As much as I like London and have lived here since 1995 the rest of the world's cities much a an absolute disaster to not beat London.
We have really expensive housing (thankfully I own my property) hordes of undesirables, the most expensive transport which is highly unreliable and such extreme gentrification that it has lost its edge.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 12 minutes later[^][v]#1,268,599
New York City almost always is #1 on these lists and the fact that it didn't place first, but third, tells me the metrics they're using must be complete bullshit.
The city is not without it's problems, but if you have the money, then there's no better place on earth to live. It's without a doubt the cultural, economic, and artistic capital of the world. Prove me wrong. Oh, wait, you can't.
> (thankfully I own my property)
lol. A one room hovel? Can't imagine you could own much more than a cardboard box with your salary. Or maybe you just inherited it or the money for it? That's fine too. Whatever it takes to survive, I say.
Anonymous B replied with this 2 years ago, 1 minute later, 16 minutes after the original post[^][v]#1,268,601
@previous (Throckmorton !dxiFV8kfVg) > NYC is certainly not the greatest place to live. It's a shithole and too compact.
As I said, if you have the money. If what you said applies, you simply don't have enough to afford a high enough floor in a nice enough building.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 2 years ago, 8 hours later, 10 hours after the original post[^][v]#1,268,647
@1,268,605 (Erik !saAqdaazn2)
LA beats SF every time. People that still push SF as being amazing are just techbros and finance banking nerds. It’s super overrated. LA sucks too for different reasons.