Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I have visited European cities and doing anything requires huge time investments and careful planning.


sort by: page size:

Have you ever been in other European cities?

There are dozens of such cities all over Europe, doesn't seem that hard to me if you actually care about it as a goal!

I've read that some of the old cities of Europe are so difficult to get around in as to constitute a significant drag on economic activity.

Having lived in several European cities: You'll learn it by heart in about three months tops. If course it's trickier for a tourist.

This is a very romantic view of Europe. Some cities do it well, but try commuting into Paris, London, Brussels for a year.

Most European cities.

Certainly in a lot of Western Europe, there's a lot that's easily accessible by public transportation + a bit of taxi. But there are absolutely areas and sites that pretty much require you to be either driving or in a tour (which I generally dislike).

There is no comparison to be made between european cities where you can walk for hours and hours and see a thousand things vs americans cities where you will mostly spend your time crossing large streets. If you really believe this you probably never have been to Europe.

Europe is very different to SF. In Europe the term city planning is somewhat different. Most cities were built for horses and carts at best.

Berlin has a fantastic public transport system, but 70% of is less than 70 years old. Istanbul's public transport system is truly terrible, but it's a nearly 3,000 year old city that gets nearly a +/- 50 degree C temperature range over a year.

Paris has an ok metro, but in general public transport isn't that great compared to say, Berlin, London or Barcelona.

London has a ridiculously overdeveloped public transport system that will get you from a to b but it's massively oversubscribed and the roads are rammed most of the time. To be fair, London is generally oversubscribed and rammed most of the time.


Cities are nice to visit, but in the long run they are a bit of a grind.

What? Europe has tons of mass transit and walkable cities.

I have been to Paris, Berlin, Barcelona, Oslo ..Barcelona is a nice city, but it has the disadvantage of big cities.

I dunno. I’ve been to all of those European cities and they were nice to visit for a week as a tourist but the density along with everything that goes with it: noise, smells, crowds etc were always a reminder that I only want to be there on a brief visit. I’m my suburban city, I simply hop in my vehicle and can be anywhere I want in 3-15 minutes.

In europe there are plenty of walkable cities.

Given how many locations depend on having car available and public transport offerings are a joke even in Europe, I am more going into the deadlines being pushed back scenario.

Not everyone is living in Amsterdam, Berlin, London,... city center.


Most of them. At least most parts of most northern European cities that I have visited.

You know there are cities in Europe as well, right?

World-class theatre/opera, bands make a stop here on their tours, wide variety of restaurants, communities for some of my more specialised hobbies and interests. There are certainly costs, but big cities can offer a depth and variety of experiences that smaller ones can't.

Would you say european cities are a pile of crap? most of them were not built to plan
next

Legal | privacy