City Sizes.

[balletomane]

Originally Posted by Tosin007

Wow 1,000 is absolutely tiny! For me I say Vernon & Brandon are my Cut of, but Something about Nelson BC has me really attracted to it, for a City under 10,000 I'm blown away by it's natural setting/ beauty.

I used to live rural and would visit communities of 1,000 or less for sports tournaments or family gatherings all the time. Some people on here couldn't handle living in a place of under 1 million, but 1,000 isn't that scary!

[niwell]

To answer the original question, I'd say there's probably no "too big". Toronto feels about the right size to me but could easily live in a bigger city if I had to. You usually carve out your area of living and it isn't that intimidating.

Smallest? I dunno. I've lived in Iqaluit and actually had anxiety all the time about how small it was. Been all over Northern Ontario and absolutely could NOT do it. I've often said I could see myself retiring in a place like Ottawa. But there are also places in Europe that are far smaller and have a lot going on.

As for this weird terrorism tangent, what the shit? Your chances of falling victim to random crime are MUCH higher than any extremist actions, pretty much wherever you are. I'm actually considering spending a year in South Africa where the chances of getting murdered are literally hundreds (thousands?) of times higher than falling victim to a terrorist attack in, say, Paris.

[WhipperSnapper]

Agreed. Larger cities are compartmentalize into neighbourhoods of all densities and, scales. Size is only relative while moving about and how much moving about depends on the completeness and desired form of the neighbourhood. Every amenity I like is within one or two kilometres of my house. You usually don't get that in a small town.

[north 42]

I'd say about 250,000 is my lower limit if no larger city is close by, and a city about the size of Toronto is my upper limit, although I love London England, and wanted to move there when I first visited years Ago! I love huge, international cities to visit, but I feel that I might not enjoy living in them too much nowadays. I love to be able to get out into the countryside without too much effort, so most mega cities would make that hard to achieve.
I loved living in Toronto in the early 80s, it was an easy city to live in back then, and I love living in Windsor now, super easy living, but still in a region of our 4M!

[GeneralLeeTPHLS]

Hm.....I never thought about this. I think I could be fine with something as small as around 30,000 (Stratford) and all the way up to Toronto...but not much bigger or smaller.

[biguc]

Living in Winnipeg is ok, it has most of the amenities I want, and a passable level of urbanite That goes for some smaller cities too. I really like the idea of living in Victoria, for example, because they're gradually pulling off a large area of midrise density. That's pretty impressive in a North American context. If they'd build a light rail line, it would be about as good as small-midsize cities get.

I don't know that I could live in a city smaller than 350k--at least on this continent--because smaller cities tend to come with an overwhelming suburban mentality. They haven't yet been forced to bear the costs of sprawl, and a lot of people like that they can live in a tract house a ten minute drive from the centre of town. But it makes the city worse, and I hate to care about a place that's failing in slow motion.

Anyway, for all that midsized cities can offer a lot, they are stifling. If you want to get involved in the arts, a sport, or a particular music scene, you can do that, but you'd better like the people in that scene because you're going to have no choice but to deal with them. Even if you go out drinking, get used to seeing the same as shoes. Get used to foregoing events because you feel familiar contempt for the people who are going to be there. Life in a midsized city is akin to living in a blown up highschool: those who are into it are in cliques, and everyone else is blowing through on their way to something greater.

I'm not sure where to draw the line between midsize and big cities. Vancouver and Amsterdam seem to sit around the division, but still on the midsized side. By 5 million, cities are clearly big, and 5 million seems to be the sweet spot where my favourite cities sit. Berlin (and Germany's other big cities) and Barcelona offer endless neighbourhoods, comprehensive and efficient transportation systems, and vibrant public spaces. Montreal is on its way to 5 million now, and embarking on an exciting transportation expansion, I expect them to lay in this sweet spot soon too.

Upward of 5 million, the quality of the city is dependent on how it moves its population. I'd live in Toronto as is, but its transportation system is up against the wall. With a few more million people, and without continued massive investment, it's at risk of ending up like London, which is awful to get around and pretty unlivable as a result.

On the other hand, Shanghai has the population of Canada served by twice the number of metro lines as exist in Canada, and they're aggressively expanding their metro. Shanghai is staggeringly huge, but it's a breeze to get around, and I'd gladly live there. I'm not sure I'd say the same for other mega cities, say, Jakarta or Lagos, that aren't so well infrastructured. But I would be down to try!

[Tosin007]

Originally Posted by balletomane

I used to live rural and would visit communities of 1,000 or less for sports tournaments or family gatherings all the time. Some people on here couldn't handle living in a place of under 1 million, but 1,000 isn't that scary!

Haha are u sure about 1,000? I'd say below 8,000 or 9,000 you can't get remotely enough there to provide any form of entertainment to a passable degree. (Just not enough people), you pretty much have to travel or entertain yourself @ that point.

[isaidso]

8 million+ is my minimum but I want to live in Canada so settled so I'm waiting it out in Toronto. Toronto was growing rapidly in size when I moved here in 2001. It was clearly transitioning into the type of city I wanted to live in. It required a long term horizon but it's been worth it thus far.

Another 1.5 million people, 2 more subway lines, another 200,000 people downtown, a new major museum or gallery please, and the rail deck park? It should start coming together around 2030?

[Tosin007]

Originally Posted by north 42

I'd say about 250,000 is my lower limit if no larger city is close by, and a city about the size of Toronto is my upper limit, although I love London England, and wanted to move there when I first visited years Ago! I love huge, international cities to visit, but I feel that I might not enjoy living in them too much nowadays. I love to be able to get out into the countryside without too much effort, so most mega cities would make that hard to achieve.
I loved living in Toronto in the early 80s, it was an easy city to live in back then, and I love living in Windsor now, super easy living, but still in a region of our 4M!

I agree with you to a degree, I just like value open space a whole lot more, (Which is why I don't care a whole lot for Megacities). To me Toronto offer's enough anyway's I wouldn't necessarily need to live somewhere bigger. (Though I guess I could), just wouldn't want to though.

[Tosin007]

Originally Posted by isaidso

8 million+ is my minimum but I want to live in Canada so settled so I'm waiting it out in Toronto. Toronto was growing rapidly in size when I moved here in 2001. It was clearly transitioning into the type of city I wanted to live in. It required a long term horizon but it's been worth it thus far.

Another 1.5 million people, 2 more subway lines, another 200,000 people downtown, a new museum please, and the rail deck park? It should start coming together around 2030?

Sounds to me like your just clearly one of those People that like Big Cities, no hard feelings I guess, personally to me I feel Cities become somewhat too big when even 1 Fraction of percentage of the people there equal's clearly thousands of people already. (But Meh that's just me), I guess common sense isn't really a well known thing. I just find population's somewhat unnecessary or excessive past a Certain Point. If a City has vastly more people than you could know, any desire for living there is reduced to the point of me ignoring any reason for wanting to go other than to visit alone.

[Tosin007]

Originally Posted by niwell

To answer the original question, I'd say there's probably no "too big". Toronto feels about the right size to me but could easily live in a bigger city if I had to. You usually carve out your area of living and it isn't that intimidating.

Smallest? I dunno. I've lived in Iqaluit and actually had anxiety all the time about how small it was. Been all over Northern Ontario and absolutely could NOT do it. I've often said I could see myself retiring in a place like Ottawa. But there are also places in Europe that are far smaller and have a lot going on.

As for this weird terrorism tangent, what the shit? Your chances of falling victim to random crime are MUCH higher than any extremist actions, pretty much wherever you are. I'm actually considering spending a year in South Africa where the chances of getting murdered are literally hundreds (thousands?) of times higher than falling victim to a terrorist attack in, say, Paris.

Good points I guess. Yeah Iqaluit is a bit small I guess.. :/
Northern Ontario I guess it depends on where, I don't think "Sudbury" is so small anymore. North Bay hit/ miss. When u get to TBay I think it's size doesn't matter as much as how remote it is.
I've noticed alot of people seem to like Ottawa though.
(Which is always nice to see)!
& I dunno just wanted to bring up the "Terrorism" thing to garner more discussion. But based on our modern World today u do have to assume some Countries have better measures to battle extremism/ counter terrorism than other's. It all has to do with Foreign Policy. I think Canada is blessed & Canadians don't have to worry about Transparency as much as US & many European Countries. But yes in a World that is consistently @ conflict with itself. (For 1 reason or another), terrorism is a real threat/ concern & many of the World's Largest Cities suffer from it @ an increased frequency unseen @ any point in human history. (Likely more since the time I was born), so it is a real legitimate concern. Every Era has one.
For example you go far back enough in the History of Europe & Black Death used to be a concern. Today? Not anymore!
You also go back in the History of the United States & the Great Depression was a legitimate concern. Today it just so happens to be Terrorism, but who know's what it will be for our Predecessor's to come after us.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Tosin007

Sounds to me like your just clearly one of those People that like Big Cities, no hard feelings I guess, personally to me I feel Cities become somewhat too big when even 1 Fraction of percentage of the people there equal's clearly thousands of people already. (But Meh that's just me), I guess common sense isn't really a well known thing. I just find population's somewhat unnecessary or excessive past a Certain Point. If a City has vastly more people than you could know, any desire for living there is reduced to the point of me ignoring any reason for wanting to go other than to visit alone.

I was born in London UK and my family emigrated to Canada (Halifax) when I was 11. Those are the formative years when we develop our sense of the world around us. We may move to other places and develop an affinity/love of another culture, as I did, but certain things have stuck with me my whole life. I'm most comfortable in a big city. I appreciated my time in Halifax and have a soft spot for it but knew early on that it's not a place I could stay permanently.

In my experience, a lot of people are like that. The size of city they're most comfortable in is correlated to the size of place they spent their first 10 years. Small town folk may move to the big city, but many end up moving back to a small town ... perhaps a little bigger than the one they grew up in. The small town friends I have who live in Toronto all live in areas with less density. None of them like living downtown. It's not true of all people of course.

I love the energy and sense of permanence one gets in massive cities. The constant flood of people, noises, smells, attractions, etc. I've always taken comfort in the monumentality of big cities/big buildings. It grounds me. A lot of people are drawn to the anonymity of big cities. I certainly am.

I do love nature but prefer visiting it. Strangely, if I couldn't live in a big city I'd live in the middle of nowhere a 10-20km trek to the nearest town. It's big city (Toronto or bigger) or wilderness. I don't get the point of anything in between. You don't get the urban delights of a big metropolis and you don't get full on nature. It's the worst of both worlds imo.

[Tosin007]

Originally Posted by Marshal

Why should I say something to victims of terrorist violence? Their suffering proves your point? Hardly.

The most I will give you is this: terrorists are selective with their targets. Often symbolic, but there are two types: 1)the centre of power, and also 2) the periphery. The first includes centres of political or economic power, hence world capitals; the second is to project terror into the unlikely places, hence San Bernardino, in order to instill terror in the public at large (getting people to think, "if it happened in that suburban bar, it could happen in my bar." So, when a train explodes outside London, ON, don't be surprised.

But, that is all beside the point. The point, for me, is that it is fully irrational to choose the kind or size of city you prefer based on the likelihood of a terror attack. Yes, a bomb in Paris is more likely than in Thunder Bay. But Paris has 10+ million people. Calculate the odds of a single Parisian being in that bombing will show you, statistically, that the risk is virtually the same as the near zero risk in Thunder Bay. Your assertions are irrational, and so they are wrong.

You are also wrong about being able to avoid auto accidents . . . you are forgetting about pedestrian - auto contact. You can only avoid this by staying home (even then, the odds of you being killed by a car that comes through the wall of your house are similar to those of being killed in Canada by a terrorist.)

Here is an analogy. I worry about drowning (again roughly equal odds to death by a terrorist), so I am moving to a city without a river, lake or ocean. If the terror logic works for you, then so should this. It's a stupid analysis.

"Hate me or love me but I am still [wrong]."
"Even being innocent & minding ur own business in such a place is not actually "enough" to protect you." Right, but this is not limited to terror attack, it includes everything. Some of Canada's worse mass murders have happened in small towns or cities. Heard of Tabor? Heard of Calgary? These two alone blow your argument out of the water.

"Only living somewhere else IS." We all travel, so we don't get to protect ourselves as you claim. You are wrong in that too.

Bottom line: You exaggerate the terrorist threat. Period.

I have to get to work, so no more from me.

That's the thing though I don't really think
I am exaggerating the Terror thing because even if the likelihood essentially remains the same in a City like Thunder Bay or Paris.
(As u put it). The fact that it even happens more frequency in Paris.
(& doesn't in Thunder Bay), Proves the point exactly.
(That it still happens more frequently in Major Metropolitan Cities & Centre's of Business/ Finances etc.) Saying just because It may not happen to you is a defeatist argument. It's the same as Americans love to use whenever
they say "Most of Chicago is safe" it really wouldn't matter if it is, the very fact that it's happening @ all is proof of it being a problem. (One that cannot be mitigated btw by virtue of the population already). Crime has a spill over JUST like Terrorism does also. You cannot predict these things, terrorism on the other hand u can know full well the places that have greater risk though (Which is a bigger difference than predicting crime itself). Take this for example. Whenever a terrorist attack Happens typically if we are even going by murder Rates it skew's that entire City several times greater than it would ur average or typical City. (Most victims are innocent right?) So it's the same thing as 10 People being murdered randomly (For sake of example), in a small town, which is just as rare (If not moreso). You still have to factor without the terrorism Big Cities STILL have Homicides so now u have 2 things to think about instead of 1 alone. I honesty don't believe it's irrational @ all. Take the likelihood of being killed from an Earthquake.
How come u don't live in a City with a higher risk of Earthquakes than one u currently live in? The Probability is still low u die from one, but just the presence of it existing @ all is enough reason to NOT live somewhere like this correct? So why would terrorism be any different? Think about it, I would feel safer going to a concert or nightclub or w/e in a much Smaller City than I would in Paris or London or any other Major Metropolitan City, because in those places u just don't really know who u can trust or might actually want to give the people there a really bad time. (You can only know this with greater certainty in much smaller Centres). It is simply impossible to do so once a City reaches a Certain size. & no I'm not really wrong, because if the Town or Village is small enough, maybe nobody really drives?
Maybe everybody lives within walking distance of where it is they need to go? Take Iqaluit for example. How many Car's are on the Road in that City?
Do they even really have roads?Why can't you just ADMIT when I am right?
More People where killed in Paris in 1 Day from Terrorism. 9/11 in 1 Day than anybody will EVER be killed in Thunder Bay in like 10-20 years
ALONE. (& they where ALL Innocent), the only thing that would have saved these people is if they did NOT live in these places. That's IT! Nothing else is going to do it. 1 Random Act of Violence from a Terrorist is greater than
ALL the Homicides Combined in a Small Town over an extremely long period of time. (It wouldn't even have to matter how rare it's occurrence was). Just the risk ALONE makes it NOT worth it. Just like why I choose not to live in Sendai Japan because 1 powerful Earthquake. (As rare as it IS in most of Japan), kills Thousands when it gets THAT bad & everyone is innocent. Just choosing NOT to live there ALONE reduces that risk to Zero. (As low as it may be for some). After all not everyone in Japan dies from Earthquakes right? But enough still do to keep ALOT of people from living there. Terrorism is the SAME way. So my argument is right, your's is incorrect. There's a reason Global News & several other Countries as well, place Cities based on Terror Risk. Because it fucking Matter's & whether u like it or believe it or not, to some people they think EXACTLY the same way I do.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2071369/ex...treal-toronto/
EXCLUSIVE: Terrorist threat levels highest in Vancouver, Edmonton, Montreal, Toronto

^So lets see u get yourself out of this one! If I'm now WRONG according to you, then why even bring it up? Why even have a Terror Threat Risk/ Index if it doesn't exist?

[vid]

A lot of people like to say, "If you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere".

I counter that with, "If you can't make it in Thunder Bay, you can't make it anywhere."

Regardless, Tosin's argument is kind of stupid. I live beside a rail yard. Gas trains go behind my house and cross a 110 year old bridge to put it into flimsy steel tanks on an island which I can see from my home. (In the summer, 45+ year old ships dock up beside it.) One mistake and all of that could explode. Is Thunder Bay less safe than New York? Less safe than Lac Mégantic? Should I move? Simply by living here, I have a higher likelihood of being murdered than anyone in Toronto, a higher likelihood of getting cancer than someone living in New York, and a shorter life expectancy than someone living in Paris. That alone should keep people from living here!!

ISIS won't target our city because there is no real target for them here. What will they bomb? The Persian Man? But the likelihood of me being killed by an abusive partner? That's twice as high in this city than a city like Toronto. When I get in my car and drive somewhere, the risk of being involved in a collision is higher here than in Toronto. Terrorism is attention grabbing, but those small risks are more likely to kill people. Two or three people in this city of 100,000 have died in the past year by simply crossing the street at the wrong time—dozens more have been injured. If the GTA had the same rate, vehicle-pedestrian collisions resulting in injury would be an hourly occurance. Deaths every week. The news would be full of stories about people getting run over because a car ran a red light or turned at the wrong time. Weigh the number of people who cross streets here versus Toronto (fewer people walk) and the likelihood of being run over as a pedestrian in this city far exceeds the same likelihood for Torontonians. And that's a consequence of doing something as simple as walking.

By Tosin's metric, the most dangerous place in Canada must be a Quebec college because that's where most of our mass killings have happened. Those brave Quebecois! Every CEGEP diploma is a miracle.

Terrorism is a single factor in the safety of a city. It's not the only one.

[Tosin007]

Originally Posted by vid

A lot of people like to say, "If you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere".

I counter that with, "If you can't make it in Thunder Bay, you can't make it anywhere."

Regardless, Tosin's argument is kind of stupid I live beside a rail yard. Gas trains go behind my house and cross a 110 year old bridge to put it into flimsy steel tanks on an island which I can see from my home. (In the summer, 45+ year old ships dock up beside it.) One mistake and all of that could explode. Is Thunder Bay less safe than New York? Less safe than Lac Mégantic? Should I move? Simply by living here, I have a higher likelihood of being murdered than anyone in Toronto, a higher likelihood of getting cancer than someone living in New York, and a shorter life expectancy than someone living in Paris. That alone should keep people from living here!!

ISIS won't target our city because there is no real target for them here. What will they bomb? The Persian Man? But the likelihood of me being killed by an abusive partner? That's twice as high in this city than a city like Toronto. When I get in my car and drive somewhere, the risk of being involved in a collision is higher here than in Toronto. terrorism is attention grabbing, but those small risks are more likely to kill people. Two or three people in this city of 100,000 have died in the past year by simply crossing the street at the wrong time—dozens more have been injured. If the GTA had the same rate, vehicle-pedestrian collisions resulting in injury would be an hourly occurance. The news would be full of stories about people getting run over because a car ran a red light or turned at the wrong time. Weigh the number of people who cross streets here versus Toronto (fewer people walk) and the likelihood of being run over as a pedestrian in this city far exceeds the same likelihood for Torontonians. And that's a consequence of doing something as simple as walking.

By Tosin's metric, the most dangerous place in Canada must be a Quebec college because that's where most of our mass killings have happened. Those brave Quebecois! Every CEGEP diploma is a miracle.

How is it stupid if their are people that ACTUALLY discuss these things/ sensitive topics that are NOT myself? Just because u feel uncomfortable talking about this doesn't mean I'm not right it means u are deliberately IGNORANT of fact's that's all that it means take these articles.
(NOT WRITTEN BY ME BTW).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Terrorism_Index
^The Global Terrorism Index (GTI) is an attempt to systematically rank the nations of the world according to terrorist activity.

http://nypost.com/2017/01/28/trump-l...s-banned-list/
^Trump left Countries with high terror risk off his banned list!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/tr...tion-hubs.html
^How safe is your next trip? Map reveals
Turkey, France and Germany among countries
at 'high risk' of terror attacks as experts
call for airport security to extend beyond terminals

http://www.escapehere.com/trending-t...-terror-risks/
^8 Interesting Travel Destinations With Low Terror Risks

Oh but I'm the fool right? I'm the idiot you can find anything online if u look for it. Their IS such a thing as being able to rank Cities or even Countries based on perceived terror risks/ threat's it is completely possible to do so. It's not even me that believes it is, these Articles I have shared proves I'm not even the only one that thinks so & know's full well that it IS!
Don't complain when people know more than you do.
The fact is people discuss these things because it is perfectly RATIONAL to do so. Otherwise it would only be me right? Their would be ZERO articles to back me up because their would be no reason to necessitate such a study.

[Tosin007]

Originally Posted by vid

A lot of people like to say, "If you can make it in New York, you can make it anywhere".

I counter that with, "If you can't make it in Thunder Bay, you can't make it anywhere."

Regardless, Tosin's argument is kind of stupid. I live beside a rail yard. Gas trains go behind my house and cross a 110 year old bridge to put it into flimsy steel tanks on an island which I can see from my home. (In the summer, 45+ year old ships dock up beside it.) One mistake and all of that could explode. Is Thunder Bay less safe than New York? Less safe than Lac Mégantic? Should I move? Simply by living here, I have a higher likelihood of being murdered than anyone in Toronto, a higher likelihood of getting cancer than someone living in New York, and a shorter life expectancy than someone living in Paris. That alone should keep people from living here!!

ISIS won't target our city because there is no real target for them here. What will they bomb? The Persian Man? But the likelihood of me being killed by an abusive partner? That's twice as high in this city than a city like Toronto. When I get in my car and drive somewhere, the risk of being involved in a collision is higher here than in Toronto. Terrorism is attention grabbing, but those small risks are more likely to kill people. Two or three people in this city of 100,000 have died in the past year by simply crossing the street at the wrong time—dozens more have been injured. If the GTA had the same rate, vehicle-pedestrian collisions resulting in injury would be an hourly occurance. Deaths every week. The news would be full of stories about people getting run over because a car ran a red light or turned at the wrong time. Weigh the number of people who cross streets here versus Toronto (fewer people walk) and the likelihood of being run over as a pedestrian in this city far exceeds the same likelihood for Torontonians. And that's a consequence of doing something as simple as walking.

By Tosin's metric, the most dangerous place in Canada must be a Quebec college because that's where most of our mass killings have happened. Those brave Quebecois! Every CEGEP diploma is a miracle.

Terrorism is a single factor in the safety of a city. It's not the only one.

Risk of Death exists everywhere. (@ the end of the day everyone dies anyways), however terrorism is 1 of those things you can mitage FAR more easily than ur average intentional homicide, are u saying u can't?
When was the last time their was a major Terrorist Attack in Japan for example? (Just for sake of example). Do people still die in Japan! Yeah?
Are their still homicides in Japan? Again yeah. But compare its Cities when it comes to terrorism with New York, or Paris, or London, or Istanbul or Orlando, & u can see that the risk of being killed in Japan is NOT the same as it is in these places. (That's just observable reality). You can be killed anywhere sure, but the likelihood is way way higher outside of Japan for example for the risk of terrorism ALONE. Just because u can avoid being a Homicide victim in the West doesn't mean u can avoid being a Victim or Terrorism (Which is completely different). Terrorism is NOT the same as ordinary homicide. If we go by Homicide most Cities are safe. If we go by Terror Risk NOT all Cities are equally safe.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by Tosin007

^So lets see u get yourself out of this one! If I'm now WRONG according to you, then why even bring it up? Why even have a Terror Threat Risk/ Index if it doesn't exist?

Tosin,

Terrorism threats exist in safe places like Canada simply because people (voters) are stupid and emotional. The media sensationalizes terrorist acts as it triggers emotions in many people and leads to more viewers (advertising revenue), and politicians know they can win elections by leveraging the threat perceptions and emotions of the gullible and naive public. Humanity is generaly not logical or well informed but those who profit and capitalize on the nature of the world are generally logical. If you understand that, you will understand why the world works as it does.

[Tosin007]

Originally Posted by mistercorporate

Tosin,

Terrorism threats exist in safe places like Canada simply because people (voters) are stupid and emotional. The media sensationalizes terrorist acts as it triggers emotions in many people and leads to more viewers (advertising revenue), and politicians know they can win elections by leveraging the threat perceptions and emotions of the gullible and naive public. Humanity is generaly not logical or well informed but those who profit and capitalize on the nature of the world are generally logical. If you understand that, you will understand why the world works as it does.

I guess so.. But u also have to see/ observe where there happening, who's carrying them out, why, how, when etc. That's how u reduce that particular risk to your person. Could u & are u still inevitably going to die from something else? Absolutely! But their are common sense way's to extend your life further that are cheap, easy & free. If u don't feel comfortable wherever it is u live, then just move. Perhaps move to a Homogenous Country, a "Small Country" or one that put's it's people ahead of other's. Could Terrorism still happen to you there? Well ya. But then the likelihood of u being killed by something else is FAR, FAR greater than from Terrorism isn't it? After all Terrorism is an ideology, if ur Country does NOT practice such an ideology or brings people in that do, then what are ur chances of it happening to your person? Practically zero & that point. In that case the only thing u would really have to worry about @ that point is the standard intentional homicide (Which plagues all Countries in the World btw), & of course just death by natural causes.
Make no mistake Terrorism is type of Homicide, is is NOT the only Homicide & there's a HUGE difference between the two.

[HillStreetBlues]

My thoughts are similar to biguc's. I lived in Bogota for a few years, which is about ten million, but maybe a little less than eight when I was there (no one knows exactly). I loved it, but in reality I lived between my neighbourhood and the one I worked in, and the ones with amenities that attracted me. That was true even for me as a foreigner making an effort to get around and explore. For locals, their knowledge of their one area of the city was very deep, and might be shockingly absent about other parts. I don't see a downside to a very large city.

But, that's contingent (for me) on the ability to get around fairly easily, and out of the city when desired.

Like biguc, I couldn't live in a very small centre on this continent. I could in Europe. I did an exchange in Germany in high school in a town of less than ten thousand, but their mentality was different than small town Canada. An important bit for me, if you live in a town or small city like that in many parts of Europe, you can get around without a car.

The town (in Ontario) my wife grew up near has about 3,200 people. We've talked about it, and couldn't live there- it has a grocery store and some coffee shops, but not much else. In contrast, when we went to visit the town in Europe my father was born in, it's almost exactly half the size, but has all of the necessities one needs for day-to-day, and then some. And is dense enough that you can walk to them. And, if you want some excitement, you can take a bus to a larger town, or a small city, or to the capital. In my wife's hometown, if you for some reason find yourself unable to drive, you are sunk.

So it depends where we're talking. I don't think I have a lower limit, in places where even small settlements are densely-organized.

[Tosin007]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I was born in London UK and my family emigrated to Canada (Halifax) when I was 11. Those are the formative years when we develop our sense of the world around us. We may move to other places and develop an affinity/love of another culture, as I did, but certain things have stuck with me my whole life. I'm most comfortable in a big city. I appreciated my time in Halifax and have a soft spot for it but knew early on that it's not a place I could stay permanently.

In my experience, a lot of people are like that. The size of city they're most comfortable in is correlated to the size of place they spent their first 10 years. Small town folk may move to the big city, but many end up moving back to a small town ... perhaps a little bigger than the one they grew up in. The small town friends I have who live in Toronto all live in areas with less density. None of them like living downtown. It's not true of all people of course.

I love the energy and sense of permanence one gets in massive cities. The constant flood of people, noises, smells, attractions, etc. I've always taken comfort in the monumentality of big cities/big buildings. It grounds me. A lot of people are drawn to the anonymity of big cities. I certainly am.

I do love nature but prefer visiting it. Strangely, if I couldn't live in a big city I'd live in the middle of nowhere a 10-20km trek to the nearest town. It's big city (Toronto or bigger) or wilderness. I don't get the point of anything in between. You don't get the urban delights of a big metropolis and you don't get full on nature. It's the worst of both worlds imo.

Aw ok I see, I guess that's understandable.
For me I like Big Cities for visiting, never for living in.
(Even Calgary Is starting to get vastly too big for me & where
even still under 2 Million in Population).
& aw ok ic ic I guess that's understandable really. Personally for me though (As much as those
things are appealing & I can understand/ respect a person's desire to live in such a place),
I just prefer Cities that are either well planned or have everything I need within Short order.
If a Big City cannot provide this for me then I simply prefer smaller ones if It means I can
own larger property without it hampering my commute a whole lot. I dunno I guess it depends on what u prefer.
If u own alot of Property in a Big City then getting to work is more of a pain.
But if u like Apartment life then I guess a Big City is for u if u like to save time.
You can't have both though. If u live in a smaller City (Not only can u own a larger house more easily).
But the Population alone makes ur commute easier on you than if u owned a similar property in a
thriving metropolis for example.
My only problem with Big Cities is they basically force u to have to live in an Apartment.
(Not that that's bad I just don't think it's for everyone).
Smaller Cities I find give u more options without necessarily having to worry about
unnecessary Pedestrian & Vehicular Traffic. (Which is why I prefer them anyways).
& ya I guess that's a good point/ way to think of things. (As far as nature is concerned of course).
I still think the inbetweens are perfect. People who live in Cities like Hamilton or Kitchener Waterloo.
(Or even Increasingly Guelph these days). I think have it much, much better than those that live in Toronto.
(Property Prices, Commuting, Urban Amenities, Dwelling Options, Nature etc.) I believe Toronto only truly
has Urban Amenities over them. It's just too prohibitively expensive to own a House in Toronto.
(& even those that do most likely work downtown & now must commute which takes longer than
someone living in a Smaller City with fewer people & cars on the road).
Toronto may have a Subway but it doesn't mean their are lines for every Suburb or Neighbourhood though,
you would still have to commute just to the station. (Whereas in another smaller City ur basically already @ work
by this time). But Meh that's just me. Not to nitpick but I like to over analyze things.
(Which is why I came to the conclusion that smaller Cities are the best overall). Like Mid Sized 400-500k.