greyness.
> 
> In fact you can go weeks and weeks without a single drop of rain, but you can also go for weeks without seeing the sun either - particularly at this time of year hno:


I dont get that. May June July and August get over 180 sunshine hours, just bordering 200 hours. Its not _*always*_ cloudy and dull in London. You go in Autumn and winter then yeah, its going to be cloudy, but thats because of the fact that constant low pressures from the west bringing in rain hit the penines and the moores, so they take out all of the rain, leaving cloudy and dull skies. You go there in Spring and Summer though and its rather sunny tbh

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Climate


----------



## mvictory (Jul 27, 2009)

Melbourne

Pros:
- Generaly nice Climate
- Food culture second to none
- lots of good coffee
- Culture (lots of live music, art, theater)
- Safe environment
- Beautiful city (architecture, Gardens, etc...)
- Close proximity to beautiful nature and activities (Mornington Peninsula, Surf Coast, Wilsons Prom, Phillip Island, The Alps, Grampions, Dandenongs, Yarra Valley, etc.. are all just a short drive away)
- Sport (great facilities and events)
- Lots of great beaches

Cons:
- Cost (one of the most expensive places in the world to live in terms of housing, food, drink, etc..)
- Public Transport (the tram system would be amazing if there were no cars on the road, unfortunately this is not the case)
- like anywhere in Australia it is a long way from the rest of the world

In conclusion I would not live anywhere else


----------



## weava (Sep 8, 2007)

Zach759 said:


> *Kansas city*
> 
> pros
> +great restaurants and shopping centers
> ...


Kansas City for me :6/10

Pros
-the plaza, crossroads, power and light, westport, and brookside districts
-food(known for BBQ)
-light traffic 
-a NFL and MLB city (plus nascar and MLS)
-lots of concerts/shows/etc (sprint center is a top 10 venue)
-architecture of city hall, municipal arena,new Kaufman hall, etc.

Cons
-no light rail
-gang/drug problems
-massive amounts of abandoned structures(1000s)
-No NBA or NHL
-bi-state politics and cultural divides
-massive amount of sprawl
-the suburban architecture
-the city smells terrible(combined sewer/sanitary lines)
-small market baseball


----------



## Norf_London_boi (Nov 5, 2010)

WooWoo said:


> I dont get that. May June July and August get over 180 sunshine hours, just bordering 200 hours. Its not _*always*_ cloudy and dull in London. You go in Autumn and winter then yeah, its going to be cloudy, but thats because of the fact that constant low pressures from the west bringing in rain hit the penines and the moores, so they take out all of the rain, leaving cloudy and dull skies. You go there in Spring and Summer though and its rather sunny tbh
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London#Climate


Sure it's all subjective. London IS sunnier, dryer and warmer than Manchester, which is one of the wetter parts of the UK. But compared to most other parts of the world - particularly countries where most of our tourists come from (USA, France, Italy, Spain) - it is grey. Hence the stereotype. 

We may be as dry as Tel Aviv but I bet there it pours with rain once a month then the rest of the time the sun shines.


----------



## gino lo spazzino (May 21, 2010)

Isek said:


> :nuts: Is it now clean or drity??
> 
> Imo Milan is quite dirty. Especially comparing it with its neighboring cities in the north like Zurich or Munich.


^^ Quiet, that level of cleanliness we are cleaner than Paris or London :devil:


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

Yeah with 1,315,000 people compared to 7.55 million


----------



## gino lo spazzino (May 21, 2010)

^^ With 7.55 million of population you understand the Greater London, When I talk about Milan, I also understand the area of the Greater Milan, that it is also comes to be 7.40 million of population.

I know that the idea that in Italy there is a city cleaner than other European cities make you disgust. :evil:


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

Metro London has 14 million, Paris has 11 million, Metro Milan is 7.4 million which is the same as London city (32 boroughs) population, neither urban nor metro


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

gino lo spazzino;73002601
I know that the idea that in Italy there is a city cleaner than other European cities make you disgust. :evil:[/QUOTE said:


> No No No, this is absolutely incorrect. I do not have any intention at all to offend any city on earth. What i am trying to say is that how could you compare cities like Beijing and Munich? or New York to Geneva? They are not comparable in terms of population. So i think you should not blame New York for being a dirtier city compared to Milan or Singapore. for example


----------



## gino lo spazzino (May 21, 2010)

SO143 said:


> No No No, this is absolutely incorrect. I do not have any intention at all to offend any city on earth. What i am trying to say is that how could you compare cities like Beijing and Munich? or New York to Geneva? They are not comparable in terms of population. So i think you should not blame New York for being a dirtier city compared to Milan or Singapore. for example


^^ You're absolutely right about everything, in fact I had compared Milan to London because, in terms of population, more or less, are similar, it is obvious that Milan do not compare with Tokyo or New York, which are twice or three times the population of Milan and London.



SO143 said:


> Metro London has 14 million, Paris has 11 million, Metro Milan is 7.4 million which is the same as London city (32 boroughs) population, neither urban nor metro


If we count the entire region of Milan, we come to 10-11 million

End OT


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

gino lo spazzino said:


> If we count the entire region of Milan, we come to 10-11 million



This is how analysts count, and how do you count? 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Europe_by_population


----------



## gino lo spazzino (May 21, 2010)

http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_areas_in_Italy
^^ Here we come already 8,047,125 of population in Milan

You can also enter part of Piedmont, which runs between Torino and Brescia in Metropolitan area of Milan.

In this area, some Italian analysts have speculated that if we all unite under a single metropolitan area (that of Milan's main), you would have a population of 11 million inhabitants.

Obviously we are talking about a utopia for Italy to have one area that incorporates transport, infrastructure and more as happens in Paris, London or the German Ruhr.

London is one area, L'ille de France is the metropolitan area of Paris, infact, the transport in London and Paris are efficient and have a transport fare integration in the region (metropolitan area) that Milan is a utopia

P.S Bit of information: the City of Paris (not the metro area) is smaller than the City of Milan and the City of London (not the metro area) is smaller than Rome.

So the comparison can be done with Milan.


----------



## Required (Feb 18, 2011)

Manchester, England:

3/10

Pros:

+ History
+ Beautiful old victorian buildings
+ Many live music venues

Cons:

+ Above average precipitation. Manchester is nicknamed the rainy city.
+ Pedestrian unfriendly. Narrow streets ruled over by cars
+ High crime
+ No parks. We had something approximating a park, once
+ Too few independent retailers


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

*Tilburg, Netherlands (pop 204.000)*

*Pros*
-Lots of open space
-Few traffic jams
-Not a tourist hot-spot
-Very nice new development area (Reeshof)
-Agile and international-friendly City Hall services
-Awesome ice-cream shop, best in the country
-Many institutions of higher education, including mine

*Cons*
-Expensive parking downtown + too many pedestrianized streets
-Lack of some stores other major Dutch cities have like MediaMarkt, Bijenkorf, C&A and even some basic fast food restaurants like Burger King.
-Most interesting nightlife die on weekends (university city)
-Incomplete motorway connections, we only have 2, whilst many cities of similar size have 3, 4 or 5
-


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Required said:


> Manchester, England:
> 
> 3/10
> 
> ...


Oooh I think that's a bit harsh..

Manchester does have plenty of parks though it could do with more near the centre.

Heaton park for example is a massive park, massive!


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS (Jul 10, 2010)

Required said:


> Manchester, England:
> 
> 3/10
> 
> ...


Why do you live there if you think that it's a 3/10 city...?


----------



## Required (Feb 18, 2011)

... ...


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> *Cons*
> -Expensive parking downtown + too many pedestrianized streets
> -Lack of some stores other major Dutch cities have like MediaMarkt, Bijenkorf, C&A and even some basic fast food restaurants like Burger King.
> -Most interesting nightlife die on weekends (university city)
> ...


First time I have seen someone wanting more chains in their stores and less pedestrianised streets! That's just... Crazy!


----------



## Required (Feb 18, 2011)

.... ....


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS (Jul 10, 2010)

Svartmetall said:


> First time I have seen someone wanting more chains in their stores and less pedestrianised streets! That's just... Crazy!


I rather go and eat in McDonalds and Burger King than a local restaurant...because it's usually cheaper and you know what you get.


----------



## Alexpilsen (May 3, 2009)

Pros:

History
Colonial Architecture
Economic Growth
Low unemployment
Natural Beauties

Cons:

Violence very high
Poor educational system
Very high income inequality
Public Transport Quality is Low
Dirty streets


----------



## Svartmetall (Aug 5, 2007)

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> I rather go and eat in McDonalds and Burger King than a local restaurant...because it's usually cheaper and you know what you get.


But that leads to a very boring life! If one takes the chance one might end up with something far better than one expects. There is a reason that the top restaurants in the world aren't chain restaurants. When I was in Hong Kong, for example, McDonnalds was way, way more expensive than the food in Mong Kok and tasted awful by comparison. 

You've got to take chances in your life or you'll never enjoy it. Often I find that you'll get a much more satisfying meal from a restaurant (even if you pay a little more) than if you simply go to a fast food chain. A local example for you - Östermalms Saluhall offers some very nice lunchtime food for a reasonable price. Much more tasty, much healthier and far mre interesting! I also found some fantastic restaurants in Stockholm while I was there too. I found some interesting things such as Lao Wai which, despite the rather amusing name, was an interesting restaurant despite my exposure to Chinese food in China, this was definitely tasty and very healthy.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

VECTROTALENZIS said:


> I rather go and eat in McDonalds and Burger King than a local restaurant...because it's usually cheaper and you know what you get.


That makes me want to cry


----------



## wc eend (Sep 16, 2002)

*Brussels, Belgium*

Pro:

- Architectural beauty and diversity
- Diversity of population
- Cosmopolitan
- parks and forests
- lots of cool, still ungentrified areas
- great connections with London, Paris, Germany and Holland
- café/restaurant life

Con:

- Urban Belgian-style sprawl
- Car-congested, bicylcle/pedestrian unfriendly
- political mess


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

Pros 
Arguably world's best skylines
The city that never sleeps 24 hour city
A lot of green places, mini parks everywhere
Great music concerts, food, diversity, fashion and entertainment 
Taxi everywhere, good subway that covers almost all the the entire city
Good education, world class colleges, lots of places to explore, fantastic museums 

Cons
Expensive and dirty
Lots of people on the street and sometime can't move 
It takes long time to commute from one place to another
Very cold weather in the winter, rainy and snowing at the same time
Very inequality between rich and poor, state schools are not that good


----------



## old school (Apr 26, 2009)

SO143 said:


> Pros
> Arguably world's best skylines
> The city that never sleeps 24 hour city
> A lot of green places, mini parks everywhere
> ...


What's the city??? 
:nuts::nuts::nuts:


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

old school said:


> What's the city???
> :nuts::nuts::nuts:


Guess


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS (Jul 10, 2010)

SO143 said:


> Guess


The Big Apple? :|


----------



## Pfeuffer (Sep 9, 2009)

yep ! but it is not dirty ! it`s not an rotten apple !


----------



## ov_79 (Mar 21, 2008)

*Brno, Czech rep.*

8 Pros
+ well and tasty renovated historical centre
+ hilly surroundings with well-managed tourist infrastructure
+ dense electric-based Public transport system (trams, trolley-buses)
+ large percentage of student population making the city more lively
+ Vienna, Prague, Budapest and Krakow all within 350 km
+ sufficient highway bypass system
+ relatively clean air
+ relatively safe with low crime stats

8 Cons
- little amount of good music clubs, large stages in particular
- few open-air cultural events to attract people reaching the centre on weekends
- few city cycle lines (almost lack off)
- few cultivated green areas
- too many (though not extensive) brownfields 
- too dense commie block areas from late 80s 
- terrible main railway station 
- poor sport infrastructure, lack of representative universal arena in particular


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

Pfeuffer said:


> yep ! but it is not dirty ! it`s not an rotten apple !


:lol: it ain't rotten, its the greatest Apple


----------



## studiowacho (Oct 1, 2008)

SO143 said:


> Wikipedia survey is a joke they even put Ethiopia above Singapore, Sweden, Israel, New Zealand and Norway etc :nuts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_Index_of_National_Capability
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_powers


I completely agree it's a joke!!


----------



## WooWoo (May 25, 2010)

Required said:


> Manchester, England:
> 
> 3/10
> 
> ...


No Parks? We have the biggest park in Europe in Manchester, Heaton Park, and where I live there are many playground's, parks and green spaces

Too many bland new builds? If Manchester wants to maintain its status as a Global City, more "glass boxes" shopping centers and skyscrapers are going to have to be built in order to keep the city's economy booming


----------



## dj4life (Oct 22, 2009)

studiowacho said:


> I completely agree it's a joke!!


That data is a good sign of what unreliable source truelly wikipedia is.


----------



## VECTROTALENZIS (Jul 10, 2010)

dj4life said:


> That data is a good sign of what unreliable source truelly wikipedia is.


Actually the data there is from another source, it's not somebody that has made up all these...


----------



## Required (Feb 18, 2011)

edit


----------



## old school (Apr 26, 2009)

SO143 said:


> Guess


I do not have a clue...
Wait, is it that dreary UK city, London???


----------



## Skyrazer (Sep 9, 2009)

^^
Pretty obvious it's NYC.

"City that never sleeps" was the giveaway...


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

Skyrazer said:


> ^^
> Pretty obvious it's NYC.
> 
> "City that never sleeps" was the giveaway...


+1 :yes:


----------



## kix111 (Jun 14, 2007)

The city never sleeps better slip you a Ambien


----------



## _00_deathscar (Mar 16, 2005)

Let me do one for Mumbai

Pros
When you love it, you really love it
Lots of entertainment options
Some truly stunning architecture (mostly old)
Some great cityscapes, skylines and areas
There IS varied public transport (unlike in some cities)
Fantastic Indian food and a decent mix of other types (but not necessarily great)
Great history/culture

Cons
When you hate it, you really hate it
Dirty - the city, the streets, the public transport - water unsafe for drinking, unhygienic
Crowded
Polluted
Expensive for accommodation
Inefficient services

Overall I'd give Mumbai a 5/10 - it's basically a place that divides like no other.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Required said:


> Heaton Park is brilliant, but that doesn't change the fact there's no large park in the city centre. Regarding glass boxes, your attitude seems to be that they're a neccessary evil. I think they're an architectural blight. They make cities unrecognisable from one another. Manchester is turning into an imitation of Liverpool and every other city in the country. Same malls, same shops, same cafes, same office blocks. Worst of all it's all glass and highly unengaging. Architects and planners are the most important sociologists in a city. Architecture can endow people with a sense of place and community. Glass boxes are the anesthatis of that.


To be fair you didn't specify the city centre re parks, if you had I would have agreed with you, there are a few small ones like this below but more would be good. The residential areas outside the centre have many parks though including 240 hectare Heaton Park.










As for glass boxes I see your point but its a criticism that could be levelled at pretty much any major city in the world from Guangzhou to Buenos Airies to Auckland to Luanda to Paris to Riyadh to Moscow to Mumbai glass and steel is what they are using for many major commercial buildings. Some are better than others though and they don't dominate the architectural landscape of Manchester.


----------



## WooWoo (May 25, 2010)

Required said:


> Heaton Park is brilliant, but that doesn't change the fact there's no large park in the city centre. Regarding glass boxes, your attitude seems to be that they're a neccessary evil. I think they're an architectural blight. They make cities unrecognisable from one another. Manchester is turning into an imitation of Liverpool and every other city in the country. Same malls, same shops, same cafes, same office blocks. Worst of all it's all glass and highly unengaging. Architects and planners are the most important sociologists in a city. Architecture can endow people with a sense of place and community. Glass boxes are the anesthatis of that.


And I wouldn't change it for the world


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Svartmetall said:


> First time I have seen someone wanting more chains in their stores and less pedestrianised streets! That's just... Crazy!


Chain stores and restaurants don't necessarily need to be a mutually exclusive category as opposed to local ones. Sure, if I want a high-end "dining experience", I'll go to one of the few good restaurants here in Tilburg, but sometimes I just want something predictable, fast and cheap. Is that wrong?

I don't have plenty of money to make every errand out of home into a € 60 "dinning experience". Moreover, as for the cheap(er) local restaurants, that I also patronize, their menus will be 80% the same, but the quality could vary a lot. And they might be - depending on what you order - unhealthy too.

Likewise, department chain stores makes shopping for regular stuff easier. I can check whether they have an item online. Their inventory will me more-or-less predictable. It is also quite uncommon to have big local independent stores, meaning they have less options to offer (or, put another way, you have to shop in different places instead of finding many items at the same store). But of course it's not a mutually exclusive choice.

The bottom line is: for most of the time, people are looking for convenience, predictability and availability - and lower prices -, hence the overall success of chain stores for clothes, food, office supplies, hardware etc. And, for instance, I miss not having a MediaMarkt in my city, meaning I have to either shop at 5 or 6 different stores and try to hit what I want there or (what usually happens) I just go to the nearest city and shop there.

Netherlands lacks big shopping malls, we don't have many. They could help local stores as they can pack together in the same place, no need to walk long distances or keep moving your car while you shop.



Required said:


> Regarding glass boxes, your attitude seems to be that they're a neccessary evil. I think they're an architectural blight. They make cities unrecognisable from one another. Manchester is turning into an imitation of Liverpool and every other city in the country. Same malls, same shops, same cafes, same office blocks. Worst of all it's all glass and highly unengaging. Architects and planners are the most important sociologists in a city. Architecture can endow people with a sense of place and community. Glass boxes are the anesthatis of that.


I guess you are overreacting. Since architecture freed itself from mere functionalist paradigms (the ones that resulted in most vernacular architecture styles around Europe), it became more global. English styles were exported to US (or the former colonies over there) and Australia. High-rises are more-or-less similar as they cost a hell of money and so.

It is not the duty of architects, and it should never be, to "engage" people and promote social engineering. They should build cool buildings, without consideration for the surroundings beyond what HE or SHE thinks is appropriate and the client is willing to pay for (some architects like to work considering the surroundings, other prefer to draw their masterpieces as stand-alone buildings that do not rely on what is on either side). 

This whole "sense of community" and "livable neighborhoods" chit-chat is overrated and overstated. A true star architect will want to put on the markets buildings that will be a beacon, that will obliterate everything else but the building itself. Sure, not all architects are stars, and not all developments are meant to "win" over any other competing lesser buildings (I'm not talking in terms of height, in case someone thinks that way), but still the priorities of an architect should be the building itself, people who are actually going to live, shop or use it (not the those bypassing it), suitability for the expected function and, in a lower scale, then things like fit with the surroundings, whether it is "inviting" or not etc.

Creating a "sense of community" in the streets is not a responsibility of any architect. Individual households, shoppers or users are way more important as individuals than as a group of people called "community".

Back to the "every city is looking the same", that is in part the result of lack of courage to allow radical transformation of certain areas that would give them 21st Century-worth landmarks. In most European cities, the landmarks are still 19th Century churches. If you want to make cities look different, allow some of them to completely reconstruct (from scratch) some key areas using only avant-grade (for 2010) techniques and so. Imagine a whole neighborhood with Zaha Hadid buildings, one build over former 19th Century Victorian row houses that are plenty in many English cities... 

Finally, in regard of the "standardization of High Street", it is inescapable. Commercial stores exist only to serve patrons. If people in Manchester want to buy the same shoes, clothes, perfumes, books as people in Leeds, Plymouth, Edinburgh and Birmingham, chances are they will buy them as similar stores. What makes Tesco competitive in one medium-city size is likely to make it competitive in other similar medium-size city.

I do agree there are some problems emerging for excessive market power that need to be addressed, but making streets "blend" is certainly not one of them.


----------

