Your favorite cities for living

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by -Corey-

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

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

Originally Posted by -Corey-

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

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

Originally Posted by -Corey-

great universities (such as UCSD),

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

Originally Posted by -Corey-

nice beaches, theme parks,

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

Originally Posted by -Corey-

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

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

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

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

[Fitzrovian]

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

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

[Jonesy55]

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

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

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

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

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

Originally Posted by Jonesy55

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

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

[Motul]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

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



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



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



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



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

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

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

Couldnt have said it better

[Fitzrovian]

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

[Motul]

In my opinión. Top tier American cities:

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

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

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by Motul

In my opinión. Top tier American cities:

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

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

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

[Motul]

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

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


Vegas: Vague, sprawling,

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

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

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

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

On the other hand:

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

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

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

Chicago: no explanation needed.

NYC: Ditto

San Francisco: ditto x2.

[Fitzrovian]

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

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

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

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Jogy

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

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

[OtAkAw]

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

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

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

[daniel220776]

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

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

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

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

2. Toronto, Canada

strongest feature: diversity
weakest feature: winter

3. Barcelona, Spain

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

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

cheers,

[NordikNerd]

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

Beziers, Southern France

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

[Harry_Harry]

Originally Posted by NordikNerd

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

Beziers, Southern France

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

It's not really a city...

[J@gu@r]

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

[zaphod]

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

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

Pros:

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

Cons:

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

2. Denver

Pros

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

Cons

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

3. Austin

Pros

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

Cons

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

[Ribarca]

Originally Posted by isaidso

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

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

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

[NordikNerd]

Originally Posted by Harry_Harry

It's not really a city...

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

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Ribarca

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

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

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