If you were extremely wealthy, which of these cities would you choose to live in? (luxury, living)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
01. Sydney: money doesn't really matter to me, I would live here regardless. Along with Miami and sister city Melbourne, Sydney is one of the only three places I'm looking into for permanent settlement. So yeah, being extraordinarily wealthy or being just ordinary, I don't care, it would be a top choice for me regardless.
02. London and Tokyo (tie): I already live in London and I really like it and in less than a year I'll get my hand at trying out Tokyo too. I have no doubt that I will be impressed with Tokyo. I've never been before, but if it's really as safe, big, bustling, active, infrastructurally sound, healthy, and advanced as I've been told it is, then no problems.
03. Hong Kong: I've been to Hong Kong twice in my life. Both times made me wish I lived there but this is the only city that I've ever been to that is far out of my league with regard to money. To live in a decent dwelling in Hong Kong requires an incredible amount of money, then to actually enjoy living in Hong Kong requires even more than just that. This is the most expensive city among these by far (when you take out the pauper class cage apartment housing from the rental prices or the shoebox crackerjack sized flats - both of which any sane person should refuse to ever live in). However the premise of this thread is if you had a surplus of excessive wealth, in that case, yes, Hong Kong, among these choices is top three for me. Only behind the cities ahead of it. I dig the food and street culture too.
Honorable mentions to New York and Paris.
On the flip side, here are the cities of the poll choices that I would never in my life live in. Never even want to entertain the idea of living in these cities either, ever. I would be very angry and dissatisfied if ever forced to live in these places.
Never:
01. Dubai: One of the worst things that's ever happened to me in my life was the 1993 Bombay Bombings. On my right leg I have scars and at a young age I experienced panic and trauma frequently due to these events. It took a few years for me to get over the events, especially because I was forced to watch it right in front of my eyes. Needless to say, terrorist attacks actually have a personal effect on people and this one did on me in a profound way since I was at the train platform when bombs started to go off. The terrorist responsible has been given asylum in Dubai where he lives and funds terror groups across the world. The reality is that the man is one of the world's most wanted terrorists and is wanted by practically every country that represents Democracy, but not in the United Arab Emirates, where he is given a second chance in life to hurt others. I could never live in a city like Dubai that gives terrorists asylum. On top of that, the city's human rights records, your personal civil liberties, and the culture shock are too great to ever give Dubai a fair chance. The only city I hate more than Dubai is Philadelphia, I'll give Dubai that much that if it were compared to Philadelphia, I'd take Dubai in a heartbeat even though I hate it. Otherwise, against anywhere else, Dubai, speaking only for myself, is poised to lose out to everyone else. I've been to Dubai, outside of my personal gripes with it, I found the actual physical city to be a whatever sort of place.
02. Los Angeles: This city is a disappointment because it has the potential to be better but it is not. I could never live here. It is a lousy city, in my opinion, I mean when you look at places like Tel-Aviv and Barcelona which have similar climate and topography but leagues superior architecture, urbanity, vibrancy, infrastructure, and just about everything else (minus food and ethnic diversity), it really is no question. I mean weather and scenery are supposed to be Los Angeles' strengths but if you're an American and you are open minded enough to live abroad in a foreign country, that appeal for Los Angeles shouldn't even matter. There are far superior cities out there in which to live in. Hell, even in California I vastly prefer San Diego, one of my favorite cities in all of America. The problem with Los Angeles is that you pay an arm or a leg (by American cost of living terms) to live there and with it you get ridiculously high levels of traffic, congestion, pollution, inadequate infrastructure, inferior architecture, inferior nightlife (where things close at 2 A.M. despite the city being world famous Hollywood), subpar urbanity and liveliness and all for what? To live in a mediocre place with multi-millions of other people that slow your life down since congestion and traffic take a huge toll on the region. No thanks, I'll pass.
03. San Francisco: Unlike Los Angeles, the city of San Francisco has much to offer and excite both residents and tourists alike with its architecture, a decent amount of pedestrian activity in selected corridors (nothing like most foreign countries but for America, great, I guess), and breathtaking scenery. The food and history are great aspects too and the suburbs and stuff are dope. The problem I have with San Francisco is that it is inhabited by San Franciscans. I just don't like San Franciscans as people, I don't like who they are. They are a huge turn off to me. I hate their political views, I hate their cultural tendencies, I hate how they act, how they talk, how they think. I just flat out don't like it. Again, among the major cities in California, I only really like and love San Diego. All the others are different variations of turn offs to me, just in different ways. If the people and their culture were different, say more like London, Sydney, or New York then I'd have no problem with this city because everything else (except enormous size) is already there.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 12-15-2016 at 06:26 PM..
If money was no object, I'd be like a celebrity in Los Angeles. I'd have a luxury mansion in the hills, while splitting time between the beaches and the clubs on the Sunset Strip.
In Europe I 'd probably choose other options, smaller cities, probably some city in Switzerland because of the mountains nearby. Paris and London are great holiday destinations but they are too crowded for me and the climate is not so great.
12-21-2016, 08:58 AM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 5 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,915,052 times
Reputation: 4052
What is the standard for extremely wealthy these days anyways for the absolute recent age of modernity? Above $70,000 or past the 1 million dollar mark regardless, I have equal close alliance to Paris, Hong Kong, Dubai, Tokyo, Sydney, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York City. They have all that I want without a doubt. Architecture, World Class Independent Cafes, Bars, Nightclub Discotheques, Restaurants, Well Balanced Lifestyle, and anything imaginable to support life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
