Post: #1

I've always felt that most average European cities have a better quality of life than an average American city. Maybe its the way European cities have been planned with more emphasis on an urban core whereas most American cities are spread out with freeways cutting right through them.

Or maybe its the public transportation options that are lacking in American cities. I've not traveled to very many Asian cities so can't comment on them but how do you think it influences your ability to game women, to enjoy nightlife, your overall outlook about your life.

I enjoy urban environments and I hate suburbs with a passion. Not only you've drive an average 30 minutes just to get basic supplies or get a decent espresso(and no starbucks doesn't count) but also you have to reserve a hotel room so that you don't get a DUI after a night of partying. Which American cities are more "European" in their design? And how do Asian cities compare to its European and American counterparts?

Post: #2

You forgot Latin American cities, which have a certain character to them as well.

N. American cities(I'm including Canada, Australian cities should be lumped in to) tend to only be dense around their core business district and then fan out into suburbs where most people desire to live because of more space, better schools, more quiet, less crime. Like you, I can't stand the suburbs either. The peace and quiet that some find refreshing I on the other hand find lonely and draining. I feel energized when I see people out and about walking everywhere, see people sitting out on tables in front of restaurants, hear cars driving by, parks full of kids playing soccer and people socializing. That whole experience is entirely absent from the suburbs by design. But younger people are now demanding that sort of mixed used environment where people live in walkable neighborhoods and I'm seeing a lot more apartment towers going up that are more centrally located so American cities are slowly densifying. Public transit will probably always suck outside of NYC as the scale of our cities would make tunneling for subways that cover the entire city to be unfeasible. They have a couple of anemic subway lines in Los Angeles and when it cost a billion per mile to build a subway line I just don't see there being a time when L.A. has the type of coverage that Tokyo or Moscow has. Especially when there just isn't the demand or economy to support it. As for what American cities are most European in lifestyle and character, it's mainly going to be in the Northeast, with San Francisco being the main exception on the west coast. The center core of Chicago I'm sure is very NYC-like. Other cities will have pockets where you can have an urban lifestyle, like downtown San Diego.

European cities were laid out hundreds or thousands of years ago before there were cars, so obviously everything had to be dense and walkable by design. Most Americans cities outside of the Northeast saw most their population explosion after the car and that completely changed them. One thing I like about European and Latin American cities is that the center tends to have a big outdoor plaza with historic monuments. You don't get those great public gathering spaces in America, even the older American cities. Something like Rome's Piazza Navona is entirely lacking here. And when you do see places that try to mimick the feel of European public spaces it's very commercialized with the emphasis on retail shopping. Not really a historical element.

Asians cities I don't know too much about as I've only been to Bangkok, but they seem to have gone the density route and have pretty efficient public transit systems. But they don't have the same historical and quaint character of European cities. That's what I like about Europe. You get everything. Density, walkability, good public transit and the quaint, historic character of the architecture. America you mostly get none of that except in NYC, Boston and SF. Asia, you get the density, transit but no historic character. In Latin America you somewhat get the quaint central plazas, history, density, but shitty public transit(except Mexico City, Buenos Aires and maybe Santiago).

Edit --

If you do want a more urban lifestyle in America, you will pay out the ass for it. Most those tall apartment towers they are building in gentrifying inner-core neighborhoods are very costly. We have a neighborhood like this here in in my city. It's pretty nice, you have apartments on top of bars and restaurants and you can walk to do what you need and logistics are great if you're trying to pick up. But the prices for an apartment there rival L.A. and NYC prices. And that's in a city where an average one bedroom goes for $700-900/month. If I wanted to pay California cost of living I'd have opted to stay in California.

Post: #3

American cities are designed exclusively to fit requirements of corporations.

Sorry, but it is true. Only New York stands out in the crowd, maybe just a couple of other spots.

I mean, every average 200k town in Italy (with quite moderate living standard) has electric tram lines. In USA, you could count on fingers number of cities with decent transit systems.

It's not about history, it's about the fact that dense construction, apartment blocks, electric public transportation etc, doesn't fit interests of dozens of lobbies who profit on the layout of American cities.

If nothing, American cities are very comfortable and safe for a middle class family. But hardly a plus point for a player. Nothing drains you out than having to navigate through traffic as a beginning of every single day of yours.

Post: #4

(04-06-2014 02:47 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  You forgot Latin American cities, which have a certain character to them as well.

N. American cities(I'm including Canada, Australian cities should be lumped in to) tend to only be dense around their core business district and then fan out into suburbs where most people desire to live because of more space, better schools, more quiet, less crime. Like you, I can't stand the suburbs either. The peace and quiet that some find refreshing I on the other hand find lonely and draining. I feel energized when I see people out and about walking everywhere, see people sitting out on tables in front of restaurants, hear cars driving by, parks full of kids playing soccer and people socializing. That whole experience is entirely absent from the suburbs by design. But younger people are now demanding that sort of mixed used environment where people live in walkable neighborhoods and I'm seeing a lot more apartment towers going up that are more centrally located so American cities are slowly densifying. Public transit will probably always suck outside of NYC as the scale of our cities would make tunneling for subways that cover the entire city to be unfeasible. They have a couple of anemic subway lines in Los Angeles and when it cost a billion per mile to build a subway line I just don't see there being a time when L.A. has the type of coverage that Tokyo or Moscow has. Especially when there just isn't the demand or economy to support it. As for what American cities are most European in lifestyle and character, it's mainly going to be in the Northeast, with San Francisco being the main exception on the west coast. The center core of Chicago I'm sure is very NYC-like. Other cities will have pockets where you can have an urban lifestyle, like downtown San Diego.

European cities were laid out hundreds or thousands of years ago before there were cars, so obviously everything had to be dense and walkable by design. Most Americans cities outside of the Northeast saw most their population explosion after the car and that completely changed them. One thing I like about European and Latin American cities is that the center tends to have a big outdoor plaza with historic monuments. You don't get those great public gathering spaces in America, even the older American cities. Something like Rome's Piazza Navona is entirely lacking here. And when you do see places that try to mimick the feel of European public spaces it's very commercialized with the emphasis on retail shopping. Not really a historical element.

Asians cities I don't know too much about as I've only been to Bangkok, but they seem to have gone the density route and have pretty efficient public transit systems. But they don't have the same historical and quaint character of European cities. That's what I like about Europe. You get everything. Density, walkability, good public transit and the quaint, historic character of the architecture. America you mostly get none of that except in NYC, Boston and SF. Asia, you get the density, transit but no historic character. In Latin America you somewhat get the quaint central plazas, history, density, but shitty public transit(except Mexico City, Buenos Aires and maybe Santiago).

I can relate to what you're saying about suburbs. I just moved and had to live in the suburbs for the first time in my life in Southwestern US because of proximity to work and I hate it. I love big broad footpaths, open air cafes and restaurants and a big central square like most European cities have.

I think that the zoning laws are also to blame for the way the urban expansion has taken place in most American cities. You can't have commercial places in a residential neighborhood and so on. What ends up happening is that you've one neighborhood full of houses and then you've to drive a few miles to go get even the most basic supplies. Most European as well Asian cities have mixed neighborhoods. I love the way Barcelona, Prague, Vienna, Frankfurt are laid out. In Asia, Singapore has amazing urban infrastructure. Compared to that US only has NYC with non stop mass transit serving all boroughs, mixed neighborhoods,etc.

I think instead of underground subways, second tier cities can implement some sort of trolley lines on major streets which will bring some sort of "character" to the city and provide an alternative to cars which cause so much traffic congestion.

Post: #5

European cities are really great. They've really been designed for living.

I do find the middle to outer suburbs of most Anglosphere countries to be absolutely soul destroying. They're cultural wastelands and usually damn near impossible to navigate with public transport. That said, one thing I really miss about Melbourne is the parks. Melbourne is full of really great parks, including the suburbs. Other than the parks, the suburbs suck.

As for Asian cities, I can't say anything about the high end (i.e. Japan or Singapore), but the others I have seen have not been to my liking at all. I was only in Seoul a few days, but it was a concrete jungle. I didn't like it at all.

Most Southeast Asian cities are an utter disaster. The traffic is insane, there's way too much noise, air and water pollution (and sometimes even light pollution), and there are just far too many people in a small area. Phnom Penh must have zero redeeming features. It's hard to see how that place is ever going to be good to live in without simply bulldozing large sections of the city and starting again.

I personally think that Taiwanese cities are some of the worst I've ever been to given the supposed level of development/prosperity in this country and given the fact that they've essentially been built in the past fifty years. Taipei is not bad (though it's massively congested) as there is actually some stuff to do, though wherever you go, there are going to be masses and masses of people already there. This is even true of places outside the city. The thing about Taipei, though, is that it's ridiculously expensive for what it is.

The other cities, though, have absolutely no public transport (Gaoxiong/Kaohsiung has a subway system, but it's not particularly useful), the urban planning is a complete pig's breakfast, there's insane congestion, and there's absolutely nothing to do in them anyway. They have managed to capture all of the worst possible elements of cities with few, if any, of the best aspects. Now, they're attempting to retrofit these cities, but it's not going to work. I really do think the (lack of) urban planning in these places makes them desperately unlivable.

Consequently, I don't live in a city anymore, though unfortunately, there's plenty of bad development in the countryside also.

Post: #6

(04-06-2014 08:31 PM)Feisbook Control Wrote:  European cities are really great. They've really been designed for living.

I do find the middle to outer suburbs of most Anglosphere countries to be absolutely soul destroying. They're cultural wastelands and usually damn near impossible to navigate with public transport. That said, one thing I really miss about Melbourne is the parks. Melbourne is full of really great parks, including the suburbs. Other than the parks, the suburbs suck.

As for Asian cities, I can't say anything about the high end (i.e. Japan or Singapore), but the others I have seen have not been to my liking at all. I was only in Seoul a few days, but it was a concrete jungle. I didn't like it at all.

Most Southeast Asian cities are an utter disaster. The traffic is insane, there's way too much noise, air and water pollution (and sometimes even light pollution), and there are just far too many people in a small area. Phnom Penh must have zero redeeming features. It's hard to see how that place is ever going to be good to live in without simply bulldozing large sections of the city and starting again.

I personally think that Taiwanese cities are some of the worst I've ever been to given the supposed level of development/prosperity in this country and given the fact that they've essentially been built in the past fifty years. Taipei is not bad (though it's massively congested) as there is actually some stuff to do, though wherever you go, there are going to be masses and masses of people already there. This is even true of places outside the city. The thing about Taipei, though, is that it's ridiculously expensive for what it is.

The other cities, though, have absolutely no public transport (Gaoxiong/Kaohsiung has a subway system, but it's not particularly useful), the urban planning is a complete pig's breakfast, there's insane congestion, and there's absolutely nothing to do in them anyway. They have managed to capture all of the worst possible elements of cities with few, if any, of the best aspects. Now, they're attempting to retrofit these cities, but it's not going to work. I really do think the (lack of) urban planning in these places makes them desperately unlivable.

Consequently, I don't live in a city anymore, though unfortunately, there's plenty of bad development in the countryside also.

I could definitely live in Phnom Penh. Provided you are at a decent spot, you're within a 10 minute tuk tuk ride from nearly everything. The congestion isn't bad either compared to cities like Bangkok/HCM. Not as polluted either. Friendly people and cheep beer!

Bangkok has a decent transit system. If you can get used to the huge amount of people it's livable, probably for no more than a year or two for me. I don't think I could live long term in HCM, and I didn't really like the vibe in KL.

Post: #7

This thread just make me angry that Southern California has some of the best weather in the world, but has some of the least walkable cities.

A place that would be perfect for pedestrians all year round is dominated by cars.

Almost a sick joke.

Everyone should be walking, on skateboards, or biking all the time. This place is naturally meant for that.

Post: #8

Asian cities are an entirely different beast when compared to American or European cities. The richer cities like Shanghai, for example, have huge skyrises clustered together throughout the city, and then lots of four story buildings and residential alleyways interspersed with some temples and other historical areas in between. There are also many parks and public spaces. Personal car ownership is very limited so bikes and mopeds are quite prevalent. Subway and bus systems are tops in the world.

However, once you go to poor cities like Saigon, Bangkok, etc, they are true shitholes. They are filthy, for one. Bangkok has many temples, as does all of Thailand. Disgusting cobblestone streets are very common in SEA. I always felt like a power line was going to snap and electrocute me. Rickshaws are most common for transportation. Excuse brevity-from phone one handed because I broke my wrist last week.

Post: #9

I love Asian/"3rd world cities", I always feel so alive there, everything has no order but it works pretty well. It also helps the fact that my coin goes alot further, and I get much better value for money in Asian countries.

Western cities I feel are too "consume consume consume" spend all your money here type vibe.

Post: #10

Asian cities are legit for being 24-7. It is insane walking around a place like Jakarta at 3am on a Tues and there are plenty of people out and about. Also, the level of crime is generally super low considering what huge populations places like Saigon, Bangkok, etc have.

On top of the crap public transportation and lay out problems of US cities, shit really gets killed cause of the police state mentality where bars have to close at 2am, ppl are paranoid about walking around at night, etc. It's sad. Large American cities outside NYC basically exist to serve corporate interests during the day then they die at night. It seems in the last ten years though places like LA are making an effort to improve their downtown areas and public transportation seems to be getting more popular. We'll all be dead though by the time US cities get to a European level.