Is the best city in the world. Blows everything else out the water. London. Fuck that, not got the density. Paris? Some bullshit, no one under 40 enjoys paris. Berlin's close, but it's all new and has too many kebab shops. And obviously no other American city comes close (Boston would be 2nd, San francisco 3rd)
Just wanted to get this off my chest since im standing in front of the stock exchange in the greatest city that humanity has ever spawned
London is an appalling city.
I'd say NY definitely is. Fucking Paris isn't in the top 50 either.
New York is by far the best.
Paris is the pits.
I much prefer New Orleans to New York. That said, New York is a glorious city, it's true.
I do really, really like London as well though, and I've got a love/hate relationship to Paris that anyone who's lived there long enough gets, I think.
I still hold Stockholm as the greatest city in the world, mind you.
2 and a half years to cross 'Move to New York' off the Bucketlist.
Living there would be a fucking nightmare. You'd need about fifty dollars a day just to cover breakfast and cwwwwwoooooffee, and their trains out to the 'boroughs' are a disgrace.
Proper dirty shithole, though granted it's pretty lively.
Hong Kong pisses on everywhere else I've been. Not been across the pond, mind.
London's probably about fifth on the list of cities I'd like to live in in Europe.
London has its moments but having lived there for three years and buzzed in and out of it for all my other years, I'm content not to live there again. The main problem is it's got a lot worse very quickly and that will continue. Ten years ago it was mustard.
Love New York, but couldn't and wouldn't live there. The disparity between the rich and poor is ridiculous and cruel. Great to visit and enjoy - Manhattan is an unbelievable place given it's relatively short history - but not for settling.
What happened, Jim?
A lot of things, but mainly Russians and Arabs.
Alright Harold.
You're going to die in two and a half years?Originally Posted by phonics
Can't really see the appeal. Some areas are ok to look at but lol at its main attractions being a tall (but not that tall) building and a street full of advertisements. I guess if you really love filth and being constantly surrounded by a sea of people then it's the best city, yes. It does have some excellent museums and I did enjoy the Statue of Liberty but once that's done you are left with fuck all but grime. If I never set foot on that city again I won't be even a bit sad.
All his shit is time based.
Have my first wank by 12
Take a photo of my face by 8
Shit like that.
He posted most of his bucket list once.
Forgot to add that lol at paying $1800 for an 'apartment' the size of my closet.
Chicago is better than New York.
New York is just a shit London, with more British people.
I've not been to New York and have heard mixed things generally.
London is brilliant, though.
Absolutely right. Everything there is to like about NY, Chicago has. It also has much less of what makes NY shit.
Food in New York is one of the cheapest aspects I found.
Of the three cities I've lived it's probably New York>London>Manchester. Shame I could only realistically buy property in one of them.
Chicago is "filthier" than New York. Plus 70% of the city is off limits which dwarves New York's 30% (mainly Bronx). It's a pretty cool city too though
Norwich is the only city I've lived in, and it's a very nice one.
The fuck it is.
People always say things like this when I cite it, but I don't think there's anything wrong with resenting the Russians, Arabs, Chinese and Malaysian billionaires who have been systematically buying up half the city's property and not living in it, or turning it into executive flats for their collaborating lackeys. It removes a sense of community from most districts, it makes everything (especially property) more expensive... there's nothing to like about the buggers unless your plan is to get rich as one of their butlers or sex slaves.
Well with added context like that it makes more sense, see.
You're not planning to live longer?
San Francisco is the best city in the world, and it's not really close in my eyes, but New York is great, and if things turn out for the best I'll be going to school there. It's just got so much going on all the time, and it's so massive that I really feel like I'd have to live there to discover it properly. It is getting more gentrified, which makes it simultaneously more boring and less dangerous (Central Park, for example, has become absolutely brilliant).
London is great for its parks, and Paris is great for the Seine, but I'm not sure I'd want to live in either long-term. Not that I could afford to (nor San Francisco or New York, really). I've not been to Boston (we drove straight through it on the way to Vermont but didn't stop), I've heard it's great as well.
I think Edinburgh wins this.
Speaking of gentrification, Hull got a BrewDog pub the other week. I ordered a milk, because I'm just too much, and within minutes my picture was on the wall and I was running a masterclass on standing out from the crowd.
I'm surprised they even had milk, probably weaned it from the bartender's tit.
Glasgow is clearly the best city in the world. 4+ football teams for the locals to fight over, free museums to take the kids to when you can't afford to feed them, most folk die in their sixties preventing a drain on the NHS of an aging population, we export shit comedians, we import chip fat in an industrial scale and last but not least we have the best looking women in the world until the smile or speak.
Maybe some (not me) have issue with their nationality being mentioned as part of the issue. Would it make any difference if those were British billionaires doing the purchasing?
New York is amazing. I couldn't live there though; it's got too much going on, and is just too big for me. But spending anything less than about six months there would be absolutely incredible.
It's definitely got London and Paris beat, as brilliant as both of them are. London would be fantastic if you were rich, but it's become a city for the rich people. Everyone else kind of supports the structure that makes that happen. New York certainly has a subset of experiences for the wealthy, but there's plenty there if you aren't as well.
EDIT: I love Sydney more than any other city in the world, mind. The city has plenty going on, but it also has the beaches and mountain hikes which you don't get in other major cities. The harbour is stunning, and I find that there's always plenty to do (obviously not nearly as much cultural stuff as New York or London, but enough to get me by). But I appreciate that this isn't going to be true for everyone.
'mon.
I love New York, as it happens. It really is an incredible (and incredibly diverse) city. Even some of the 'seedier' areas (Brooklyn, for instance) are ace.
Yeah, Sydney's good, as long as you stay on The Peninsula.
Does Brooklyn really qualify as "seedy" these days?
I'm going to say London is the best. My familiarity with it is only passing though. A handful of visits per year doesn't really aquaint me with the type of problems that Jimmy describes, which from reading about I'm sure are real.
All of these places are absurdly expensive of course.
I wonder what the best 'affordable' city is. Although I'm not sure how to define affordable.
Berlin would smash it by a country mile.
Vancouver seems like it'd be a cool place.
Although that opinion is based almost entirely off two people I know from uni having moved there and who seem to be having a great time judging by facebook.
Vancouver? With the French? No thanks. Give me Toronto or give me death.
I reckon Berlin is a cracking shout. Maybe places in Asia as well. Not HK or Tokyo though as they're just as pricey.
Billionaires from the countries I mention act in fundamentally different ways to western billionaires. If you think that pointing this out is racist then I'm afraid it's your problem and not mine.
How do they act differently from British millionaires?
Are all of your eyes really this closed?
Russian oligarchs, Chinese billionaires etc buy things up for a couple of reasons, one being money laundering and the other being insuring themselves against either falling out of favour politically at home, or their natural resource empires running out of juice (the latter is basically state policy in Qatar and the French in particular absolutely adore flogging them their wares).
These things are not investments that benefit anyone else or the local population, which, like or loathe Donald Trump, his burgeoning Scottish golf course empire does.
Jim is right.
Hong Kong is the only "global city" I've spent serious time in as an adult. I've only ever been to Paris with family, with somebody else deciding almost everything we did, and in adulthood have only really passed through London for a couple of days en route to somewhere else. Berlin was brilliant and I think I would enjoy living there, but it doesn't feel like it's on the same scale as those three and presumably New York.
I get the impression all four will have similar ups and downs to them though. You could sub in Hong Kong to the comments about any of the other three in this thread and nearly all would still stand.
Aren't you thinking of Montreal?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote