# Which cities disappointed you?



## Forza Raalte (Sep 18, 2004)

Have you ever been to a city which really disappointed you?

The only mayor (touristic) cities I've been to are Berlin, Paris, London, Rome, Florence, Milan and Venice.

Berlin is highly underrated just have to say that. The city is so great.

Paris, London and Rome are just great. The cities are so famous and have such a great name in the world but it is well deserved.

I've only been one day to Venice and Milan. Venice was way too crowded but it was beautiful. It isn't that polluted. I don't remember much of Milan, I didn't much of it either. What I did remember is that it felt like a real metropolis, riding on Milan's highway.

But Florence was a bit disappointing.
I went there for three days but after seeing all the mayor musea (Uffizi, Pitti etc.) and walked on the Ponte Vecchio and the Piazza della Signora and saw the Duomo I felt like I had done pretty much it. Florence is nice but as a tourist only for 2 days.

Tell us about your experience with cities that disappointed you.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Kind of disapointing: 
Helsinki and Kuala Lumpur. They were cool cities for sure, but I had expected more.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

^^^I liked KL a lot.


----------



## SDfan (Apr 7, 2005)

Las Vegas was a dissapointment for me, to much trash on the strip...and the traffic...

Big suprise though from Salt Lake City, even though I was only there for a day when we were going to yellowstone, it was still kind cool.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Prague was a bit of a deception to me, I had expected more than a museum city


----------



## Scraperlover (Dec 23, 2004)

cairo .. for having such a great history it was really dissapointing. too polluted and crowded and not well organised


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

London.....boring


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

I was disappointed by KL also. I prefered the Taman Negara and Georgetown better. I was surprised by Cairo, in that it was more modern than I though. Not disappointed, just surprised. I was disappointed by Oxford too. 

I was really impressed by Paris, Florence and Sydney though.


----------



## Forza Raalte (Sep 18, 2004)

samsonyuen said:


> I was disappointed by KL also. I prefered the Taman Negara and Georgetown better. I was surprised by Cairo, in that it was more modern than I though. Not disappointed, just surprised. I was disappointed by Oxford too.
> 
> I was really impressed by Paris, Florence and Sydney though.


Paris just can't disappointed you. If it had no Eiffel Tower, Arc the Triomph it will still be my favourite city in the world outside Amsterdam. The ambiance is just great. Paris is fantastic.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

effer said:


> London.....boring


:weird:


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

wjfox2002 said:


> :weird:


Besides the big ben tower thingy, what is so great 'bout london :bash:


----------



## dewback (Jun 28, 2005)

Las Vegas,despite my very low expectations this city was able to dissapoint me. I went during a Spring Break and the traffic was chaotic, while those showgirls tickets on the floor of the streets (thrown by illegals) weren't of much help either.


----------



## birminghamculture (Nov 1, 2002)

effer said:


> Besides the big ben tower thingy, what is so great 'bout london :bash:


I dunno, the sport, the entertainment, the food, the shopping, the sight seeing, all things which people do on visits to London. Unfortunately you are showing us too obviously that you have never been, and are just another boring London basher :sleepy:


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

Somewhere in Africa.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

effer said:


> Besides the big ben tower thingy, what is so great 'bout london :bash:


Maybe you had your eyes shut the whole time you were there?


----------



## M.Poirot (May 8, 2005)

The only big touristic cities I've been to in the 14 years of my life are Tokyo, Kyoto, Nara, Osaka, Nagoya, Hiroshima, Fukuoka, Yokohama, Kobe, San Francisco, Orlando, Los Angeles, San Diego, Seattle, Bangkok, Singapore, Rome, Siena, Florence, Venice, Salzburg, and Prague. 

Venice was only a stop over on the way to Salzburg, but I didn't like it much. It was crowded, hot, and humid. It looked good though, and maybe if I stayed longer, I would've liked it.

I loved Prague.


----------



## defi (Jul 30, 2004)

I agree with Forza Raalte, Berlin is probably the most underrated city in Europe. This place kicks ass and really knocks on the doors of Paris and London offering a incredible mix of the old and the new, historical and cultural highlights, the nightlife and the absolutely unique contrasts between east and west berlin.


----------



## defi (Jul 30, 2004)

Oh, but to answer the question of the thread:

Singapore: nice place, without a doubt. But not too much where a tourist could spend much of his time. It lacks the chaotic and run-down charme of some parts of Hongkong. More some sort of a little brother of Hongkong. 

Brisbane: looked nice in all the glossy brochures - well, and it is actually nice. However, it does not offer that much for a tourist to stay there for weeks...

Milano: nice and busy city. But no chance at all against all the other Italian beauties.


----------



## neilio (Jan 12, 2005)

L.A, insane traffic and it didnt really excite me at all


----------



## neilio (Jan 12, 2005)

effer said:


> Besides the big ben tower thingy, what is so great 'bout london :bash:


dude thats very ignorant....


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

One of my favourite quotes:

"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of life."
-- Dr. Samuel Johnson


----------



## kids (Dec 12, 2004)

effer said:


> Besides the big ben tower thingy, what is so great 'bout london :bash:


what a ****.


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

I agree with that Guy from Atlanta...

Cairo

The City of Kings...apparently.

The streets were filled with rubbish...most of the houses were only half finished...not much else really to do....Museum, Pyramids, Name Put on Papyrus....then nothing really.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

I think Cairo is hugely under-rated!


----------



## Nick in Atlanta (Nov 5, 2003)

Cape Town...fantastic, but most of the world is finding that out.
Most of my travel has been in Mexico, US and Canada, other than that.
Cancun: So overrated it's sickening. Unbelievably humid. I expected the heat.
Acapulco: Very nice, but it's been twenty years.
Mexico City: Completely underrated. A fantastic city with great museums, archeology, parks, areas of town, etc. This is what Paris in the 1920s was like, IMHO.
Tijuana: The worst parts of Mexico are the cities along the US/Mexico border. TJ is no exception.
San Diego: Fantastic and a lot to do.
LA: Was great about 25 years ago, but I personally think its on a downhill slide.
SF: Extremely interesting with tons to do and the best restaurants. 
Washington D.C.: Fascinating city with more INTERESTING museums than you could ever see in a month's time. Great ethnic restaurants.
Philadelphia: Tons of history that you can see by walking.
Baltimore: Nice harbor area, but a few blocks away and it gets a little scary.
Tampa-St.Pete: Great beach city with much else to do.
Miami: Much of the city seems like a crime scene. Went to Little Havana and it was a Big Letdown. 
Key West: If you stay off Duval Street, where all the huge bars are, it's a fascinating place. Hemingway's house is worth the trip by itself.
Toronto: Great and getting better.
Montreal: Also great, but in a very unique way. Feels like you're in Europe, but you're 30 miles from Vermont.

Some off the beaten track cities: 
Charleston, S.C.: Great restaurants, history and unique markets with various vendors.
Charlotte, N.C.: Great downtown with many interesting things to do.
Asheville, N.C.: Big surprise to me because there wasn't that much to do. 
Pittsburgh: Big city look with a small town friendliness. Downtown has a lot to do.
Burlington, Vermont: Great city on a beautiful lake with a great downtown street with no cars. Surrounded by mountains. People stop eating at restaurants and they open the shades to see the sun go down behind the Adirondack mountains across the lake in New York.


----------



## DrJekyll (Sep 23, 2004)

Dublin disappointed me so much. I expected much more.


----------



## Booyashako (Sep 11, 2002)

The only city that's ever disappointed me is Orlando, FL.


----------



## MrMetropolitan (Jul 1, 2005)

To be honest, Salt Lake City was a disapointment for me. I expected more (no offense meant to anyone--just personal preference). 

Another disapointment: Bellingham. I heard so much about it but then saw it and was like...huh, what's everyone talking about? Maybe I need to go back, but after seeing Port Townsend, Friday Harbor and Whidbey Island, I just expected a lot more.

Cities that really surprised me: Portland, was MUCH better than I ever expected. San Francisco, Seattle (didn't expect much, to be honest-probably the biggest shocker, as I swore I'd live there after I saw it, and did, for over 2 years).


----------



## clive330 (Nov 10, 2003)

Melbourne, Australia. After all the hype about being artisitic, cosmopolitan and cultured, the city is essentially only about sport which utterly dominates virtually all conversation, television and thought. The next 2 most important things are TV (which is mindless and awful) and renovating.

The population, although educated and intelligent are scarily clueless and disinterested about the world outside of the country and largely think they have seen everything worth seeing and know it all from their obligatory 5 week bus tour of Europe and the occasional trip to Bali. For example, almost no one knows that Africa is not one country, and that it is actually larger than Australia (by a factor of 4). Whatever is largest in Australia is routinely quoted as the largest in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. Sydney being the largest city)


----------



## JARdan (Aug 21, 2004)

I was pretty disappointed with Dallas. Though I was only 13, I was fully aware of the city. I was expecting a lot more vibrancy in the downtown core rather than vacant streets on a friday evening.


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

Nick in Atlanta said:


> Cape Town...fantastic, but most of the world is finding that out.
> Most of my travel has been in Mexico, US and Canada, other than that.
> Cancun: So overrated it's sickening. Unbelievably humid. I expected the heat.
> Acapulco: Very nice, but it's been twenty years.
> ...


What?!


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Cities change over the decades, so I say when I was there for it may be different today, especially Athens as I heard

- Dublin (91): dirty unorganized criminal town
- Athens (90): worst city I ever saw: smoggy, ugly and breathing is impossible
- Austin (97): the "hot spot" of nightlife and music scene between New Orleans, - Chicago and San Francisco...??? :lol: - that's why Americans are always so surprised when coming to Europe or New York to encounter REAL life 
- Amsterdam (99): not a big difference from my town - we have the same kind of sex, drugs and music scene and are liberal as well - I expected more. Though the museums are GREAT!
- Florence (00): beautiful old town and buildings, otherwise: see Athens...
- Geneva (several times): nice setting and center as well as the UN city, but otherwise just expensive and boring
- Florianopolis (02): there are by far nicer cities in Brazil, even Sampa is more charming. I guess people just come for the beach, But the city has been told to be beautiful as wel... eek! If you want to see nice places go to Ouro Preto, Rio or Curitiba.


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

Kuesel said:


> Cities change over the decades, so I say when I was there for it may be different today, especially Athens as I heard
> 
> - Dublin (91): dirty unorganized criminal town
> - Athens (90): worst city I ever saw: smoggy, ugly and breathing is impossible
> ...


Who cares with smoggy?


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

Saint Louis. But the last time I was there was over 6 years ago, and I know a lot has changed since then. I'm sure I'd think it's a cool place if I visited now.


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

Detroit is easily to answer. :runaway:


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

DrJekyll said:


> Dublin disappointed me so much. I expected much more.


You're right there's not really much to do there.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

I have to agree about Brisbane. There just isn't that much to do for a tourist. Melbourne would be a wonderful city to live in, but it disappointed me (it didn't help that the art gallery and museum were both closed in preparation for the 2000 Olympics either).


----------



## Sexas (Jan 15, 2004)

Booyashako said:


> The only city that's ever disappointed me is Orlando, FL.


I agree with you 110% do those people have life not about theme park and outlet mall?


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

Santa Cruz dissapointed me, with Orlando because of Sexas's reason too.

Also Michigan City... beside the beach, outletmall, and the few cheap gas station near the Interstate 94... there isnt really anything to do. 

Gurnee, IL is exactly the Illinois's version of Orlando... an outlet mall and a theme park.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2005)

Cairo - 
What a mess. The level of harrassment is unbelieveable. 

Johannesburg - 
I was expecting that things have improved there but it is still the same (if not worse) 

Rome -
I didn't enjoy it but then again I had the worst travel companion that one can think of. I must go back and give Rome a second chance.


----------



## Imperfect Ending (Apr 7, 2003)

Blink182 said:


> Detroit is easily to answer. :runaway:


You expected something from Detroit? :sleepy:


----------



## Madman (Dec 29, 2003)

Dublin - very small and not much to do, the best part of the holiday was that it was only a weekend an i was staying at apparently one of the best hotels in the city..

LA - travelled by car and coach so wasnt too happy about the huge traffic jams (i shall never complain about London's M25 again..ok thats a lie but u get my point)

Las Vegas - only saw the city in the day (went twice) and wow what a horrible place it is when not stage set with all those pretty twinkly lights

Marseille - ruined my tour of Southern France, it was meant to be the highlight...

Bonn - i wasnt expecting too much but this place is boring beyond belief, thank god it wasnt too far away from places like Koln

Bilbao - 'iconic' museum...yes, fancy bridge...yes, terroists and a run down feel without the charm...yes. Bilbao was the city that made me distrust tourist guides...saw an ETA rally/demo too which wasnt very nice either (least they werent blowing people up i suppose)


Havent really been dissapointed by the British cities i have been to, but that is mainly because our press describes such a dim view of them it's hardly possible they could be any worse.


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

Cairo has at its heart the world's greatest medieval city existing (Islamic Cairo), vying with Fez in Morocco for the title. Topped by a massive Mosque cum castle citadel and colonial British, French and Italian styled colonial districts, alongside the worlds most beautiful 'shanty' (the Pharaonic tombs and mausoleums converted into illegal housing), its one of the most underrated places in the world especially since all the tourists stick to the usual tout ridden Pyramids tour and traffic clogged commercial strips in downtown. The parts of modern Egyptian culture visitors catch are usually catered to tourists eg belly dancing to techno rather than revival folk, Starbucks rather than modern Hammam, Egyptian Museum rather than the Modern Art Museum. Few people don't realise Cairo was once the one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world and also miss out on a huge legacy of synagogues, mosques, Christian and Coptic churches that stud the central city.


----------



## Rupmulalauk (Jul 29, 2002)

Jonesy55 said:


> ^^^I liked KL a lot.


Thank you... :cheers1:


----------



## BuffCity (Jul 29, 2004)

Norfolk Virginia, wow if the Navy was gone the city was dead, not much to do besides wander around in the Nordstrom Mall.

Harrisburg PA, wow for a state capital I would imagine a little more to do besides fill up on fuel and grab a pop.

Atlanta Georgia, clubs are nice, but the overall downtown was so pathetic...no organization at all.

Orlando FL, not much besides Disney...kinda disappointed.


Unexpected FUN and or Happening cities...
New York City, Toronto, Austin TX, San Antonio TX, Miami, Buffalo, Boston, Barcelona Spain.


----------



## Prologic (Sep 21, 2004)

Dublin! This city sucks so much that I can't even describe it. Big stories everywhere, yeah right! It's dirty, depressing,small and boring. Same for the rest of Ireland, no wonder everybody left there to the US.
Ireland? uke:


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

Hey, I'll kick your ass!!!  
Dublin is kinda shitty though. It's pretty dirty, and full of scumbags everywhere (your Irish version of chavs). In the night it's dirty full of more scumbags who are drunk at this time and smell like shit!!!.

I have a memory there after we went out with my orchestra after the concert. At 3 am we waited for the bus stop and we were hungry. We went into Abrekebabra across the way. The cue was to the door and we had to wait 20 minutes in the middle of the smelliest drunk fuckers you've ever seen. And the sandwich was the shittest one I've ever had. That's what I remember of the nightlife there. Aswell, a lot of the people there are complete arseholes, contrary to the the Irish = nice person stereotype, which is true for most places outside Dublin.

BTW my parents don't want to move there as they think it's too "big".  

I might open a Dublin vs Dubai thead later as they're of equal size.

BTW you're not supposed to come to Ireland for the city life.


----------



## Effer (Jun 9, 2005)

I agree,Dublin is boring.


----------



## Nick in Atlanta (Nov 5, 2003)

I don't think Europeans, especially the British, like Dublin or Ireland in general. Americans, in general seem to love going there, especially those with some Irish ancestry. They number over 40 million while only 3-4 million Irish immigrated to the US.


----------



## Prologic (Sep 21, 2004)

Hmm, I think there where more Irish immigrants in the US than now in Ireland, but I can be wrong...
It's not that I hate Irish people, but it is almost impossible to get contact with them, and when u have, they only talk about beer,beer,beer and football. They're just not interesting, they're boring.Offcourse there are some who are, didn't met them thou... More yankees that you hang out with, they love it there beceause everything is 'so close' yeah, come to Holland then!
I know it's not for the city life, the nature is quiet beautiful.Galway was the nicest city I was,btw.
What about Temple Bar people? All this big stories about the nightlife, but it sucked ass! Only childeren hang around there.At night big childeren who look aggresive.
I will absolutely never go back to that Island.


----------



## Jayayess1190 (Feb 6, 2005)

Sexas said:


> I agree with you 110% do those people have life not about theme park and outlet mall?


Orlando has SO much more than that. You need to explore the area. Downtown Orlando will be a great place in a couple of years.


----------



## malec (Apr 17, 2005)

Prologic said:


> Hmm, I think there where more Irish immigrants in the US than now in Ireland, but I can be wrong...
> It's not that I hate Irish people, but it is almost impossible to get contact with them, and when u have, they only talk about beer,beer,beer and football. They're just not interesting, they're boring.Offcourse there are some who are, didn't met them thou... More yankees that you hang out with, they love it there beceause everything is 'so close' yeah, come to Holland then!
> I know it's not for the city life, the nature is quiet beautiful.Galway was the nicest city I was,btw.
> What about Temple Bar people? All this big stories about the nightlife, but it sucked ass! Only childeren hang around there.At night big childeren who look aggresive.
> I will absolutely never go back to that Island.


Well, you've met one right here. I like beer to drink but not to talk about. Never talk about football either. I'm only really interested in rugby and F1. I talk about music and skyscrapers though


----------



## Nick in Atlanta (Nov 5, 2003)

malec said:


> Well, you've met one right here. I like beer to drink but not to talk about. Never talk about football either. I'm only really interested in rugby and F1. I talk about music and skyscrapers though


F1!! I could talk about that all day!


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2005)

Out of all the cities I've been to I have to say NYC was the biggest let down. I expected the self-proclaimed "capital of the world" to at least offer me as much in the way of sights and entertainment as I get when I go to London. It didn't come close.


----------



## hudkina (Oct 28, 2003)

Aquamadoor said:


> You expected something from Detroit? :sleepy:



Considering that neither you nor Blink182 has been to Detroit...


----------



## elliott (Sep 23, 2002)

Nick in Atlanta said:


> I don't think Europeans, especially the British, like Dublin or Ireland in general. Americans, in general seem to love going there, especially those with some Irish ancestry. They number over 40 million while only 3-4 million Irish immigrated to the US.


I don't know anyone in Britain unless my friends and family are all far too nice that dislike the Irish or Ireland.

One thing i despise is American's so-called affinity with the irish due to ancestry. The British have alot aswell including myself, but i never seem to celebrate it like Americans otherwise i'd have alot from my Finish great grandfather on my fathers side to my mothers great grandmother who had children to an indian when her father worked in Colonial India. That doesnt include lineage in Canada, Australian and all of the UK except Wales.


----------



## XxRyoChanxX (Jul 5, 2005)

LA....is soooo....Ughh "GHETTO" i guess is the right term~


----------



## XxRyoChanxX (Jul 5, 2005)

2nd post....seriously....
im dissapointed in those big cities in US...they're just so plain..they're overrated in my opinion~


----------



## schmidt (Dec 5, 2002)

Montreal disappointed me a little, maybe because of the terrible weather we caught there. Anyway, wanna go back there, it's a great city and I wish I can explore more of it, I didn't have enough time as well.


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

london. it just wasn't corby...


----------



## Nick in Atlanta (Nov 5, 2003)

elliott said:


> I don't know anyone in Britain unless my friends and family are all far too nice that dislike the Irish or Ireland.
> 
> One thing i despise is American's so-called affinity with the irish due to ancestry. The British have alot aswell including myself, but i never seem to celebrate it like Americans otherwise i'd have alot from my Finish great grandfather on my fathers side to my mothers great grandmother who had children to an indian when her father worked in Colonial India. That doesnt include lineage in Canada, Australian and all of the UK except Wales.


I was just making a point about something I've noticed. I have no Irish ancestry, but do have a lot of English ancestry as my Mother was born in London. 

Personally, the reason I think Americans love Ireland so much is because it is so different from the US. It's cool, extremely green and still very untouched by too much development, even though it's the "Celtic Tiger." 

Regarding the UK, I think Americans love it. It's easily the most visited European country by Americans, and most Americans do feel a kinship with the UK that they don't really feel with other European countries.


----------



## JuanPaulo (Feb 26, 2004)

The city I have been the most disappointed at is Toronto closely followed by Los Angeles.


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

As it seems the most disappointing place seems to be Dublin by this thread - I absolutly agree


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Nick in Atlanta said:


> I don't think Europeans, especially the British, like Dublin or Ireland in general. Americans, in general seem to love going there, especially those with some Irish ancestry. They number over 40 million while only 3-4 million Irish immigrated to the US.


I like Ireland as a whole and I think most Brits like Ireland too, loads of Brits go there on holiday. Dublin however was a disappointment for me, it was dirty, the public transport sucks, the temple bar is just full of drunks and even with Ireland's new found wealth the city doesn't 'look' rich.

Other cities i've been disappointed with are Brisbane, Firenze, and Memphis TN


----------



## Küsel (Sep 16, 2004)

Ireland is not Dublin for me - I LOVE the country but there are much better places to go than the waterhead Dublin.


----------



## Malt (Nov 16, 2004)

defi said:


> Oh, but to answer the question of the thread:
> 
> Singapore: nice place, without a doubt. But not too much where a tourist could spend much of his time. It lacks the chaotic and run-down charme of some parts of Hongkong. More some sort of a little brother of Hongkong.
> 
> ...


Funnily enough thats true. You cant really spend weeks here.
If its any consolation there are more touristy things emerging now, Just recently they opened a 'Bridge Climb' and a sports/adventure centre under the bridge aimed at tourists.

Glad you still thought it was nice tho.


----------



## DarkLite (Dec 31, 2004)

i went to Houston- too hot and nothin much to do, for me a big let down,
but matbe it was because i dont explore much?


----------



## rantanamo (Sep 12, 2002)

Something interesting that I think should be added when stating what cities should be to post what you expected from the city as well. That is very important when you are talking about perceptions.


----------



## elliott (Sep 23, 2002)

@Nick in Atlanta

Totally agree with you and Brits love america too especially New York and Florida.

On the thing about American lovin the Irish it jus seems like in films and the like they go on too much about the love of the irish or italians as a matter of fact even though they're like 3rd / 4th generation family in the States and most havent even visited these countries.


----------



## AltinD (Jul 15, 2004)

I found Toronto to be dissapointing. You know, the typical North American run-down buildings and infrastructure.

I liked Niagra though.


----------



## *Jarrod (Mar 30, 2005)

i really haven't been to many places in the world. i've been to:
Vancouver, BC
Edmonton, Alberta
Calgary, Alberta
and the Los Angeles County/Orange County area.
i have to say, edmonton kinda dissappointed me with that stupid mall. what a waste of time and money. ugh..


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Regarding Irish-Americans, I've seen the same thing with Italian-Americans and Italian-Canadians, who've not been to Italy, but wear the flag around them. 

Brits love Vegas and California too! I'd say Cali more than FL.


----------



## czm3 (Dec 4, 2004)

Biggest disapointments have been (in no order)

Houston
Atlanta
Budapest
Dutch St. Maarten
Nairobi


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

Why was Budapest a disappointment?

I haven't been to Singapore but it sounds so sterile and strict from others on this forum.


----------



## gronier (Mar 2, 2005)

Even if you don't believe me, New York City dissapointed me, I expected much more.


----------



## XiaoBai (Dec 10, 2002)

MrMetropolitan said:


> Another disapointment: Bellingham. I heard so much about it but then saw it and was like...huh, what's everyone talking about? Maybe I need to go back.


No you don't need to go back. Bellingham really does suck. There's a reason why everyone there is always high and drunk and that's because there's not much else to do. Plus it is overrun by damn dirty hippies of all ages.

Ok, my biggest disappointment was Budapest. Still one of the most beautiful cities out there, however the streets were pretty dead at all hours of the night and day, the people weren't very friendly and no one seemed to want to serve a bunch of foreigners--or maybe I just didn't go to the places where the people could speak german, or english. However I'm sure some of my disappointment was due to me comparing it to very vibrant Vienna where I lived back then.


----------



## DiggerD21 (Apr 22, 2004)

defi said:


> I agree with Forza Raalte, Berlin is probably the most underrated city in Europe. This place kicks ass and really knocks on the doors of Paris and London offering a incredible mix of the old and the new, historical and cultural highlights, the nightlife and the absolutely unique contrasts between east and west berlin.


Hamburg more underrated than Berlin. all the americans leaving the cruise ships in Hamburg take an excursion to Berlin instead of looking around in Hamburg, although it is constantly seen as the second prettiest big city in Germany (behind Munich), offers lots of upscale shopping facilities and has a famous nightlife.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

St. Augustine is the city that made me mistrust travel guides. I thought it would be on the lines of Charleston or Savannah.

New Orleans and Amsterdam are exactly what I thought they would be which is a good thing.


----------



## DiggerD21 (Apr 22, 2004)

And to answer to the topic:

London was architecturally disappointing for me. The buildings themselves were mostly beautyful, but I didn't like the mixture of old and new. And the suburbs I've seen near Heathrow seemed to be in a worse condition than the ones near Hamburg Airport. But don't worry Londoners, I had just three days to discover as much London as possible and found also some nice areas: Hyde Park, Greenwich, Canary Wharf. Also I enjoyed riding the tube and double-decker busses. I'm probably in London for a few days in a week.

Pisa is a beautyful town, but too small. Within two hours I had the impression that I've seen all, which was rather disappointing (It was just a breakpoint with a 4 hour stay on the way to Palermo).


----------



## XiaoBai (Dec 10, 2002)

^Pisa was a dump and smelled like pee although that part with the tower was quite impressive to see in real life...otherwise not much going on there.


----------



## Avatar (Sep 11, 2002)

And commerical TV news is such a great indicator of worldy knowledge.

Did you try watching ABC or SBS news or even some of the cable television stations?

I guess not.

Australians care to know more about the world than the world cares to know about them.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

I live in Melbourne and yes it is over-rated, but so is marriage and having kids and people still flock to it. 

The problem is the people in the city have the inferiority complex towards places like New York, Paris and London. So members of the press corps have been on a non-stop propaganda barrage since who knows when and the people have followed in tow. It is a classic 'The Trueman Show' type scenario in Melbourne. "Why would you want to leave, because it is lousy everywhere else?" type of crap.

Basically it is Melbored, or Bleak City. Take your pick.

Ava Gardner on the set of 'On the Beach' which was about the world post atomic war filmed in Melbourne, said it best: "Melbourne is the perfect city to make a film about the end of the world!"

That pretty much sums it up. Not much between here and the bottom of the planet except a couple of penguins and the odd white whale. :fiddle:


----------



## Automatic Lover (Nov 25, 2004)

Avatar said:


> Australians care to know more about the world than the world cares to know about them.


I think I know pretty much about Australia, even though I've not been to there. Mainly because of the Pilot Guides and other documentaries I like to see.

Capital: Camberra
Main cities: Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth, Darwin. Alice Springs seems to be one of the most arid and hot places in the planet, but near ir there's an amazing Nat.Park with plenty of springs and water surrounded by huge rocks. You've got more or less 4 or 5 deserts (Gibson, Simpson, Sandy Desert (sp?), and some more), large eucaliptus forests, swamps with crocodiles, the Great Barrier Reef, tropical jungle up North, a unique flora and fauna, and a very cosmopolitan feel in Sydney and Melbourne with a big proportion of Asian Australians.

I'm sure you believe me if I say I'd love to know your country from N to S and E to W!  I think it's amazing!


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Oz needs desperately about an extra 20 to 30 million people to really plant the country as a top division power.

Can Europe spare us an extra 30 odd million?


----------



## Avatar (Sep 11, 2002)

Automatic Lover said:


> I'm sure you believe me if I say I'd love to know your country from N to S and E to W!  I think it's amazing!


Yeah I believe you.

It's good to see some have at least an interest and a greater knowledge than most. Not many people overseas even know what our capital city is. I am not saying the world is ignorant but I do think Australians are generally better informed than the residents of many countries.

I think everyone that can afford to travel should do so as much as they can, it really gives a better picture of the variety and wonder our world has to offer.


----------



## Automatic Lover (Nov 25, 2004)

Plus I like the Australian accent, close to Eastern Londoner if I'm not wrong. I don't know why some Americans mock it, having that Southern and Western funny nosy accent themselves.


----------



## Accura4Matalan (Jan 7, 2004)

Poitiers, France


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

BobDaBuilder said:


> Two words: Los Angeles.
> 
> I am sure it would have been pretty nice in the 1940's/1950's.
> 
> Its saving grace, it is close to the Mexican border so that you can escape!


hmmm, that totally kidding.


----------



## Bombay Boy (May 6, 2005)

BobDaBuilder said:


> Oz needs desperately about an extra 20 to 30 million people to really plant the country as a top division power.
> 
> Can Europe spare us an extra 30 odd million?


only europeans welcome in australia? no wonder howard won the vote so easily


----------



## lokinyc (Sep 17, 2002)

I agree about Berlin, such an amazing city. What is lacks in beauty it makes up in energy and originality. I lived there for three years in my teens and it really shaped who I am today. I'll take some flack for this but London kinda disappointed me and only probably because I had unfairly built it up in my head, and the Thames??? I was expecting a might flowing river like our East or Hudson Rivers but it just didn't live up.


----------



## lokinyc (Sep 17, 2002)

I'm guessing that people disappointed by New York probably didn't have the right person to show them around. The same could probably be said regarding my view of London.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2005)

lokinyc said:


> I'm guessing that people disappointed by New York probably didn't have the right person to show them around. The same could probably be said regarding my view of London.


No, I saw most of NYC. It just wasn't anywhere near as good as people from New York make out. I've been to 6 different US cities and New York was my least favourite.


----------



## *Sweetkisses* (Dec 26, 2004)

Earlybird, how long were you in New York?


----------



## FK (Oct 24, 2004)

I would have to say Karachi in Pakistan.

It is the financial capital of the country, which contributes to about 80% of the economy.

I'v been living here for 2 years now, but Im really dissapointed, there are no proper roads, no inter-city highways/expressways .. no Subways no proper bus systems.

Thats the city that dissapoints me the most right now, because I know this city can certainly go a long way, but only if its managed properly.


----------



## Lance (Sep 12, 2002)

The prolblem with visiting it that you never get that intimate knowledge about a city that the inhabitants have and love. With New York, I enjoyed walking around and exploring, but I really didnt see much of the actual life of the city. All of the actual landmarks dont really have much to them. Visiting my little dump of a hometown would probably be very boring if you didnt have anyone to show you where it all happens.


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2005)

*Sweetkisses* said:


> Earlybird, how long were you in New York?


About 4 weeks. Long enough to get to know the city pretty well. I know a couple of people who live there too so I got a pretty good "tour". I'm not saying it was a bad place, it just wasn't all that.


----------



## Zaqattaq (Nov 17, 2004)

Dublin, I am sure if I went back now able to drink it would be better


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

EarlyBird said:


> No, I saw most of NYC. It just wasn't anywhere near as good as people from New York make out. I've been to 6 different US cities and New York was my least favourite.



I agree with that 100%.


----------



## VansTripp (Sep 29, 2004)

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> I agree with that 100%.


Well, I prefer to visit in NYC more than Chicago.


----------



## BobDaBuilder (Jun 7, 2005)

Dublin was very disapointing. 

Not in the same league as the Baltic capitals, Edinburgh etc...

They do have the hurling though. Love that.


----------



## texasboy (Jun 18, 2004)

EarlyBird said:


> You obviously aren't into sports, the arts, shopping, clubbing, drinking or anything then are you... If you were you'd know the answer.


No I am not a dieheart sports fan, but most of the things you listed can be found in most major cities, but I do love warm temps, friendly people very much still intact with their culture that can be traced back hundreds of years, and i love being near vast bodies of water. that's why i especially love barcelona, rome, and st tropez and they are some of my favorite cities in europe. cities are not all about clubs.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

texasboy said:


> No I am not a dieheart sports fan, but most of the things you listed can be found in most major cities, but I do love warm temps, friendly people very much still intact with their culture that can be traced back hundreds of years, and i love being near vast bodies of water. that's why i especially love barcelona, rome, and st tropez and they are some of my favorite cities in europe. cities are not all about clubs.


Cities are about life, not weather. I can watch more sports, visit more (and better) museums and galleries, eat at more restaurants, watch more concerts, go to more shops and party in more clubs than in all the three you just mentioned added together. If life was all about weather Houston would be bigger than NYC.


----------



## addisonwesley (Jun 19, 2005)

What! Somebody thought NEW YORK wasn't 'happening' or fun?! WHO THE @*%!! Wow.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

EarlyBird said:


> No, I saw most of NYC. It just wasn't anywhere near as good as people from New York make out. I've been to 6 different US cities and New York was my least favourite.


Which were those six cities....and why did you prefer them to NYC?


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> I agree that the city planning was not exactly great in LA, but i had to do with the amazing growth rate of the city and the massive strain that put of LA. However, things are changing for the better, quickly, as we are now more focused on transportation, TOD's and city living. there are new rail lines being built, others in the planning stages and Places with rail and urbanity are booming, such as DTLA, Pasadena, Hollywood, Long Beach and Wilshire. This is where LA's growth will now be based and other areas in LA are taking notice. Even Beverly Hills is begging for the subway now, after years and years of being againts it.


LASF, you have always been my favorite LA poster because of your balanced view of your city, your articulate way of posting, and your keen insight.

I fully agree with you about LA's undeniable efforts to urbanize/centralize, to turn a car culture into a more functioning urban environment. From the sheer cost of the Red Line (and even the smaller transit lines) to the high rise development downtown to the urban concentration that is the Wilshire Corridor, LA of 2005 is not the LA of 1955.

That said, LASF, what do you see are the implications of what is built in as part of the LA landscape for the future of your city? The growth pattern that started with the original cluster of cities that just spread into each other, the spread of the city's geographical limits as water brought in communities far from the core into the city, the dismantling of the original extensive mass transit system that coincided with the growth of the freeways, and the sheer spread of the LA area in the half century after WWII *have created a metro area that even the best of city and regional planning would not be able to consolidate into a true working whole.*

How can LA be the dominant city it should be in light of the totally sprawled facts on the ground, the endless group communities (many of which do not relate to the core)? How does such a physical environment retool for the more concentrated needs of the 21st century?


----------



## willo (Jan 3, 2005)

EarlyBird said:


> Cities are about life, not weather. I can watch more sports, visit more (and better) museums and galleries, eat at more restaurants, watch more concerts, go to more shops and party in more clubs than in all the three you just mentioned added together. If life was all about weather Houston would be bigger than NYC.


i don't think you can visit more and better museums in london than in Rome.

jesuchrist! the entire city of Rome is a living museum

anyway you are from manchester :cheers:


----------



## melb2006 (Jun 11, 2005)

BobDaBuilder said:


> I live in Melbourne and yes it is over-rated, but so is marriage and having kids and people still flock to it.
> 
> The problem is the people in the city have the inferiority complex towards places like New York, Paris and London. So members of the press corps have been on a non-stop propaganda barrage since who knows when and the people have followed in tow. It is a classic 'The Trueman Show' type scenario in Melbourne. "Why would you want to leave, because it is lousy everywhere else?" type of crap.
> 
> ...


Get your facts right mate! Ava Gardner didnt say that a local reporter made it up and Melbourne in the 1950s( when On the Beach was made) was nothing like it is now.


----------



## melb2006 (Jun 11, 2005)

Blink182 said:


> Melbourne is basically a hell-hole.


 That would be Melbourne FL ?


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

EarlyBird said:


> As for Hamleys, well it's simply the biggest toy store in the world.


No it's not. "Toys R Us" in Times Square is.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> No it's not. "Toys R Us" in Times Square is.


No it's not. Hamleys in London is. It's a well known fact that no toy shop on the planet sells as many different lines. Even so, do you honestly think a large Toys R Us is something to be proud of? Everybody has one of those.


----------



## texasboy (Jun 18, 2004)

EarlyBird said:


> No it's not. Hamleys in London is. It's a well known fact that no toy shop on the planet sells as many different lines. Even so, do you honestly think a large Toys R Us is something to be proud of? Everybody has one of those.


yep


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

edsg25 said:


> Which were those six cities....and why did you prefer them to NYC?


San Francisco - The city was stunning, I loved it, and the I found the downtown vibrant, compared to NYC which I felt was more rushed.

LA - Loved the beaches, I loved the feel of the place, lots of beautiful women, it was just great. Good theme park too.

San Diego - Beautiful city, great climate, nice women, lots to do considering it's size and by far the best zoos in the world.

Chicago - Much grittier city with a lot of things to do, not far of NYC if truth be known considering how much bigger NYC is, yet it doesn't have the huge dirt/litter problems NYC has and it doesn't smell.

Las Vegas - Yeah, it might be tacky, but it's undoubtably one of the entertainment capitals of the world. There's so much to do there, especially considering it's quite a small city.

New Orleans - A gritty city with nowhere near as much to do as NYC, but it doesn't aim to be the best in the world and isn't as full of itself. Absolutely amazing nightlife and so laid back it's untrue.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

willo said:


> i don't think you can visit more and better museums in london than in Rome.
> 
> jesuchrist! the entire city of Rome is a living museum
> 
> anyway you are from manchester :cheers:


Personally I think London's museums are more impressive than Romes, but even so, does Rome manage to compete with London on ALL the things I mentioned? I don't think it does, which means it's not really to relevant anyway.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

texasboy said:


> yep


If you think it's bigger you've obviously not been in Hamley's. Six huge floors packed with toys.


----------



## texasboy (Jun 18, 2004)

i've never been to either stores on my trip to both cities, but even if i did it's nothing i take seriously.


----------



## Zarkon (Dec 22, 2004)

Lyon - nice city but was too boring..


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Hamley's lost its title as the world's largest toy store way back in the 1990's. Today, Toys R Us in Times Square is the largest.

"Hamleys toy shop can be found 100 yards south of Oxford Circus on the east side of the road. Until the 1990s it was the world's largest toy store, with six floors devoted to playthings."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent_Street

Toys R Us...
"The flagship store in New York City's Times Square is the largest toy store in the world, featuring a colorful ferris wheel."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toys_R_Us

Another massive toy store in New York is FAO Schwartz--I'm not sure how it ranks, but I assume it's pretty well known.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> Hamley's lost its title as the world's largest toy store way back in the 1990's. Today, Toys R Us in Times Square is the largest.
> 
> "Hamleys toy shop can be found 100 yards south of Oxford Circus on the east side of the road. Until the 1990s it was the world's largest toy store, with six floors devoted to playthings."
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regent_Street
> ...


That's in terms of square footage. In terms of lines sold Hamleys is still the world's biggest toy store. If 1,000 sq ft of empty space is your thing then go ahead and consider it the "biggest". I think the fact it gets 5 million visitors a year speaks for itself. But as I said, is having a big Toys R Us something to be proud of? Everyone has those. London probably has a handful, Manchester has them, Birmingham does, Liverpool does, Leeds does, Glasgow does... Also, compared to the Manchester Toys R Us, NYC's doesn't look that much bigger. Hamleys is unique, the only one in the world. I haven't heard of FAO Schwartz btw.


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

Didn't that FAO got bankrupted? Why I said that, because all of the FAO's in Chicago is all gone, especially the one on Michigan Ave, which is not a Victoria Secrets


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Which store did you say gets 5 million visitors? Toys R Us, or Hamleys? And I think it's cool that there are that many Toys R Us's around the world--seeing as how it is headquartered in the New York metropolitan.  Do you have any proof that Hamleys sells more lines? I'm not doubting you; it'd just be interesting to see. 

I haven't heard of Hamleys, either--that doesn't say much, though. Americans, as well as Brits, tend to be a tad bit insular.



Azn_chi_boi said:


> Didn't that FAO got bankrupted? Why I said that, because all of the FAO's in Chicago is all gone, especially the one on Michigan Ave, which is not a Victoria Secrets


Yeah, I think the chain company did. But the New York flagship store is open, and went through renovations last year.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

[edit] nevermind


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> Which store did you say gets 5 million visitors? Toys R Us, or Hamleys? And I think it's cool that there are that many Toys R Us's around the world--seeing as how it is headquartered in the New York metropolitan.  Do you have any proof that Hamleys sells more lines? I'm not doubting you; it'd just be interesting to see.
> 
> I haven't heard of Hamleys, either--that doesn't say much, though. Americans, as well as Brits, tend to be a tad bit insular.
> 
> Yeah, I think the chain company did. But the New York flagship store is open, and went through renovations last year.


I knew of the other stores you questioned me about, just not that one. In terms of the US I'm relatively well travelled (though I wish I'd visited more of the rest of the world). I hope that you aren't implying that a dislike of New York and not knowing one toy store means I'm insular. As for the query about Hamleys, sorry I have no proof. All I know is that if you go there they're still proclaiming themselves as the world's biggest toy store, the reason being the number of products they sell. The 5 million visitors a year was Hamleys btw. 13,700 visitors a day to a single toy shop is quite impressive.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^The Toys "R" Us in Times Square gets around 15-20 million visitors a year.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> Oh--I did a little research, and it looks like the Times Square Toys R Us gets around 20 million visitors a year, as opposed to Hamley's 5 million.


Sorry but that's, pardon my French, a load of bollocks. Toys R Us does NOT get more visitors every year than the Houses of Parliament. Also, there is no way that shop is large enough to handle 55,000 people a day.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^Yeah, it can handle 20 million visitors a year:


_"*COMING TO TIMES SQUARE*

Toys 'R' Us has announced plans to build the world's largest toy store, a 101,000-square-foot emporium with a life-size dollhouse and a 60-foot-tall Ferris wheel in New York's Times Square.

The three-story glass-enclosed store is scheduled to open next summer, said chief executive officer John Eyler.

"We expect it to draw over 20 million visitors a year -- that's 2 1/2 times more people than visit the Empire State Building, the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island combined," Eyler said.

The store would join a host of family-oriented theme restaurants and corporate stores that have opened in Times Square in recent years."_

http://www.freep.com/money/consumer/cbrief6_20000806.htm
-----------------------------------

When the store opened, they expected to get around 20 million visitors a year--we can alteast assume that's somewhat accurate.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> ^Yeah, it can handle 20 million visitors a year:
> 
> 
> _"*COMING TO TIMES SQUARE*
> ...


No you can't. They expected the Millennium Dome to be one of the world's biggest tourist attractions. It was a flop. Also, looking at the pictures from the insides of the store, it really does have lots of open space with nothing but display stands, whereas Hamley's is row after row after row of toys.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^Well, Toys R Us wasn't a flop. It's been one of Times Square's most successful retailers.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> ^Well, Toys R Us wasn't a flop. It's been one of Times Square's most successful retailers.


It doesn't mean it didn't fail to meet it's targets though does it. 5 million shoppers every year (and God knows how many people just browsing) is a successful store. Would you honestly be able to tell if the store has 5 million or 20 million without counting? When I was there in 2003 it didn't seem as busy as Hamleys.


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

How this can dissapoint is beyond me.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

EarlyBird said:


> It doesn't mean it didn't fail to meet it's targets though does it. 5 million shoppers every year (and God knows how many people just browsing) is a successful store. Would you honestly be able to tell if the store has 5 million or 20 million without counting? When I was there in 2003 it didn't seem as busy as Hamleys.


If they projected around 20-25 visitors a year, and the store _wasn't_ a flop, we can assume it gets more than 5 million. 

Where did you find that 5 million figure anyway?


----------



## chris9 (Jul 22, 2003)

@ Earlybird
New York is boring and does not have a vibrant life :crazy: 

I don't know what did you do in New York and where did you go (or what did you drink). New York City is a city that never sleeps and has a great life that never ceases 24h a day and not even a year is enough to get to know the city, so don't say you got to know the city pretty well over the course of four weeks :crazy2: The Culture - theaters, museums, cafees, pubs, concerts it is all breathtaking. 
Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Staten Island, the surrounding suburban little (and larger) beatiful towns, beaches, Jonesbeach State Park for instance - there's everything there, the world at your fingertips, International Institutions, Univeristies, Libraries, Churches and centers of intelectual life! Certainly the best city in the United States followed by Chicago. The essence of urbanity, vibrant and diverse life with soul.

My greatest dissapointment in the states was Atlanta, GA - In my opinion an urban misundertanding. I've lived in the south for 4 years and I know southern cities quite a bit. Atlanta first of all the it seems more like overgrown suburbs than a center of a metro area of 4.3 mil, nothing downtown except a few good clubs but life is more than a club. No people downtown after rush hours, dangerous, cannot go anywhere without driving for miles. Public transit is a joke. The only place you can get good coffee is starbucks :sleepy: oh I forgot you can go to a mall :crazy2:


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> If they projected around 20-25 visitors a year, and the store _wasn't_ a flop, we can assume it gets more than 5 million.
> 
> Where did you find that 5 million figure anyway?


On Hamley's web site. The "About" page.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

chris9 said:


> @ Earlybird
> New York is boring and does not have a vibrant life :crazy:
> 
> I don't know what did you do in New York and where did you go (or what did you drink). New York City is a city that never sleeps and has a great life that never ceases 24h a day and not even a year is enough to get to know the city, so don't say you got to know the city pretty well over the course of four weeks :crazy2: The Culture - theaters, museums, cafees, pubs, concerts it is all breathtaking.
> Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Staten Island, the surrounding suburban little (and larger) beatiful towns, beaches, Jonesbeach State Park for instance - there's everything there, the world at your fingertips, International Institutions, Univeristies, Libraries, Churches and centers of intelectual life! Certainly the best city in the United States followed by Chicago. The essence of urbanity, vibrant and diverse life with soul.


I never said it was boring and wasn't vibrant. What I said was:
A. It was more hectic than vibrant. Lively is good but rushed isn't.
B. It didn't offer as much as New Yorkers had led me to believe and certainly no more than London, which is only a short distance from me in comparison.
C. I found many of the buildings ugly (dirty and crumbling with those ugly external ladder things), felt the city had a litter problem and couldn't abide that awful smell.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

EarlyBird said:


> On Hamley's web site. The "About" page.


Alright, thanks. 
The Toys R Us in Times Square gets more visitors. It projected 20-25 million visitors a year, and it has been very successful--it's safe to assume it gets more than 5 million. It's not a big deal, though--I'd have a blast shopping in either one of them.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> Alright, thanks.
> The Toys R Us in Times Square gets more visitors. It projected 20-25 million visitors a year, and it has been very successful--it's safe to assume it gets more than 5 million. It's not a big deal, though--I'd have a blast shopping in either one of them.


I'd say in terms of size they're about the same. According to Toys R Us their store is 110,000 sq ft. Apparently Hamley's is just over 100,000 sq ft. In terms of lines sold Hamleys is a bit above Toys R Us. They're pretty similar really. Is there anything like Harrods in NYC btw?


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

DrJoe said:


> How this can dissapoint is beyond me.


Simple. Skyscrapers aren't the be all and end all.


----------



## Hviid (Jan 8, 2005)

Cities that disappoint me are country-cities, because they're boring as hell!!


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

^Yeah, but the Toys R Us gets more visitors---which is probably due to its Times Square location. 
I'm not sure if there's anything like Harrod's in New York. I don't know enough about it. In general it appears to be a large department stores--NY has lots of those, including Macy's, the world's largest.


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> ^Yeah, but the Toys R Us gets more visitors---which is probably due to its Times Square location.
> I'm not sure if there's anything like Harrod's in New York. I don't know enough about it. In general it appears to be a large department stores--NY has lots of those, including Macy's, the world's largest.


No, Macy's is just a mid-market department store like Selfridges, Kendals, Harvey Nichols and many more that you find in all British cities. Harrods is an upmarket department store. Harrods is 216,000 sq ft, which is only one tenth of the size of Macy's, but you can buy anything there (literally). It's also probably the most elaborately decorated store in the world. BTW, Macy's isn't the largest store in the world. That honour goes to Gosudarstvennyi Universalnyi Magazin store in Moscow.

Why does NYC try so hard to have the biggest of everything though? Do the people that live there not understand that a few smaller ones dotted around the city is actually better for the citizens than one huge one that they have to travel miles to get to?


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

I would say the Macy's Herald Square (or Bloomingdale's at 57th + Lex) is visted by as many tourists as Harrods, but I wouldn't say it's as classy or upscale. I guess Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman's or Barney's are closer to Harrod's.


----------



## texasboy (Jun 18, 2004)

who is peshu?


----------



## Guest (Jul 10, 2005)

texasboy said:


> who is peshu?


Quite a well known forumer in some parts of the forum for his trolling.


----------



## BigDan35 (Nov 19, 2004)

EarlyBird said:


> You insulted all the British stadia, despite evidence showing you that they were better than the American equivalents. Just because someone else decided to lay the boot into American football doesn't mean you have to start trolling and insult all the British stadia. That is how you earned the label. Now go away. This thread was a reasonable discussion until you and Peshu appeared and started with your usual trolling.


Seriously, you are actin like a pansy. You keep pullin bullshit out of the air. What do you mean when you say "you started with your USUAL trolling" what the **** are you talkin about "usual" ?? I don't usually troll anything. And first of all I never insulted all of anything. Why don't you find where I insulted "all the British stadia" until then I'll write that statement off as you being a liar, which you have proven you are. And secondly...

"Despite evidence showing you that they were better than American equivalents." 

^^ That just makes you sound stupid as hell, which you also are. That is strictly opinion...so how can you say there is "evidence" proving your point when it is only an opinion??? hahahaha. 

If I were to say New York City is the most populated city in the U.S. then that would be a FACT. And no matter what anyone else said, it would be wrong because when it comes to facts, you can only have ONE right answer. If I were to say New York City was the "best" city in the U.S. that would be nothin more than an "opinion" and there would be NO right answer BECAUSE opinion is personal preference...not fact.

So once again there was NO evidence that they were better than American equivalents because there can BE NO EVIDENCE. Because it's all opinion. Do I have to explain this word to word for ya?


----------



## A42251 (Sep 13, 2004)

Rail Claimore said:


> EarlyBird, I respect your opinions on NYC, as I have not been there since 1994, though I'm due for another trip up to the Northeast soon enough. Even I at times think NYC is overrated.
> 
> Might I suggest giving Chicago a try if you haven't. You might find it the most likable of American cities.


Rail, don't base your impression of NYC on 1994. It is a very different place today in many ways.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2005)

BigDan35 said:


> Seriously, you are actin like a pansy. You keep pullin bullshit out of the air. What do you mean when you say "you started with your USUAL trolling" what the **** are you talkin about "usual" ?? I don't usually troll anything. And first of all I never insulted all of anything. Why don't you find where I insulted "all the British stadia" until then I'll write that statement off as you being a liar, which you have proven you are. And secondly...


You did it throughout the entire thread so it's easy enough for anyone to see just by opening the thread. It's still there in the skybar. In fact all those threads you were trolling in are.



BigDan35 said:


> "Despite evidence showing you that they were better than American equivalents."
> 
> ^^ That just makes you sound stupid as hell, which you also are. That is strictly opinion...so how can you say there is "evidence" proving your point when it is only an opinion??? hahahaha.
> 
> ...


They had more room per seat, less seats with restricted views and provided facilities that weren't available in the US stadia. It's not opinion. It's fact. Do people have to explain time and again to you that if it is statistical (i.e. less restricted views or more room per seat) then it's a fact, not an opinion? Will they have to continue saying that if facilities are available in the stadia that aren't available in the US then it is fact, not opinion? Surely if your seat is better, your view is better and the facilities is better then by definition the stadium is better?

I despair of people like you...


----------



## BigDan35 (Nov 19, 2004)

EarlyBird said:


> They had more room per seat, less seats with restricted views and provided facilities that weren't available in the US stadia. It's not opinion. It's fact. Do people have to explain time and again to you that if it is statistical (i.e. less restricted views or more room per seat) then it's a fact, not an opinion? Will they have to continue saying that if facilities are available in the stadia that aren't available in the US then it is fact, not opinion? Surely if your seat is better, your view is better and the facilities is better then by definition the stadium is better?


You really don't get it. Everything you say is still opinion. If there is more room per seat and less seats with restricted views then okay, THAT is fact. But you didn't say that before....you summed everything up and straight out said "The british stadiums are better than american ones" Oh really??? THAT is OPINION. Jesus get it through your head.

The Los Angeles Lakers home games are in Los Angeles: FACT

The Los Angeles Lakers are the best team in the NBA: OPINION


Get it now???


----------



## *Sweetkisses* (Dec 26, 2004)

^ lol


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2005)

BigDan35 said:


> You really don't get it. Everything you say is still opinion. If there is more room per seat and less seats with restricted views then okay, THAT is fact. But you didn't say that before....you summed everything up and straight out said "The british stadiums are better than american ones" Oh really??? THAT is OPINION. Jesus get it through your head.
> 
> The Los Angeles Lakers home games are in Los Angeles: FACT
> 
> ...


But if the Lakers win more games than any other team, win all the trophies that are available every season and make more profits than any other club then the claim that they are the best team becomes FACT.

Get it now???


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

the Lakers suck by the way now. We will see what happens when his Phil-ness comes back to coach the only black man ever in Eagle, Colo.


----------



## BigDan35 (Nov 19, 2004)

ReddAlert said:


> the Lakers suck by the way now. We will see what happens when his Phil-ness comes back to coach the only black man ever in Eagle, Colo.


I really couldn't care less if the Lakers sucked. I was just usin that as an example.


----------



## A42251 (Sep 13, 2004)

algonquin said:


> Anyone who says they were dissapointed with NYC is a flat-out liar. The sheer immensity of the city is enough to make the average person walk around with their head up to the sky, and drool falling to the ground (I wonder how many tourists are hit by cars like this?)
> 
> I remember the one remarkable thing about NYC was that every corner I turned, I saw an old familiar face. Rockefeller Centre, the Chrysler Building, the Lever House, the UN building, the Flatiron building, that apartment building by Central Park from _Ghostbusters_, the Seagram building.... what the **** more could any architecture/skyscrape buff want?????
> 
> ...


I get more excited visiting NYC for the hundredth time than I did visiting London and Paris for the first (and only) time.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2005)

A42251 said:


> I get more excited visiting NYC for the hundredth time than I did visiting London and Paris for the first (and only) time.


But you like skycrapers... Hardly rocket science to work out why you prefer NYC is it...


----------



## *Sweetkisses* (Dec 26, 2004)

A42251 said:


> I get more excited visiting NYC for the hundredth time than I did visiting London and Paris for the first (and only) time.


I totally agree. Actually, when I lived in New York, I was still overwhelmed by NYC' massiveness and I lived there.


----------



## BigDan35 (Nov 19, 2004)

EarlyBird said:


> But you like skycrapers... Hardly rocket science to work out why you prefer NYC is it...


So then by your account the only reason he prefers NYC is because of it's skyline and skyscrapers? Come on, give me a break.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2005)

*Sweetkisses* said:


> I totally agree. Actually, when I lived in New York, I was still overwhelmed by NYC' massiveness and I lived there.


It's no bigger than Paris or London and it's a LOT smaller than Tokyo. Massiveness???


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2005)

BigDan35 said:


> So then by your account the only reason he prefers NYC is because of it's skyline and skyscrapers? Come on, give me a break.


Yes. For most other stuff London beats it hands down. Finance, law, sports, events, the arts, restaurants, nightlife... the only thing I can think of that New York is undoubtedly better at is big business.


----------



## Phriggin' Ogre (Aug 3, 2003)

Man, I wish I lived in a city that had another city that was very comparable in just about every aspect so that I could denigrate it. *sighe*



Anyways, Paris, NYC, London all suck! That's right, I said it! You're right claimore, you can never say enough about Tokyo! w00t! w00t! Anyone feelin' me?


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

EarlyBird said:


> Yes. For most other stuff London beats it hands down. Finance, law, sports, events, the arts, restaurants, nightlife... the only thing I can think of that New York is undoubtedly better at is big business.


This forum is such a waste...

why don't you go experience some of that wonderful London nightlife, restaurant scene, live sport etc instead of writing over 6000 posts on SSC.


----------



## Guest (Jul 11, 2005)

brooklynprospect said:


> This forum is such a waste...
> 
> why don't you go experience some of that wonderful London nightlife, restaurant scene, live sport etc instead of writing over 6000 posts on SSC.


I do when I get the chance, but I have a lot of fun in my home city of Manchester.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

By the way, as much as it pains me to admit this to annoying Brit-boosters, I do think that London is a great city. And right now it has more momentum than NY. 

In general it seems that NY has gotten a bit complacent. Very little interesting new architecture, little proactive effort to make the city more friendly to foreign businessmen, etc.

NY has more immigrants on street level, but London has done a better job at making itself a hub for international bankers, lawyers, consultants, etc. The immigrants (or more correctly expatriates) that actually matter. NY seems comfortable in it's more or less uncontested leadership position in America, and doesn't seem to bother as much with bringing in international business. Why the 90% of the new buildings here are so boxy and bland, I don't know.

But whatever, these things go in cycles. Wait 5 or 10 years, and NY will have the momentum again. NY is anyway coming from a fundamentally strong position - the undisputed business, publishing, art, news media, advertising, etc blah blah center of the biggest unified economy in the world. If France or Germany reform even a bit, and bring back some dynamism to their largest cities, you can kiss all your London rivalling NY boosterism goodbye.


----------



## algonquin (Sep 24, 2004)

I still don't get how NYC ended up being mentioned in this thread. It's like an arborist not being impressed upon visiting a Californian redwood forest, or a mountain climber not being impressed by Mount Everest. If I whipped out my dick and it was 12 inches long, no matter how many losers chant the 'size doesn't matter' mantra, you'd all be god-damned impressed! Even if skyscrapers don't do it for you, there's enough of everything to go around. You don't have to bruise your ego by saying that NYC is the centre of the universe... that's completely debateable. But if your 'not impressed', your just playing devil's advocate.

The only person who got away with pretending not to be impressed with NYC was Le Corbusier, who declared that the buildings 'weren't tall enough'. He was a cocky bastard anyways.

I'm a nature buff. I wandered into Central Park, and I was [email protected] impressed! It's huge! It's great! Impressive!

I've been to London too.... the first adjective that comes to mind was: impressive! It's quite easy.


----------



## Alexander21 (Oct 4, 2004)

clive330 said:


> Melbourne, Australia. After all the hype about being artisitic, cosmopolitan and cultured, the city is essentially only about sport which utterly dominates virtually all conversation, television and thought. The next 2 most important things are TV (which is mindless and awful) and renovating.
> 
> The population, although educated and intelligent are scarily clueless and disinterested about the world outside of the country and largely think they have seen everything worth seeing and know it all from their obligatory 5 week bus tour of Europe and the occasional trip to Bali. For example, almost no one knows that Africa is not one country, and that it is actually larger than Australia (by a factor of 4). Whatever is largest in Australia is routinely quoted as the largest in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. Sydney being the largest city)


Where did you stay in the Western Suburbs?


----------



## ReddAlert (Nov 4, 2004)

^^^great, great post!

Im still loving the 12 inch dick analogy!

By the way, isnt that Le Corbusier that philosopher who thought the Eiffel Tower was hideous and didnt want to look at it...or am I thinking of some other cocky French bastard?  

anywho....NYC would impress me due to its size. The endless skyline would dazzle me enough to make the trip worthwhile. Not to mention wandering Central Park, Broadway, Times Square, SoHo..etc. I reallly dont see what London offers so much in more than NYC. You mentioned resturants, sports, clubs, and nightlife EB. Yes im sure Londons are great (along with most of Europes cities) but NYC isnt exactly lacking in anything of the sort. It probally even has more to offer in some categories. Sure, for sports...London may have the advantage. NYC teams mostly play outside the city. Dont forget about the Yankees, Mets, Knicks, and soon to be Nets and Jets. All of these teams are getting new stadiums and arenas. 

I always think of the big four as cities that are equals. NYC is the greatest city in the Americas, Tokyo in Asia, London/Paris in Europe. ...making up the 3 most influential continents.


----------



## GM (Feb 29, 2004)

algonquin said:


> The only person who got away with pretending not to be impressed with NYC was Le Corbusier, who declared that the buildings 'weren't tall enough'. He was a cocky bastard anyway.


He didn't say that exactly. He said something like :"Manhattan est une catastrophe sur le plan de l'urbanisme. Mais une belle catastrophe." ("Manhattan is an urbanistic catastrophe. But a fascinating/gorgeous catastrophe too").
He was on the contrary deeply impressed and fascinated by New York.


BTW Le Corbusier was not a philosopher, he was above all an architect.
And he was Swiss.


----------



## algonquin (Sep 24, 2004)

GM said:


> He didn't say that exactly. He said something like :"Manhattan est une catastrophe sur le plan de l'urbanisme. Mais une belle catastrophe." ("Manhattan is an urbanistic catastrophe. But a fascinating/gorgeous catastrophe too").
> He was on the contrary deeply impressed and fascinated by New York.


Thanks for the clarification. I must have read someones poor translation....

Well there you go.. no one has ever not been impressed


----------



## I'mBack (Jan 15, 2005)

brooklynprospect said:


> This forum is such a waste...
> 
> why don't you go experience some of that wonderful London nightlife, restaurant scene, live sport etc instead of writing over 6000 posts on SSC.


:applause: :laugh:


----------



## juan_en_el_valle (May 10, 2005)

London, Vegas, and Monterrey MX.


----------



## sNiFflEs (Jul 11, 2005)

LA was ok, i expected more. I did see a movie opening in front of Manns and came 5 feet from Danny Bonaducie....LOL


----------



## elliot (Dec 19, 2003)

Hands Down...

Dubai.

Just spent a grand total of 40 hours there which was 38 hours too long.

All the edifice sabre rattling on these boards means nothing if you love "real cities". It's never going to be a city of any import. 

They've thrown away everything pre-1980. If it's old, it's not important. And of course there's nothing to do (nightlife) that you couldn't experienced in a neighbourhood library.

As for the "Manhattanization" of Dubai... that's a joke. One street does not equal Manhattan.

P.S. food sucked in a 5 star hotel restaurant, though that's 3 stars below what's acceptable in this particular Emirate.


----------



## Metropolis (Oct 9, 2002)

Los Angeles.

Immense boring suburbs with stinking and noisy huge highways and if you like to visit something interesting you first have to drive 30 km.


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

No city has disappointed me. Go in with low expectations and you will be surprised each and every time.


----------



## JB88Gogg (Jul 8, 2005)

elliot said:


> Hands Down...
> 
> Dubai.
> 
> ...


Hi, I'm new here to this website and forums.

I totally agree with this post. I visited Dubai last year, and although some of the skyscrapers are pretty impressive, they can't amount to the lack of nightlife, good restaurants, and overall things to do. Additionally, the lack of democratic institutions to exist significantly dampers Dubai's future as a cosmopolitan, international city. The government even blocks websites it deems incoherent with the country's religious laws and moral customs. When visiting, you feel worried not to violate customs or offend anybody through your clothing....Too bad, because the city could have a lot of potential.

Underrated: Tel Aviv. While all we here on the news is suicide bombers and such, the reality is truly much different. I just spend a long time travelling in Israel. While Tel Aviv may not have the lavish buildings of Dubai, with many new towers underway it's looking better. The most important thing for me, however, was the nightlife--which Tel Aviv had a lot of: clubs, bars, movies, parties, events, concerts, exciting beaches, parties and more. Israelis are very tolerant, warm, welcoming and accepting--it's the norm to see gay couples walking around the streets. Plus there are so many people there from different backgrounds, like Morrocan, Iraqi, European, American, African and more. I felt care-free and free-spirited there, as opposed to uptight in Dubai. I'm not trying to say Dubai is bad, as it has potential, but my experience was better in Tel Aviv. Going in with low expectations, I came out really impressed with Tel Aviv.

Not to mention Israel as a whole...Jerusalem, Eilat, Haifa, Tiberias, and all the other cities are really beautiful with loads of history. You can go from snow covered mountains, to forests, to desert, to the lowest place on earth, to modern and ancient cities, to Arab, Jewish and Christian towns--all in a small country. Thinking I was heading to hell on earth, I felt extremely safe the whole time. I think the worst incident was getting burned by jellyfish at the beach. I hope peace arrives soon, this place is fascinating. 

Another place underrated is Peru, which I visited two years ago. Lima may not be the most attractive city, but there's pretty Spanish-colonial architecture and an interesting China town. Cuzco was gorgeous, and the clubs and discotecas there were fun. Machu Picchu was awesome. I look forward to travelling more in Latin America and, of course, Europe.


----------



## Forza Raalte (Sep 18, 2004)

Skybean said:


> No city has disappointed me. Go in with low expectations and you will be surprised each and every time.


You can't be serious. You always have a certai expectation of a city when you go there.


----------



## elliott (Sep 23, 2002)

God some ppl go-on too much.

London, New York and Paris are forever bitching about whos better and there will probably never be a clear answer because everyones tastes are different from Paris's homogenous centre to London eclectiscism and vibrancy to New York's canyons and sheer urban thrills.

You rarely here people from Toyko bitchin on like these three cities do, yet its the biggest, most advanced, best served city of the lot. However that doesnt mean its better e.g. ive travelled across Europe my favourite continental place is Koblenz, Germany and i'd take that over Amsterdam (stunning, but slightly dull) any day of the week.


----------



## clive330 (Nov 10, 2003)

Alexander21 said:


> Where did you stay in the Western Suburbs?


St Kilda, Elsternwick and Beaumaris actually. I leave in 2 weeks for ever. Thank ****.


----------



## ♣628.finst (Jul 29, 2005)

London, Geneva, Paris, Frankfurt, Zurich.


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

DiggerD21 said:


> And to answer to the topic:
> 
> London was architecturally disappointing for me. The buildings themselves were mostly beautyful, but I didn't like the mixture of old and new. And the suburbs I've seen near Heathrow seemed to be in a worse condition than the ones near Hamburg Airport. But don't worry Londoners, I had just three days to discover as much London as possible and found also some nice areas: Hyde Park, Greenwich, Canary Wharf. Also I enjoyed riding the tube and double-decker busses. I'm probably in London for a few days in a week.
> 
> Pisa is a beautyful town, but too small. Within two hours I had the impression that I've seen all, which was rather disappointing (It was just a breakpoint with a 4 hour stay on the way to Palermo).


The suburbs out near Heathrow Airport _are_ shitholes (Hounslow etc), its desirability isn't helped by the planes virtually clipping people's roofs every minute for 20 hours a day.

Nowhere has really truly disappointed me; but its all about expectation I suppose

I felt mildly let down by NYC, but I think that's really because everyone expects it to really blow them away and its difficult for it to meet those expectations, ditto Sydney (I much preferred San Francisco and Melbourne, for instance).

In general cities meet expectations or pleasantly surprise me.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

This thread is titled "Which city disappointed you?"

More so than virtually any other thread, it asks for an opinion and can't be refuted. Nobody but *you* can determine what disappoints *you*. So anybody calling you an idiot for your belief it showing what an idiot s/he is.

Which brings me to New York City.

A city that does *not* disappoint me personally.

However, it seems like the one city (when compared with its US counterparts or with global cities) that is given a free pass, an exemption.

It goes something like this: NYC is the World's Greatest City offically, unquestionably, eternally. How dare you bring it into discussions with mere mortal cities.

That's my biggest problem with New York. Sure it's great. Sue it's an incredible city. But I don't buy in one second into that "A-Number-1, king of the hill, top of the heap" crap. It's a city, not a god.

New York, IMHO, is far more dependant on where it stands in the pecking order of world cities than does any other city on earth. NYC has a need to be #1 on the planet because its very essence is based on being on top and in control.

Before I'm crucified, remember: none of the above is factual on any level. Just the opinion of one person. I'm not "right"; it's just what I think.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

LA diasppoints me as a city, but fascinates me as a concept.

The oppulance and greenery of the Westside (in areas like Westwood, Bel Air, Bev Hills, etc.) is awesome, albeit over-the-top. One is reminded thought that none of that greenery would be there in this semi-arid location without a hell of a lot of wasted and precious water.

Outside the Westside, the glamour that is supposed to be LA fades, nowhere more so than in the mundane streets in Hollywood.

Where LA is hilly (i.e. the West Side, the canyons) or even mountainous (up on Mullholland), it is spectacular.

But where it flattens out (in the valley, but even more so in the basin) it is often bland, boring, and faceless. And these areas, in size and population, are far larger and far more populated than the privileged westside.

Few cities have such contrast between rich and poor. 

LA is a formible sitting, a major alpha city, and a city trying to come to grips with its problems (i.e. transportation). Still, IMHO, it is a pale comparison of what it was in its glory days of mid-20th century when the glamour was still alive and the oppressive problems not nearly so evident.


----------



## TheKansan (Jun 22, 2004)

Chicago dissappointed me. The suburban sprawl was a lot closer to the urban parts than I thought it would be, also I wasn't absolutely blown away. Don't get me wrong, it was a beautiful city and definately worth visiting, but it didn't just blow me away with uniqueness the way Las Vegas did when I visited, or LA. I think the problem is that I visited LA first, so I got a good taste of a really large city. In fact Chicago reminded me a little of LA. Single family homes on absolutely tiny lots, wall of skyscrapers downtown, horrible traffic, etc.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

algonquin said:


> I still don't get how NYC ended up being mentioned in this thread. It's like an arborist not being impressed upon visiting a Californian redwood forest, or a mountain climber not being impressed by Mount Everest. If I whipped out my dick and it was 12 inches long, no matter how many losers chant the 'size doesn't matter' mantra, you'd all be god-damned impressed! Even if skyscrapers don't do it for you, there's enough of everything to go around. You don't have to bruise your ego by saying that NYC is the centre of the universe... that's completely debateable. But if your 'not impressed', your just playing devil's advocate.
> 
> The only person who got away with pretending not to be impressed with NYC was Le Corbusier, who declared that the buildings 'weren't tall enough'. He was a cocky bastard anyways.
> 
> ...



Absolutely right. When I first visited New York I arrived in the night and went straight to my hotel near Broadway. The next morning when I walked out of the building I was totaly shocked by the scenery I saw. Just awesome.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

I think the most people will disagree but i was disappointed by Hanau.
Such a boring city. 
No you don`t need to know where it is (big city near Frankfurt)


----------



## Indyman (Apr 1, 2005)

I was very dissappointed by Cincy, Columbus, and Cleveland.


----------



## mic (Jun 27, 2004)

clive330 said:


> St Kilda, Elsternwick and Beaumaris actually. I leave in 2 weeks for ever. Thank ****.



You obvously are hanging around with really bad YOBBOS, move away from them. I feel sorry that you havent GOT what Melbourne is all about, have a good trip home.


----------



## Nerima# (Oct 10, 2005)

Chicago and Only LA core ( not LA metro )
With my trip to LA only one time I say that entirely Los Angeles suburbs are fine, but not LA core area, whereas I had good impression of NYC.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

I think when people say that New York disappointed them, it was in comparison to the hype. If you keep hearing that object A is the most perfect object to ever exist, and then you get object A and discover its pretty much just a larger version of Object B, then you might feel disappointed. That isn't to say, though, that object A isn't fantastic. 

That being said, I was a little bit disappointed with New York. Again, this mostly has to do with expecting something different. When looking at New York simply for what it is, I thought it was an amazing town. 

In contrast to that, I was just plain ol' disappointed with L.A.


----------



## malek (Nov 16, 2004)

Damascus, Aleppo, Qamishly, Hassake in Syria.

I spent close to a month in Syria, i had low expectations, but damn I was floored when i set my feet there...

its incredibly dirty and run down. I don't know really what to say, except don't go there.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

LA and Las Vegas.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

I was disappointed by Barcelona, Vancouver, and San Diego. I like all the cities well but i expected a utopia of sorts.


----------



## i.q.ninja (Jul 21, 2005)

new york and london.


----------



## andy77aus (Apr 6, 2004)

Id have to say New York was my biggest dissapointment followed closely by Toronto.


----------



## TallBox (Sep 21, 2002)

Miami.... I went in summer 2003 and it just seemed so dead. Hardly anything happening other than, of course, the beach. Stayed on Miami Beach, but at nighttime went down to Ocean Drive and there was bugger all going on. On the plus side, there was some kind of cheerleading competition in the hotel we were staying at .


----------



## malek (Nov 16, 2004)

^^ everyone tells me the same about Miami, its so hard to believe because of all the hype surrounding the city.


----------



## OtAkAw (Aug 5, 2004)

Disappointment is not in my vocabulary everytime I visit foreign cities. The money you've spent visiting that city is more than enough to feed a poverty-ravaged African family for a week. Why get disappointed? Every chance that I have to visit a city other than mine is considered a GIFT from God. I just try to indulge myself in what the city offers and never in my life I've been disappointed. The chance to even step to a new place is a gift in it's own right, lucky are we who've already travelled in our lifetime.

Many people in this forum do not seem to get contented with the things that more than a third of our world populace can only dream about.


----------



## A42251 (Sep 13, 2004)

^Thats real talk, dude.

Anyway, I am going to Tokyo for the first time next week and I really do expect to be completely blown away beyond anything I have ever experienced. I have been hearing forever how Tokyo makes everyplace else seem like a small town and I really hope that this is the impression I will get.


----------



## PotatoGuy (May 10, 2005)

Vegas.. it was smaller and uglier than i thought.. not at all what i imagined.. haha yea


----------



## Stratosphere 2020 (Sep 15, 2002)

czm3 said:


> Biggest disapointments have been (in no order)
> 
> Houston
> Atlanta
> ...


Dutch St. Maarten is a country.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

"Every chance that I have to visit a city other than mine is considered a GIFT from God."

I didn't realize that "God" was so generous. Where is he living these days? He never IM's me back, I am starting to get skeptical.

Why was Budapest a let-down?


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

I can understand how NYC can disappoint some. It is both beautiful and hideous, tall yet short and the blocks are ridiculously long spanning east and west in Midtown. The nightlife has become dull and more annoying families with kids are taking over. NYC is losing its sexiness....Other than that it is a perfect city.


----------



## mongozx (Sep 30, 2005)

The most dissappointing city I've visited was Singapore. Yes, it's clean, multi-cultural, and gobs of buildings but for some reason it just didn't do it for me. Go to Hong Kong instead!

Other dissappointments: Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, but I didn't expect much in the first place.

Kuwait City was a bore and so was Muscat, Oman.


----------



## PanaManiac (Mar 26, 2005)

*San Diego*

Small-town quiet. Not vibrant and bustling enough for a city of it's size.


----------



## LANative (Aug 28, 2005)

To me it varies. Cities that also disapoint me is cities with no personality I like energized cities. Just a big giant dead city with nothing to do but walk around disapoints me.


----------



## Sauvalle (Sep 16, 2005)

I was dissapointed with 
LA (considering it's size, very few communities are really nice)
Paris (for the same reasons as LA). 
London also a bit. (nice but too eclectic and overrated) 

Cities I did like: 
Berlin,Barcelona,Copenhagen,Stockholm,Frankfurt,SanDiego,Chicago,Santiago,Tel-Aviv


----------



## Avatar (Sep 11, 2002)

*Sweetkisses* said:


> Earlybird you are a funny guy.


That's an unusual way to describe him/her/it.

I can think of a swag of better words to use. Earlybird is one thing and though would be a deadset idiot.


----------



## lakegz (Oct 23, 2003)

Early bird, im still baffled. Where are those commie blocks you were trying to point out? Im offended that you call that majestic cluster a series of commie blocks. Read a little into a subject called 'modern architecture' will you?









oh and that shot at the pier.....classic


----------



## vvill (Sep 20, 2002)

*Seoul*... =.=

It was quite disappointing except for the new Incheon Airport. Shopping isn't really that great and tourists' attractions within the city are quite limited and they're definitely not as good as described in tourists' brochure. Lotteworld.. is boring and very cramped... Walkerhill is quite a put-off as well... after realizing that it's just a Sheraton Hotel. =.=


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

OtAkAw said:


> Disappointment is not in my vocabulary everytime I visit foreign cities. The money you've spent visiting that city is more than enough to feed a poverty-ravaged African family for a week. Why get disappointed? Every chance that I have to visit a city other than mine is considered a GIFT from God. I just try to indulge myself in what the city offers and never in my life I've been disappointed. The chance to even step to a new place is a gift in it's own right, lucky are we who've already travelled in our lifetime.
> 
> Many people in this forum do not seem to get contented with the things that more than a third of our world populace can only dream about.


Nice point of view.


----------



## OtAkAw (Aug 5, 2004)

philadweller said:


> "Every chance that I have to visit a city other than mine is considered a GIFT from God."
> 
> I didn't realize that "God" was so generous. Where is he living these days? He never IM's me back, I am starting to get skeptical.


The world really has a lot of "interesting" people to offer.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

It should be mentioned too that you only get out of a city what you
put into it. If you do some research and make the effort to get around
you will enjoy it more than just aimlessly walking in an area near your
hotel. 
I`ve been to cities that disappointed me the first time I visited, and 
when I went back I learned more about them and understood them a 
bit more. 
Most cities have something unique to offer if you are prepared to look
for it, but naturally that does not mean I enjoy all cities equally! ;


----------



## algonquin (Sep 24, 2004)

The city I was most dissapointed with was Angkor Wat in Cambodia. I had heard great things, but the city had no streetlife. Most businesses had left, and the city was all run-down and overgrown. Good luck finding a cab too.

Timmins Ontario was a big let down too. I would have thought that a has-been northern mining town would have been 24/7 excitement, but I was wrong.

I went to NYC with the impression that it had great architecture, but I couldn't see anything when I was there because everything was too high up in the air, and there were too many buildings in the way. My pictures were terrible.

I tried visiting Constantinople once; couldn't find it. I kept ending up in Istanbul. WTF?


----------



## chris9 (Jul 22, 2003)

i.q.ninja said:


> new york and london.


These cities never disappoint. They are too big and just have too much to offer to be disappointing.


----------



## Sitback (Nov 1, 2004)

I found Chicago the most dullest place on earth. Rubbish.

Nice skyline tho!


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

algonquin said:


> The city I was most dissapointed with was Angkor Wat in Cambodia. I had heard great things, but the city had no streetlife. Most businesses had left, and the city was all run-down and overgrown. Good luck finding a cab too.


:laugh:

I know, and its overrun with bloody tourists... for every local there must be several thousand?

People seemed to have carved graffiti all around the edge of Angkor Wat too... very inconsiderate.

Their Metro sucked too... and talk about dead at night.


----------



## Muyangguniang (Sep 6, 2004)

Larochette


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

Really anyone who uses this site will find alot of cities disappointing because of the amount of hype around here. This is obviously New York's problem.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Sitback said:


> I found Chicago the most dullest place on earth. Rubbish.


Were you locked in the hotel room or something?!


----------



## easysurfer (Dec 12, 2004)

Prologic said:


> Hmm, I think there where more Irish immigrants in the US than now in Ireland, but I can be wrong...
> It's not that I hate Irish people, but it is almost impossible to get contact with them, and when u have, they only talk about beer,beer,beer and football. They're just not interesting, they're boring.Offcourse there are some who are, didn't met them thou... More yankees that you hang out with, they love it there beceause everything is 'so close' yeah, come to Holland then!
> I know it's not for the city life, the nature is quiet beautiful.Galway was the nicest city I was,btw.
> What about Temple Bar people? All this big stories about the nightlife, but it sucked ass! Only childeren hang around there.At night big childeren who look aggresive.
> I will absolutely never go back to that Island.


You are obviously deluded with a unbelievable over-inflated ego. A dutch man criticises the irish for being boring??? If you were a little more educated, you'll know they have a reputation for being everything but boring. Since when were the dutch ever considered exciting. If you consider the brothels, sleaze and totally flat landscape exciting then you obviously need some help. I'm not going to generalisetoo much about holland, as you are just an individual idiot, but i think you should understand the downfalls of your own country before heavily criticising another.


----------



## Tubeman (Sep 12, 2002)

Too many people slagging each other's cities off for my liking

I had a feeling this thread couldn't remain civilised hno:


----------

