It isn’t “like” a bunch of cities smashed together, it actually is a bunch of cities smashed together. Inside the perimeter, it’s much more metropolitan.
Totally agree.
Any British dopers live there?
It looks gorgeous-what would be the downsides of living there?
Imagine, walking where Wordsworth walked…rural beauty…what’s the fly in the ointment?
-
Nutterswith guns (admittedly rare)
-
High unemployment - it’s pretty but there are no jobs around outside of the tourist trade, and those jobs don’t pay very well as a rule
-
Millions of tourists every year which often make roads impassable - 15.5 million people a year visit (bear in mind the population of the UK is only 60 million), and this is an area only 35 miles across.
-
Many (most?) villages taken over by holiday rentals, so no sense of community - Great Langdale, for example, is almost wholly owned by a holiday company.
-
It rains a lot, even by UK standards - it’s the wettest place in England
Tucson*, AZ. I actually did live there for the first 25 years of my life, and while I do enjoy visiting, I could never, ever live in that kind of climate again.
*I’d include Phoenix except it isn’t good to visit, either.
Totally agree #2. I never could figure out why The Powers That Be wanted so desperately to make it a tourist town back in the 80s-90s. I was all like - “But what would they do?”
Boston
There’s a lot of Historical Sights and Places of Cultural Importance in and around the city. With careful planning, you can see those in a week, two tops. After that, it’s just miserable weather, awful traffic, unrelenting rudeness and the landscape isn’t even pretty.
I thought this was a thread about the proposal to send astronauts on a one-way trip to Mars.
Anywhere in Utah. It’s beautiful, with the best wilderness and natural features, a nature lover’s dream vacation spot. The people though,… UGH!! Dry and boring, no nightlife, no culture, very white, Mormon ideology infests everything, non-Mormons get treated differently than Mormons.
I dunno, I mean the prospect of living in a big city (like Salt Lake) combined with the sunning beauty and skiing and naturey stuff close by sounds pretty darn enticing to me. But if in the city the Mormonism is like a disease, well then that wouldn’t be much fun.
SLC has a metro population of a little over a million, so it’s a bit of a stretch to call it a “big city”. It’s the 127th most populous US city.
Salt Lake City and Park City are less than 50% LDS, but the rest of the state makes up for it. LDS culture and Utah culture have kinda melded into one, and lots of people complain that LDS and Utah law have never really separated, either. I actually would love to live in Utah, for the usual reasons (so many great outdoor activities!) and because that’s where all my family is.
IMO, the real reason not to live in UT is that salaries are much lower than they are here in TX while the home prices are about double what they are in TX. A friend who recently defected to TX from UT believes that the reason is that so few employees are willing to separate from their families and their church’s HQ that the employers know they can get away with underpaying.
Ahhh, low salaries and high real estate. That’s a bummer.
Really Not All That Bright, it’s a decent sized city. If it has a Thai restaurant and an Indian restaurant, I’m good to go 
Oh, alright then. 
Haha despite the bizarre pictures throughout the website, should I ever visit SLC, I’ll be sure to stop in.
Hmm…yeah I hate to be boring but if we’re counting then I definately want to cast a vote for the big NYC. Even visiting the place made me a little stir crazy. I’m sorry I know a lot of people love it but I just can’t comprehend how anyone sane lives there…and I LOVE cities! I grew up in Pittsburgh (which btw is totally as awesome as everyone says it is) and I now live in DC (which is not as bad as everyone says it is). I just don’t get NYC. Chicago to me is like NYC but better.
Thoughts on San Fran: It’s been years since I’ve been there but my memories of it are it’s a BEAUTIFUL city…when you can see it through all the fog that is. I loved my time there but would never want to live there because of the climate. It was August for Jimminy’s sake and I was wearing long pants, a heavy sweatshirt, and wishing I had gloves. Yikes. Granted I was standing directly next to the water but still…
Laos. Vietnam.
Although that could change in coming years. I used to say the same about Cambodia, but I could see myself living in Phnom Penh or Siem Reap now.
Put me down as major cities as well. NY, LA, San Francisco, Boston, Chicago.
To be honest, about the only major city I have ever visited I would consider living within the boundries of is actually Amsterdam. I sort of was bitching about driving in the canal district/old town this past summer, but that was more a function of being in a freaking SUV. If I had been in my more normal jetta or equivalent sized car I wouldn’t have been so tweaked at the tiny streets. I liked it mainly because the people were really nice, and there was a very relaxed feel to the place. Probably all the bud =)
I loved Amsterdam, but because it’s a major city, I’d not be able to live there. I can sympathize with the SUV. I have an extended-length Expedition that I can’t stand driving in Mexico City. The only times I’ve driven downtown (versus taking a cab) is when the SUV was in for service and I was given a small Fusion.
I’ve heard lots of people say they like to visit London but wouldn’t want to live here, and it’s understandable - it’s really really busy here. If you like the suburbs then you’d like living on the outskirts of London (the boroughs that weren’t London till the 60s) but property there is still stupidly expensive.
I like visiting small towns and the countryside, but couldn’t live there. Practically speaking, I couldn’t live anywhere where I’d have to rely on a car, but I have lived in small places before and found it stifling. Canterbury, for example - it’s nice to visit but there’s no way I’d ever live there.
British libel laws are ridiculous, but they’re not exactly exclusive to London. It’s also an odd objection to have to living in a place; are you rich and famous and fond of insulting people? No? You’re safe, then.
Simon Singh won, btw. He should never have been sued in the first place, but at least the charlatans ended up hugely out of pocket.
I’m on a very low wage and manage to eat in lots of good food places. Within ten minutes’ walk of my flat there are cheap and extremely good restaurants for pretty much any cuisine you could name.
TBH, I’d say that if you’re eating out and want to pay pub food prices (where a main course costs less than an hour’s minimum wage) then I doubt many places in the world would offer you that great a choice.
There are lots of things wrong with London, but if you think the food is one of them, then that really is your problem.
Aside from what’s been mentioned above, it’s a very expensive place to live. It basically has a lot of the disadvantages that tourist areas generally have - high unemployment in the off-season, lots of retirees (could be a plus or a minus), disjointed community, etc - plus tons of rain.
However, it is very very pretty and is close to quite a few towns that do provide different kinds of jobs and opportunities for nights out.
Yeah Nebraska, and the Dakotas have the least unemployment, but they still have pockets of higher employment and a lot of it is helped because they are huge farming states with subsidies added to the fact there just aren’t a lot of people. But Fargo has a homeless problem as the unemployment rate is so low, people are moving there and there aren’t enough places.
The Dakotas are nice if you like a nice quiet life. Nebraska is similar though it does have Omaha as a medium sized city.