Chattanooga, TN is the worst place I've been to, though it was only for a day. Dirty, strange, lots of loitering and for some reason they have a lot of stray dogs. Maybe I got them on a bad day but I won't be back...

Well, I'm not interested in talking shit about anyone's home town, so I'll temper top 3 shitlist with a nice thing to say about my least favorite cities.

As a history nerd, San Francisco is like a playground if you're doing the tourist-thing, and I enjoy doing that there. But, on balance, I always think "I'm glad I don't have to live here" every time I leave.

San Diego isn't a bad city, really. But, for our region of the States, it has officially replaced Los Angeles as the destination of people who are bored of their lives and want something bigger by moving to a new place. The end result? Overrated. Most of those people get disillusioned and move back or elsewhere. Visiting doesn't change your life or inspire you. It's just another big metropolis that happens to have really good weather. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'm not sure really what to say about Boise, Idaho. I guess it's sort of scenic....Somehow, the smell (which stretches over the entire city) doesn't seem to match the view.

DETROIT.

Hands down the worst city I've ever been to. I've been there several times to play and it's depressing and horrible.

I hate Atlanta.

It's exhibit A as to why cities should be built near large bodies of water.

I still can't believe that so many people hate Detroit. I guess it's an obvious city to bash, but at least it's interesting. Are you trying to tell me that Detroit is worse than Orlando? Fuck that.

same wrote:I still can't believe that so many people hate Detroit. I guess it's an obvious city to bash, but at least it's interesting. Are you trying to tell me that Detroit is worse than Orlando? Fuck that.

Orlando. yeah. Orlando. I agree.

I'm going to post an addendum to my previous entry, as it IS a separate 'city'..

Say: EAST ST. LOUIS.

Collapsed sewers, no trash pickup, huge industrial incinerators, predatory poverty that is awesome in its scope. I'm not going to say any more...just google it. Some good people, for sure, but...unbelievable. You won't see your country the same after spending some time there.

Being the geography nerd, I'm fascinated with these small cities that name themselves as the East/West/South/North BIG CITY in some neighboring state or county.

Like East St. Louis, IL, or East Chicago, IN, or South San Francisco in San Mateo county, etc.

West Hollywood is the only city off the top of my head that's actually more interesting than Hollywood, the L.A. neighborhood itself. (Hell, even North Hollywood is more interesting than Hollywood, so fish, barrel, etc.) Otherwise, these directional prefixes just seem to either damn the future of the city in question, don't they? (Rhetorically speaking)

Would Evanston be the same if it was called North Chicago?

rayj wrote:I'm going to post an addendum to my previous entry, as it IS a separate 'city'..

Say: EAST ST. LOUIS.

Collapsed sewers, no trash pickup, huge industrial incinerators, predatory poverty that is awesome in its scope. I'm not going to say any more...just google it. Some good people, for sure, but...unbelievable. You won't see your country the same after spending some time there.

Wow. You are not kidding. Those are all within the first two pages of Google Images, too.

Yep. Most of my friends have a 'gun in the face' story associated with North St. Louis.

South St. Louis...my old hangout...isn't a whole lot better, either. Unless you live in the richer sections, where very tall iron fences reign supreme, streets are walled off, and cops are lounging about on the corner 24-7.

Oh, and the cops. I could go on a bit there, but I'll spare you. A couple were cool, for the record, but...well, then there's the OTHERS.

Wait...this reply was to a post that just disappeared. Something about North St. Louis. Sorry about the nonsense...