The States: Where We Wish Texas Would Secede Already

[rufus]

I kick myself for not going to school in Boston. But if I had, I's have been broke, and flunked out in three months. Boston, at the turn of the 80's? I'd have been out every night to The Rat or the Paradise, or The Orpheum, or elsewhere, seeing bands like The Clash, U2, Talking Heads, and every other band of the post-punk era.

[Slap Shot]

My theory is that no city can be both fun to visit and live in. Which is significantly inflicted by my distaste for living in large cities. And there is almost certainly an age component. The older you get, the more this theory becomes true.

Bangkok and I'm not remotely joking. I would not have said that 25 years ago but they have done some very keen things to improve livability:

1. Built a sky-train and a subway and they've nearly finished building a new state of the art transit hub. There are dozens of other projects ongoing that make travel to outer regions even better. To go from our house in Bangkok to my in-laws' condo in Rayong used to take 4 hours - it's now closer to 2 and that's just one example.
2. Built a new airport and now having to 2 intl hubs makes flying easier
3. Moved many government jobs to non-centralized locations
4. Started an anti-litter campaign several years back and the results have been phenomenal
5. The addition of traffic cameras has reduced accidents which used to be a significant problem
6. The 'red light' district b.s. is barely a blip. It's highly centralized and you'll never know it exists if you don't seek it out
7. This is a bad thing for some but the hostel area has been greatly reduced and is now very regulated
8. Also this is bad in some ways but street vending is now more regulated and far less prevalent
9. From a fun perspective there's really nothing you can't do

Let's face it there's still 10 million people (at least) in Bangkok and it's not perfect but they've made great strides and we are going to spend much of our retirement time in Bangkok and other parts of Thailand.

[The Sicatoka]

My theory is that no city can be both fun to visit and live in.

Phoenix/Mesa? Many that "live" there only visit for six months per year (snow birds).

[The Sicatoka]

Bangkok and i'm not remotely joking.

Blast you and your references!

[unofan]

To me NYC is like the zoo: Fun to visit and see all the unique critters but wouldn't want to live there.

In fairness, to you Cedar Rapids, Iowa is probably a gleaming metropolis.

or put another way:

https://local.theonion.com/rural-neb...e-o-1819565879

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

To me NYC is like the zoo: Fun to visit and see all the unique critters but wouldn't want to live there.

I think I would've liked to live in NYC for a few years in my 20s (not permanently), just to say I did it, but the cost of living there is so insane that I never seriously entertained the idea.

OTOH, San Francisco is a hole and you couldn't pay me to live there. Chinatown is fun though.

My theory is that no city can be both fun to visit and live in.

Many are neither. Work sent me to Oklahoma City for a week a few years back and I felt myself die a little bit each day.

[The Sicatoka]

In fairness, to you Cedar Rapids, Iowa is probably a gleaming metropolis.

or put another way:

https://local.theonion.com/rural-neb...e-o-1819565879

Cedar Rancids? Um, no.

[SJHovey]

My theory is that no city can be both fun to visit and live in. Which is significantly inflicted by my distaste for living in large cities. And there is almost certainly an age component. The older you get, the more this theory becomes true.

NYC: Amazing to visit. You'd have to put a gun to my head to live there.
Twin Cities: Great place to live. Buuuut not exactly a tourist destination.

There can be cities where neither are true. Most cities fall into that category.

My two cents on living in cities like NYC or London or Paris. I think you need to "live" in your neighborhood, not the city as a whole. In other words, if your home happens to be in the West Village of NYC, then the "city" in which you live is the West Village of NYC. That's what you get to know. That's where you "live." If you then happen to find yourself in say Brooklyn, you're visiting it no different than if you were visiting it from Minnesota.

I think if you do that, you can successfully live in a large metropolitan area, and still treat other parts of it as a tourist destination.

[Kepler]

My two cents on living in cities like NYC or London or Paris. I think you need to "live" in your neighborhood, not the city as a whole. In other words, if your home happens to be in the West Village of NYC, then the "city" in which you live is the West Village of NYC. That's what you get to know. That's where you "live." If you then happen to find yourself in say Brooklyn, you're visiting it no different than if you were visiting it from Minnesota.

I think if you do that, you can successfully live in a large metropolitan area, and still treat other parts of it as a tourist destination.

Oh this is definitely how living in big cities works. Even when you go to other parts you only go to little islands in those parts.

The average lifetime resident of NYC walks on at most 5% of its streets in her whole lifetime.

There is a guy who is actually photographing every block in NYC and I think he's already into like the 17th year of the project and he's done less than 20% of the city.

[dxmnkd316]

My two cents on living in cities like NYC or London or Paris. I think you need to "live" in your neighborhood, not the city as a whole. In other words, if your home happens to be in the West Village of NYC, then the "city" in which you live is the West Village of NYC. That's what you get to know. That's where you "live." If you then happen to find yourself in say Brooklyn, you're visiting it no different than if you were visiting it from Minnesota.

I think if you do that, you can successfully live in a large metropolitan area, and still treat other parts of it as a tourist destination.

I definitely think there's truth to that.

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

My two cents on living in cities like NYC or London or Paris. I think you need to "live" in your neighborhood, not the city as a whole. In other words, if your home happens to be in the West Village of NYC, then the "city" in which you live is the West Village of NYC. That's what you get to know. That's where you "live." If you then happen to find yourself in say Brooklyn, you're visiting it no different than if you were visiting it from Minnesota.

I think if you do that, you can successfully live in a large metropolitan area, and still treat other parts of it as a tourist destination.

I “lived in” the west village and barely ventured out above 14th street unless I had a compelling reason but ...it’s still nyc .

[Deutsche Gopher Fan]

One of the gqp finest is on tape getting out of his truck, and taking an axe to George Floyd square

[Kepler]

I “lived in” the west village and barely ventured out above 14th street unless I had a compelling reason but ...it’s still nyc .

Yes, but that's like saying I live in Virginia but ... it's still the US.

It is. But not much of it. Hell, I don't even live in much of Virginia.

[FadeToBlack&Gold]

One of the gqp finest is on tape getting out of his truck, and taking an axe to George Floyd square

https://www.startribune.com/video-sh...are/600058825/

I'll bet this doofus thinks women are too emotional.

[Handyman]

The crazies are on Twitter defending it...