Where Would You Live Poll

[vcczar]

The US and Europe are about the same square miles in size, with Europe being a little larger. I've made a list of the top 20 largest cities in both locations. 

If you were given two residencies for the rest of your life for free, which package would you pick. You must reside in those two places 6 months each, and you cannot sell these properties or reside elsewhere. Accepting the package also comes with a $100,000 a year pension. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by vcczar

[vcczar]

This was a minor struggle. I'd prefer Boston/London. I prefer Chicago much more to Belgrade, so that decided it for me. Serbia is relatively dangerous still. 

[vcczar]

2 minutes ago, Patine said:

U.S. $100,000 a year is not enough to by in some of those cities in any comfort - like London. The cost of living in London is ridiculous. They have a massive commuter belt surrounding the GLA in the Home Counties for this reason. Even the fictitious home of the Dursley's in, "Harry Potter," in "Little Winging," Surrey, was obviously a commuter belt community in Surrey County, not a GLA neighbourhood. Plus, the pound sterling being one of the only currencies in the world to be consistently valued above the U.S. dollar would further punish that number's purchasing power by parity. I'd end up living in Edmonton again - as in the crime-ridden slum district of the GLA my home city was named for - presumably when the source of the name was in better shape...

It's a pension that you get in addition to whatever your job is. It's like supplemental income to make the permanent move to these cities more enticing. 

[vcczar]

@ConservativeElector2I thought you'd pick Vienna and Jacksonville, especially since your home city is paired with a Southern city. 

[vcczar]

Just now, Patine said:

Oh! That's just not how I'm used to seeing the word, "pension," used.

I should have used the term supplemental income. 90% of the time that I'm making polls, I'm hurriedly multi-tasking with other things. 

[ConservativeElector2]

1 minute ago, vcczar said:

@ConservativeElector2I thought you'd pick Vienna and Jacksonville, especially since your home city is paired with a Southern city. 

Yeah, I don't know for sure if I'd choose a Southern city over a Northern one in the US. I prefer cities with low crime rates and good infrastructure. I mean by that rather a large variety of shops, renowned academic institutions, available goods and services etc. not necessarily intact roads, public transport or stuff commonly associated with infrastructure. I don't really care about what ideology people around me hold, because I had to move from Vienna immediately if that's the important factor.

Saying that I have no idea about how Jacksonville is as a place to live in, but I believe the sphere around the global hub of NYC would be much what I'd like. 

Choosing not Vienna in Europe comes from living already here, so I'd be more eager to explore something new. Paris and London would be the most interesting cities for me, with Paris leading by a very thin margin since I became a francophile last summer. Lastly I don't like Chicago's high crime rate, so I did not choose it combined with London.

[pilight]

City life sucks

[vcczar]

4 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Yeah, I don't know for sure if I'd choose a Southern city over a Northern one in the US. I prefer cities with low crime rates and good infrastructure. I mean by that rather a large variety of shops, renowned academic institutions, available goods and services etc. not necessarily intact roads, public transport or stuff commonly associated with infrastructure. I don't really care about what ideology people around me hold, because I had to move from Vienna immediately if that's the important factor.

Saying that I have no idea about how Jacksonville is as a place to live in, but I believe the sphere around the global hub of NYC would be much what I'd like. 

Choosing not Vienna in Europe comes from living already here, so I'd be more eager to explore something new. Paris and London would be the most interesting cities for me, with Paris leading by a very thin margin since I became a francophile last summer. Lastly I don't like Chicago's high crime rate, so I did not choose it combined with London.

San Jose is the safest city with a population of at least 500,000, at least this was the case about 10 years ago. 

Chicago, like most US cities with high crime, have the crime centralized in poor neighborhoods. I lived in Dallas for about 20 years--once of the top crime cities during the time--and I never witnessed any crime. I think my neighborhood had 1 murder that entire time. It's not like you'd be forced to live in South Chicago with 100k a year. 

French history is one of my favorite histories, especially 19th century France. 

[vcczar]

5 minutes ago, pilight said:

City life sucks

Depends who you ask. I find city life exciting, energetic, and I like the relative closeness of services, the walkability, and public transportation. My favorite thing to do is wander aimlessly and find new shops selling things I hadn't thought about. Places tend to be open later also. I also like the exchange of ideas that cities create, especially multi-cultural cities. I'll also split cities into Real Cities and New Cities. Real Cities achieved prominence before the automobile, so they have a culture of public transportation, often an intellectual and artistic culture that is focused in a downtown or university area. They're often much more walkable. Have a lot of historical stuff. New Cities are more like Phoenix, Dallas, Miami--which, while founded before automobiles, didn't really develop until the automobile. There's a lot of sprawl, strip malls. Once often has to zigzag all over the place to get to cultural locations as they aren't centralized in the historic downtown area. Public transportation is generally mediocre. 

My opinion of suburbs, however, is pretty low. To me they're death. They tend to be hyper conformistic in architecture, in people, in politics , and in services (lots of chain stores and restaurants and few independent places). It's certain the least creative of the residency demographics. There are probably some exceptions, and this definition is probably changing as Suburbs start becoming as large as cities. I'd call the smaller suburbs--probably the worst of suburbs--subrural. 

I have a more favorable view of rural areas, mainly because they have to have open land for crops. However, I wouldn't want to live there. The distance between people and civilization is depressing to me. The isolation. I'm also a little biased in associating rural places and people with nativism, racism, Right Wing conservatism, although there are many exceptions. 

There's also Small Towns and College Towns. These aren't suburbs because they're places that existed before the automobile. These are probably my 2nd choice, especially college towns. San Marcos, TX was probably the place I lived where I had the most vibrant social life. I felt like I knew everyone and everyone knew me. It was somewhat walkable--but no real public transportation. It had things to do, but not enough to allow for occasional wishing that the town had _________ so I could ________. It was about 20,000 people when I moved there and increased to 50,000 7 years later when I moved. Now it's getting closer to 75,000 and has a lot more to do. 

I think my population of tolerance is no less than 50,000 people. It's not so much the number of people really, but that a city is going to have more to do and more diversity and more exchanges of ideas the more people it has, generally. That is, in an American or European city at least. 

My scoring for residency is this:

Real City: A+

College Town: B

New City: C

Small Town: C-

Big Suburbs: D+

Rural: D

Small Suburbs (Subrurals): F

 

[MrPotatoTed]

I rejected the deal.  Partially because the $100k stipend, while generous and appealing, isn’t enough for me to permanently live split between two continents.  I have a young child — the schooling challenge alone would be problematic, plus being so far from her grandparents, cousins, and friends, without the ability to even set new roots and make new permanent friends as I’d be moving her back and forth every six months all over again.  That’s too destabilizing for a child to go through.

If I were on my own, it would certainly be more enticing.  However, having been in the military, I’ve already seen the world.  I lived in South Korea for 2 years, a Portuguese island for 18 months, and Iraq for 7 months.  I’ve been to 20 countries and most of the states.  Traveling is a lot of fun — but there’s also a lot to be said for settling down and building permanent relationships where you are.  Plus, while there was a time when city life was fun, I’m a married dad now.  I don’t need a bar on every street corner, I need great schools, parks, grocery stores.  I’m a suburbanite for life now.  ;c)

[ConservativeElector2]

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

San Jose is the safest city with a population of at least 500,000, at least this was the case about 10 years ago. 

Chicago, like most US cities with high crime, have the crime centralized in poor neighborhoods. I lived in Dallas for about 20 years--once of the top crime cities during the time--and I never witnessed any crime. I think my neighborhood had 1 murder that entire time. It's not like you'd be forced to live in South Chicago with 100k a year. 

French history is one of my favorite histories, especially 19th century France. 

Good to know.

One thing I should add why I prefer global cities is them having all kind of international restaurants and delis. Not saying that Chicago and probably even Jacksonville wouldn't have them but that's another commodity I highly enjoy.

[vcczar]

13 minutes ago, ConservativeElector2 said:

Good to know.

One thing I should add why I prefer global cities is them having all kind of international restaurants and delis. Not saying that Chicago and probably even Jacksonville wouldn't have them but that's another commodity I highly enjoy.

Chicago is probably the third most global city in the US behind NYC and LA. It's arguably more global than LA. 

[MrPotatoTed]

58 minutes ago, Patine said:

I've been to Los Angeles. A VERY poorly-laid-out city that is difficult to get around and screams, "shitty city planning." It epitomizes the, "sprawl," in urban sprawl...

Although earthquake laws banning buildings over 12-stories, and strictly limiting the number of 8-12-story buildings, that can be built would likely affect that to a much greater extent than U.S. cities east of the San Andreas Fault...

DC has a similar issue.  The insane cost of living and traffic can mostly be tied to orders limiting buildings to be 6.5 stories high.