• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Switzerland and Germany are dominating! (ve got ze best cities!)

Lay_Lay said:
I think I got my point across about climate. The list should weigh it more heavily, and with more of a preference towards a bit warmer and a bit drier.

Now on to, population density, city living, and public transport. The list weighs this heavily, and it should. The list has a bias here though. It does not at all value having the practical option to drive and own an automobile. It does not even consider, for example, the value of owning a Jetta or a Ford F150 pickup truck, and having a big garage to park it outside of. In the garage, of course, is all your lawn equipment, bikes, tools, your wife's SUV. Out back, you got the pool, a couple acres. All of the kids run around the neighborhood until dark.

Does the list value these things? Cuz I do. I don't want my kids growing up in some Tokyo high rise.
Click to expand...

Funny, I don't see Tokyo on this list...

You can easily own and drive a car around most of the cities in this list, although for most activities you wouldn't have to. I will admit that some people find the rest of your list more appealing (huge lawns, mowers to maintain the lawn), but I think most would find that a more modestly-sized hunk of grass is fine when you have a way better urban environment.

Also, perhaps someone can answer about whether the Swiss and German children stay indoors all day due to fear of perverts and gangs. I was under the impression that Swiss children were far more active than American children.
 
This is the reason why there are few American cities on the list. The US built its cities differently. Well, not really but the US abandoned its cities, remember? With a few exceptions, the vast majority of us live in the burbs surrounding the city, with many single burbs eclipsing the city in population. We still consider ourselves to be a part of the city, the metro area, but these metro areas are not being considered in this list.

If the list took into consideration how cities actually function (as metro areas), and examined the quality of life of that metro area, the list would be dominated by US cities/metro areas.
 
Lay_Lay said:
This is the reason why there are few American cities on the list. The US built its cities differently. Well, not really but the US abandoned its cities, remember? With a few exceptions, the vast majority of us live in the burbs surrounding the city, with many single burbs eclipsing the city in population. We still consider ourselves to be a part of the city, the metro area, but these metro areas are not being considered in this list.

If the list took into consideration how cities actually function (as metro areas), and examined the quality of life of that metro area, the list would be dominated by US cities/metro areas.
Click to expand...

In which way does this enhance the life quality? I've never been in the US. Have you been in Europe yet?
Your description sounds more like a very creepy place. No pavements to walk, you need a car to go anywhere, every house looks the same.
 
Lay_Lay said:
This is the reason why there are few American cities on the list. The US built its cities differently. Well, not really but the US abandoned its cities, remember? With a few exceptions, the vast majority of us live in the burbs surrounding the city, with many single burbs eclipsing the city in population. We still consider ourselves to be a part of the city, the metro area, but these metro areas are not being considered in this list.

If the list took into consideration how cities actually function (as metro areas), and examined the quality of life of that metro area, the list would be dominated by US cities/metro areas.
Click to expand...

I would say that if it is true that metros were not considered, then American cities would fair somewhat better, simply because most American core cities are pretty lame. However, these suburbs still wouldn't fair well against the superior urban environments of Europe and Canada. They wouldn't even do as well as the good American core cities. Portland > Sugarland.

Boring friggin suburbs are not that great. They are only relatively good in a country where the denser parts of town are crime-ridden ghettos. Even then, your burbs would suck compared to Calgary's.
 
This is a listing for ex-pats - not for settling down.

Ex-pats do not want:
Lawns - they have to be mowed and looked after (ex-pats can be away from where they are staying for long periods and weekends - you don't want to come back to two feet of grass to mow)
Cars - they have to be maintained and secured while they are away
Big houses - these are a hassle unless you bring children along

Ex-pats do want:
Good transport links - they travel alot
Easy access to services (international schools for kids, healthcare, car rental for the odd time they need a car)
Serviced apartments - they require minimum maintenance and you can close the door and walk away without worrying about it.
Cultural / evening life - being an ex-pat can be lonely - I would have been suicidal if I was stuck in an anonymous suburb rather than in the center of the city.
 
American culture places a higher value on property ownership and being a slave to the car. We have Lebensraum. Perhaps other places value more congested living arrangements and being a slave to mass transit.

There is no question which slave I would prefer to be. The one with 3 cars, a large tract of land with a sprawling home and a backyard, deck, pool, barbecue ready for a party. Call me Mammy cuz I be a slave now.

Don't bother to question how many times I have been to Europe, ever lived in the city, ever lived... Yep, yep, and yep. One cannot have a strong opinon on the matter without experiencing different things. I know what I like thx. It's not unique. Most people want the same, yet in many places it is simply not a practical option. America's infrastructure is decentrallized, and therein lies a brand of freedom that is not found many places.
 
The vast majority of Melbourne's population live in the suburbs, and we were top of this list less than a decade ago. I don't think whether or not suburbs are the main places to live has much to do with it. I think it has more to do with the quality of living in the entire city (suburbs included).

I've seen pictures of American suburbs, and often they just seem to be street after street of identical houses. No shops, no parks, no services (public transport and education).
In Melbourne however, most people live within walking distance of a supermarket and usually other shops; the nearest park is usually a very short drive away; the vast majority live within walking distance of at least a bus, perhaps even a train; and there is always at least one school very close by, sometimes more.
 
Lay_Lay said:
American culture places a higher value on property ownership and being a slave to the car. We have Lebensraum. Perhaps other places value more congested living arrangements and being a slave to mass transit.

There is no question which slave I would prefer to be. The one with 3 cars, a large tract of land with a sprawling home and a backyard, deck, pool, barbecue ready for a party. Call me Mammy cuz I be a slave now.

Don't bother to question how many times I have been to Europe, ever lived in the city, ever lived... Yep, yep, and yep. One cannot have a strong opinon on the matter without experiencing different things. I know what I like thx. It's not unique. Most people want the same, yet in many places it is simply not a practical option. America's infrastructure is decentrallized, and therein lies a brand of freedom that is not found many places.
Click to expand...

Interesting how values differ :) . In my book, your ideal is exactly what I would not aspire to. Being forced to have a car to get anywhere. Massive tracts of land made up of colonies of the petite bourgeoisie etc. And think of all the squirrels that will die of emissions! :sad: Interesting times ahead - I wonder how the "average" American city will react to growing scarcity of resources. I don´t know if there is an alternative to the European approach in the long run.
 
Well, it's a choice between car or mass transit. One choice has a set route, with a set schedule, with limited carrying capacity. The other allows for free scheduling, free movement over the vast road and highway network, and I can cram it full of stuff I bought, so I don't have to go buy groceries every other day.

A huge majority of the world population wants much of what I described above (land, house, barbecue) for their family, all else equal. Just an assumption I am making. Disagree? I'd be surprised.

OK, so we all want that (except you and others who love city life.) Then the only valid counter argument I am hearing is that, "We Shouldn't Do That. It's Unsustainable."

Which brings us to this point.
Cities will evolve over time. When the US needs to emmigrate back into the cities and make those cities awesome again, they will do so. Until then, the freedom offered by not being constrained by city-life limitations exceeds, in my opinion, the benefits bestowed upon the individual's quality of life in the city. His quality of life increases the more Lebensraum he has, all else equal. And all else usually is equal in the US. High speed internet access out in the country.

My opinions here have nothing to do with city crime rates. It's about Lebensraum and a specific variety of freedom and privacy that we have come to expect.
 
RalofTyr said:
Los Angeles > Any city in Europe

Over 200 days of sunshine around 75F...

Need I say more?
Click to expand...

Los Angeles in meant to be a terrible place to live.

Yuma, AZ gets more days of sunshine a year than LA. I suppose thats even better then? :rolleyes:
 
Lay_Lay said:
Well, it's a choice between car or mass transit. One choice has a set route, with a set schedule, with limited carrying capacity. The other allows for free scheduling, free movement over the vast road and highway network, and I can cram it full of stuff I bought, so I don't have to go buy groceries every other day.

A huge majority of the world population wants much of what I described above (land, house, barbecue) for their family, all else equal. Just an assumption I am making. Disagree? I'd be surprised.

OK, so we all want that (except you and others who love city life.) Then the only valid counter argument I am hearing is that, "We Shouldn't Do That. It's Unsustainable."

Which brings us to this point.
Cities will evolve over time. When the US needs to emmigrate back into the cities and make those cities awesome again, they will do so. Until then, the freedom offered by not being constrained by city-life limitations exceeds, in my opinion, the benefits bestowed upon the individual's quality of life in the city. His quality of life increases the more Lebensraum he has, all else equal. And all else usually is equal in the US. High speed internet access out in the country.

My opinions here have nothing to do with city crime rates. It's about Lebensraum and a specific variety of freedom and privacy that we have come to expect.
Click to expand...

Oh, it´s not necessarily a choice between car and mass transit (for me). I do own a car, but I use it for buying stuff once or twice a week, like you said, to haul stuff around and for getting to destinations where the mass transit has problems getting to, like my relatives living in the more provincial areas. And if the mass transit infrastructure is well developed, I don´t see it as a hindrance. For example, where I live, a tram/streetcar arrives every 120 seconds. It´s not that much of a hassle at all and you get to know a lot of nice people you would not have met otherwise.
Of course I don´t want to convince you, because such value-based arguments are rarely of much use.
What I wanted to convey was: I do disagree :). I don´t want my own house in the suburbs (countryside perhaps when I´m older/old, ok, but not the suburbs) it would make me feel constricted and bound to a particular location. And I just don´t like the kind of person that lives in the suburbs (sry, no offense intended ;)). Like I said, quality of life is primarily value-driven (aside from basic needs, of course).
 
Now this is a first. I've never heard of anyone that would be so willing to :bowdown: the auto & petroleum industries.
 
When I was young and dumb, I lived in the city. It was great.
Now I am older, still dumb. I don't need to be bee-bopping around town. My office job is in the burbs, not the city. The only point of me moving to the city, would be to more easily pick up random pretty chicks at the coolest, hippest bars in the hip district. Aside from that, I honestly don't value anything else that the city has to offer, that the suburbs don't do better, offering me a higher quality of life - my version of what is high quality may differ from yours.

People move to the burbs to get away from chaos and raise a family. You work 10 hours a day. You can afford to purchase a home that separates you from 'random city dweller that is disturbing your peace #8517723', and so you make the move - but only once you are tired enough of the downsides to city life. The upsides are understood. When I was young, I felt cool to be living in the city - and maybe I was cool! But I am no longer in a cool contest.
 
Another advantage of mass transit is that you can get around when drunk without needing a taxi.

When I'm at home (away from Dublin) this is a very annoying aspect of not having public transport.
 
True! And that goes hand in hand with picking up cool chicks.
 
Kerozine said:
Now this is a first. I've never heard of anyone that would be so willing to :bowdown: the auto & petroleum industries.
Click to expand...

All you got is a political take on it?
I tell you that I expect the freedom and privacy that my car provides, and you offer me mass transit? It's laughable really.

I don't know or care what industries allow for my higher quality of life than what city life would otherwise afford me. If you want to convince me to care, you should begin by admitting that the quaility of life is indeed higher, with plenty of Lebensraum and privacy. Now that you have admitted that, tell me why I should decrease my quality of life. Save the Squirrels?
 
Lay_Lay said:
True! And that goes hand in hand with picking up cool chicks.
Click to expand...

So you're basically saying that social life should not be taken into account because at a certain age people stop wanting to go to the pub?

When you get married or stop looking to pick up girls you stop having a social life? :(
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom