[valo403]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

Ironically, your earlier post about knowing not of what you speak assumedly applies here... While I merely said that it was a good city that is well designed, and not that it was superior to any other specific city or even that it was among the best cities on Earth, I still disagree with much of what you're saying.

I've spent an awful lot of time in Vancouver and Seattle and the two are incredibly different. Seattle is far less attractive, less natural and has a much more "blue collar urban" vibe to it whereas Vancouver is more metropolitan. This glosses over the differences between the two; suffice it to say I could not disagree more vehemently with that statement. If not for the similarities in climate you might as well be comparing Vancouver to Pittsburgh.

Further, while there are cities that Vancouver pales in comparison to, I wouldn't list the ones you did. Personally I think Zurich is the best city on the planet (that I've been to). Vienna, Stockholm, Amsterdam, Florence. I would definitely not want to live in Rome, Paris, or London for any extended period of time (especially not Rome). New York and Chicago are so vastly different that it's difficult to compare and I suspect that whatever criteria you're using would make it impossible for a smaller city to stack up. And criteria does determine this; for argument's sake, why isn't Amalfi the best city on the planet?

Italians