Least favorite cities?

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Frankfurt

[/ QUOTE ]

Why?

[archangel]

Boston - too self-absorbed and parochial given its diminished importance

[bcubed72]

Spent about a year in Philly and gradually grew to enjoy it. There's no denying that it's a tough town, though--I mean they booed SANTA at an Eagles game, for crying out loud! But take one trip across the bridge into Camden and you'll be begging to get back.

Cleveland...I'm actually to gonna say a nice thing or two. It's on the lake, the flats are a nice night out, and I spent a little time in Shaker Heights and enjoyed it. It shares with Pittsburgh the fact that you can actually AFFORD to live in a neighborhood that is simultaneously 1. somewhat safe and 2. not a half hour out in the boonies. That fact knocks Pit and Cle off any "worst cities" list IMO.

Pittsburgh. You got rivers, relatively low crime as compared to the Eastern Seabord, and (as mentioned) urban living doesn't require a fortune (you can live in Squrrel Hill, a nice city neighborhood where you can actually WALK to stuff for < $600/mo if you choose carefully). Plus there's actually NEIGHBORHOODS vs anonymous sprawl.

Granted, you'd have to be insane to plan a vacation there, but it's not bad for living.

D.C. is bad because 1) housing prices require you to live way out or in fear of your life and 2) all the Yankees moving in have stripped it of its southern charm.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
Wookie,

Seriously, would it kill them to put signs up every here and there?

[/ QUOTE ]

Spending some more time in cities other than L.A., I have come to the conclusion that streets in many places are arranged and marked according to the passive-aggressive natures of the populace. L.A. is straight-out aggressive, so street after street is labeled with some semblance of sense, and great swaths of the city and county are laid out on a grid. Go to smaller, more laid-back towns and cities, however new or old, rich or poor, and prepare to see no signs on streets, signs haphazardly and near randomly posted, and streets swirling in and out of each other like a drunken hippie's dreams while passing in and out of consciousness on the toilet unsure which end is on it.

If L.A. wants to get rid of you, it either kills your or destroys your soul by incorporating you and making you feel at home until you don't even realize you haven't just survived the virus, you ARE the virus. If a small town wants to get rid of you, it just makes travel impossible for anyone but natives. Logic is capitulation to unwelcome outsiders.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
D.C. is bad because ... 2) all the Yankees moving in have stripped it of its southern charm.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bad thing?

[BigPoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
D.C. is bad because ... 2) all the Yankees moving in have stripped it of its southern charm.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bad thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ever heard of Yankee charm?



I've heard both St Louis and Lousiville described as "a city of Northern charm and Southern efficiency".

[bcubed72]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
D.C. is bad because ... 2) all the Yankees moving in have stripped it of its southern charm.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bad thing?

[/ QUOTE ]

According to any of my (VA raised) mom's side of the family, it's a sure sign of the apocalypse. Most of the "typical" southerners can't live in their home towns unless they were fortunate enough to already own property there...in which case they've done well. This is a problem through much of the South, not just D.C.

[BigPoppa]

[ QUOTE ]
Thinly concealed brag post that you've been to Naples?


[/ QUOTE ]

Was in the Navy, been all over the Northern Med.

Naples is the only port I'd pay money not to go back to.

[kidcolin]

My sister's BF was a navy dude and lived in Naples a bit. He loved it. To each his own I guess.

[Blarg]

Most of us these days can't live anywhere unless we own property. We just go cram into some rathole and rent, unless we want to go on welfare or such. Everybody is moving out of everywhere, basically. "Typical" young people don't own.