Which city do you think would be really good if it had less people?

[HighPlainsDrifter73]

While I live in the Chicago area, I just can't stand how big the whole area is. Too many people seems to equate to too many problems. In my frequest travels over the last several years of rural western states, the ideal population size for a 'city' is in the range of 20-50 thousand, with small towns from 500-2000.

These size cities and towns will generally not suffer the big city problems of overcrowding, congestion and crime. As I've mentioned before, I'm not fan of high-density living. That's just not the way to live. High-density housing reminds me of hearding cattle into a pen. That may be OK for animals on their way to the slaughter, but not for human beings. Fortunately, we still have a choice to where we want to live - for now!

[StuckPA]

Originally Posted by dumpstermcnuggets

I just don't think I can stand the fast pace of Chicago anymore, and the annoying chokehold that Dems seem to have on every political office in Chicago, and Illinois. And don't get me started on all the 'do-gooder' crap they always try to pass, such as smoking bans, the excessive taxation local politicians are addicted to, and etc. I'm done with this rant, and'll just do my best to try to cope that I'll inevitably be stuck in IL for the next few years.

Ah a fellow Stuck-ite