My other favorite big cities:
- Madrid - my favorite place to party
- San Francisco - the only chic, hip, sophisticated, happening U.S. city on the West Coast
- Vancouver - more Euro than SF, very walkable
- London - but that exchange rate is just murder these days
- Rome - magical and chaotic, dirty and loud
- Amsterdam - fun, fun, fun. Also totally flat city, great for biking.
- Boston - too cold in the winter, I can't live there anymore.
- Washington, DC - crime sucks, weather sucks, traffic sucks, but it is still an incredible place to be.
- Dublin - Aside from being part Irish, I just think it's a really fun town
- Minneapolis/St. Paul* - Great town but that freakish cold is too much for me.
Chicago - Same thing as Minn.
The problem with Los Angeles is one of definition. If you mean the city of L.A., it's mostly a rundown mess. But if you mean the greater L.A. area or the county of L.A., that's a whole different story. North Santa Monica is beautiful. Pasadena is the definition of a small city and also very pretty. Hollywood, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Manhattan Beach- all cool places but more like neighboorhoods in the NYC sense of scale. Living in Santa Monica and visiting someone in Pasadena could take you two hours in traffic. It isn't that far away, but your ONLY real option is to drive.
Tijuana is not a good place. It's dirty and poor like you have never seen unless you've been to the third world, and if you aren't Mexican you feel like everyone wants to take your money, including the cops. Everyone who visits SD wants to go there. My advice if you go is be prepared to come back 1. depressed and guilty at how some people in the world live and what they have to do to survive and 2. very glad to not live there.
>Austin is nice. Expensive though. Priced it a couple of years ago
>before I moved to Albuquerque and a one-bedroom near the University
>could easily run a thousand a month.
>
>Interesting discussion is possible here about the nature of a city. I
>went some depth into this in my mis-spent youth; having flashbacks
>here to an Open University class.
>
>But.
>
>I was using a definition something along the lines of contains
>sidewalks, is possible to walk to a grocery store, has public
>transportation and does not require owning a car. Also, is market
>center for a hinterland.
>
>If you want a cultural center :) I am not sure that anywhere in Ohio
>would qualify :) much less Michigan's upper peninsula. I think both
>Portland and Austin might qualify. Not sure why you consider Austin
>not a city unless you just don't consider country music culture :)
>
>Toronto has extensive sprawl but inner-city areas such as Cabbagetown
>would probably meet your specifications. I was a child when I was in
>Vancouver so I won't comment, but I think you can consider it
>analogous to SF. I remember London very fondly, as well. I'd suggest
>that you also consider Amsterdam and possibly Paris and Montreal, the
>latter only if you are willing to learn to speak French.
>
>Dana
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Won Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:45:19 -0400
>Subject: Re: suburbs vs city
>To: CF-Community <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>At 13:23 9/27/2004 -0600, you wrote:
>
>I define city as: Manhattan, Inner City of London, Tokyo, Seoul etc
>etc. I've never been to ATL so I don't want to pass any judgement but I'm
>prejudiced to the idea that it won't meet my standards as a city. I've
>never been to LA either but I have a feeling that LA won't either. I'm
>inclined to think S.F. will. Chicago is city. I went to school in Ohio
>and Cleveland didn't pass for a city. Detroit might actually be mistaken
>for a refuse dump before it's mistaken for a city. Ann Arbor is nice but
>again not a city. Philly, especially the Penn area, is a city even if it
>is God forsaken. I would consider Vancouver and Toronto cities mostly
>because I consider them cultural centers. I'm sure they fit into my city
>definition in other ways, but I don't know how since I've never been.
>
>I used to live in Jersey City. It's considered a city and the tallest
>building in NJ was a couple of blocks from me and my apartment was small
>and over priced and I could get around everywhere on public
>transportation. But I didn't consider it city living.
>
>I should have been more specific. If I'm going to live in a city I want to
>live very well in a very commercially developed city. These cities
>included, but not limited to, Manhattan (Upper East Side), London, Tokyo,
>Seoul, Paris, Madrid, SF, Berlin, Sidney, Hong Kong, Singapore, Stockholm
>and Taipei. Non cities I have an interest in living is Austin Texas and
>Miami Florida. Hopefully some of this can come true within the next
>10 years.________________________________
[Todays Threads] [This Message] [Subscription] [Fast Unsubscribe] [User Settings] [Donations and Support]
