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.
my vote goes for any large industrial city of the NRW region in Germany. Essen, Dortmund, you name it -- not much to see. I didn't care much for Frankfurt either.
I have to agree. The industrial cities there are really ugly and bland, however, more exciting, urban, diverse and vibrant than any city/town in Southern Germany. IMO
I have to agree. The industrial cities there are really ugly and bland, however, more exciting, urban, diverse and vibrant than any city/town in Southern Germany. IMO
well, with the heavy industry comes massive wealth. the rich people have to spend their money on something -- hence the exciting, urban, vibrant, etc .
well, with the heavy industry comes massive wealth. the rich people have to spend their money on something -- hence the exciting, urban, vibrant, etc .
Basically, your statement is right but not in this case. The "Ruhrgebiet" is actually one of the more "run-down" and "poor" regions of Western Germany; the majority of the population being of working class or migrant background. I guess cities like Dortmund, Essen or Duisburg are quite comparable to places like Bradford or Birmingham regarding atmosphere, people and layout.
Hehe, I'm noticing Brussels gets a lot of bad press here. Admittedly, it's a city very hard to love. Most Belgians don't like it very much. Why? Because of its infernal traffic (in Europe and North America, only Milan counts for more traffic jams), because of its high crime and North African ghetto's (a quarter of the Brussels population consist of Muslims) and of course because of the fact that it is a political center (where many new taxes are concocted ).
But boring, I don't know: it's one of the most cosmopolitan cities in Europe, with a tremendous amount of different languages being spoken there, it has a lot of nightlife going on and there's like a gazillion cultural activities taking place at all time.
Hehe, I'm noticing Brussels gets a lot of bad press here. Admittedly, it's a city very hard to love. Most Belgians don't like it very much. Why? Because of its infernal traffic (in Europe and North America, only Milan counts for more traffic jams), because of its high crime and North African ghetto's (a quarter of the Brussels population consist of Muslims) and of course because of the fact that it is a political center (where many new taxes are concocted ).
But boring, I don't know: it's one of the most cosmopolitan cities in Europe, with a tremendous amount of different languages being spoken there, it has a lot of nightlife going on and there's like a gazillion cultural activities taking place at all time.
with all respect to your opinion, I would like to show you an article.
I think the words "dullest city" is not a very good choice. Better would have been the less exciting global city? Because dullest means it is boring. And for me it doesn't fits at all the way i feel bored in a city. I for example can feel very bored after 7 days in NYC! I didn't wanted to visit more museums, didn't want to feel asphixied by these 24h noise of Manhattan, didn't wanted to drive hours of subway to reach some quarters...i had enough of all these artificial light of Time Square. The choice of shops and restaurants are so huge that it isn't human anymore. There is potentially so much we can do, that we feel over-saturated. I mean, it's nice to see it for 2-3 days but then i had enough. And being honest: if a city has 10'000 restaurants or let's say "only" 2'000, does it mean that it is more boring?
A smaller city who has a human choice of diverse activities but are more varied than a huge city is in my opinion more attractive and less boring for living. A good mix of culture, possibilities of working, good night life (it really doesnt have to be vibrant as Bangkok!) and a lot of activities we can do outside the city (mountains, sea, lakes etc.) are much more interesting for me than a city who looks exciting with a lot of skyscrapers and artificial things. I mean for living in. Perhaps not for visiting it 2-3 days. When you have seen the Eiffel Tower once it becomes boring and you become boring of all these tourists, etc.
So for me the word "boring" is not a good choice.
The cities mentionned are perhaps "less exciting" i agree but not boring cities. IMO no "big" city in the world can be boring. For people having leaved in small villages i dont believe Brussels or Frankfurt would be boring. So it gives a bad opinion of these cities. Of course compared to the huge world-cities like Buenos Aires, Bangkok, NYC they can look boring but it's a wrong approach of what people feel as being boring. They are just less exciting ;-)
So the big question we have to ask is: are we talking about "dull" cities for 2-3 days of visiting or for living? That's 2 completely different things.
In addition to some already mentioned, I can't imagine that Belgrade is anything too exciting or friendly.
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.
.
The "Ruhrgebiet" is actually one of the more "run-down" and "poor" regions of Western Germany; the majority of the population being of working class or migrant background. I guess cities like Dortmund, Essen or Duisburg are quite comparable to places like Bradford or Birmingham regarding atmosphere, people and layout.
