World's Friendliest and Unfriendliest Cities

[Henry]

Travel & Leisure Magazine put out its annual list of the 30 friendliest and 30 unfriendliest cities in the world. You're more than welcome to discuss these lists with your own thoughts.

[jeffandnicole]

#2 - Atlantic City.  "It's fun–if you like to gamble and don't mind rude, fast-paced people."  Yikes. Some readers wondered if the city, known these days for its less-than-lustrous casinos and boardwalk, was still reeling from the tragic blow struck by 2012's Hurricane Sandy."

Except the city was perfectly fine after Sandy.  The destroyed 'boardwalk' that was aired all over the country was actually...a destroyed boardwalk, nowhere near the casinos.  It was also scheduled to be completely demolished anyway.


For the 'Unfriendliest' cities, many of them seem to be their honor from being fast paced. Or, as they point out in St. Petersburg, "Travelers expressed disappointment in their St. Petersburg experience, suggesting they wanted something more from the city and its people".  So, congrats St. Pete, don't be yourself, I guess.

[Rothman]

I'm always amazed in travel magazines how much they focus on the hotels ("This city is great because -- hotels!").  I always think of hotels as where I want to spend the least amount of time when I want to get out sightseeing or whatnot.

[oscar]

Travel & Leisure Magazine put out its annual list of the 30 friendliest and 30 unfriendliest cities in the world. You're more than welcome to discuss these lists with your own thoughts.

I don't know about friendliest/unfriendliest cities, but I'd like to nominate Travel & Leisure's "lists" for gratuitously user-unfriendly presentation of information. Making us click through two 30+ item slideshows is just rude. Since there are no ads on most of the slideshow pages (unlike many other "clickbait" slideshows), there's not even a business excuse for putting us through that exercise. And not only are the photos not exceptional enough to justify the hassle, they don't always keep pace with the captions if you're trying to speed-read through the lists.

[Duke87]

I don't know about friendliest/unfriendliest cities, but I'd like to nominate Travel & Leisure's "lists" for gratuitously user-unfriendly presentation of information. Making us click through two 30+ item slideshows is just rude. Since there are no ads on most of the slideshow pages (unlike many other "clickbait" slideshows), there's not even a business excuse for putting us through that exercise. And not only are the photos not exceptional enough to justify the hassle, they don't always keep pace with the captions if you're trying to speed-read through the lists.

The slideshow format has gained popularity in website design likely due to the browsing of such pages occurring predominantly on mobile devices. For us sitting at our computers it seems ridiculous, but we're likely in the minority of people reading the list. To their target audience killing time on their phones, the screen is only big enough to view one item at a time anyway and swiping left to go to the next item is an easier way to control your position in the list than scrolling on a touch screen with your fingers. And if someone doesn't want to read through the whole list, loading only one item at a time saves the site bandwidth and saves its mobile viewers data.


As for the lists themselves, I draw no particular value from them. But then, when I travel, the people where I'm going are generally towards the bottom of the list of things I care about. The locals can be rude or nice, I don't really give two shits so long as I can see the stuff I'm there to see (I guess I'm the rude one? I am from number six on the most rude list. ).


Also, in defense of New York - what is often perceived to outsiders as rudeness is really just adaptation to living in a congested city with more than 8 million people. If you ask someone in New York for directions or whatnot you will find they are actually likely to be quite helpful. But you have to be assertive enough to ask, no one's going to offer you help if you don't ask for it. This is because the sheer number of people means we by necessity ignore others unless we have a specific reason to interact with them.

Likewise, the size of the crowds means there's no time to be deferential and exchange pleasantries. If you get on a crowded subway train, you don't waste time asking nicely if someone could please let you hold on next to them. You reach over and grab the bar, even if this means sticking your arm right in someone's face. We don't consider it rude, we expect and prefer this since it gets the train moving faster than the alternative.

[jakeroot]

I'm glad to not see Seattle on the (friendly) list. People often think of it, like Portland or San Francisco, as being this sort of "haven" for people of all backgrounds, but really we're all just a bunch of wet chimps waiting for something to happen, and then pouncing on whatever that thing is if it even slightly threatens to change the way the city currently exists. We're hardly open; in fact, I'd say we hate outsiders.

[vtk]

To their target audience killing time on their phones, the screen is only big enough to view one item at a time anyway and swiping left to go to the next item is an easier way to control your position in the list than scrolling on a touch screen with your fingers. And if someone doesn't want to read through the whole list, loading only one item at a time saves the site bandwidth and saves its mobile viewers data.

Bullshit. In my experience with a cheap smartphone on slow rural networks, the slide show is a terrible experience. I'd much rather have a long page I can scroll through, after waiting a minute for it to load, than repeatedly click "next" and wait another half minute to load a quarter minute worth of content. Not to mention the usability issues that come with animation (which is usually built on bloated JS frameworks) or trying to override what a swipe gesture does.  The most mobile-friendly website is one with a simple layout and no fancy scripting. Mobile browsers come with their own adaptations for reading on the small screen, and those work best when the page itself makes no assumptions about the device displaying it.

[Thing 342]

Travel & Leisure Magazine put out its annual list of the 30 friendliest and 30 unfriendliest cities in the world. You're more than welcome to discuss these lists with your own thoughts.

I don't know about friendliest/unfriendliest cities, but I'd like to nominate Travel & Leisure's "lists" for gratuitously user-unfriendly presentation of information. Making us click through two 30+ item slideshows is just rude. Since there are no ads on most of the slideshow pages (unlike many other "clickbait" slideshows), there's not even a business excuse for putting us through that exercise. And not only are the photos not exceptional enough to justify the hassle, they don't always keep pace with the captions if you're trying to speed-read through the lists.

It would also help if the progression buttons on the slideshow plugin actually worked on my browser and didn't require me to right-click and open the next item in a new tab. IIRC, the slideshow-list format has gained popularity mostly because each item clicked through counts as another ad click, thus multiplying the amount of revenue a content pusher like T&L can make from one of these clickbait lists.

I have no particular qualms with the list itself, however I found Charleston to be somewhat snobbish on my most recent trip there.

Saving a few clicks:

Friendliest:
30. Key West, FL
29. Santa Fe, NM
28. Lisbon, Portugal
27. Puerto Vallarta, Mexico
26. Amsterdam, Netherlands
25. Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN
24. Copenhagen, Denmark
23. Cuzco, Peru
22. Portland, ME
21. Fort Worth, TX
20. Bangkok, Thailand
19. Victoria, BC
18. Reykjavik, Iceland
17. New Orleans, LA
16. Krakow, Poland
15. Asheville, NC
14. Nashville, TN
13. Kyoto, Japan
12. Austin, TX
11. Cape Town, South Africa
10. Savannah, GA
9. Edinburgh, Scotland
8. Sydney, Australia
7. Melbourne, Australia
6. Auckland, New Zealand
5. Siem Reap, Cambodia
4. Cork, Ireland
3. Dublin, Ireland
2. Charleston, SC
1. Galway, Ireland

Unfriendliest:

30.  St. Petersburgh, FL
29. Newport, RI
28. Monte Carlo, Monaco
27. Shanghai, China
26. Lyon, France
25. Buenos Aires, Argentina
24. Milan, Italy
23. Marrakesh, Morocco
22. Nice, France
21. Xi'an, China
20. St. Louis, MO
19. Ft. Lauderdale, FL
18. Cincinnati, OH
17. Naples, Italy
16. Providence, RI
15. Boston, MA
14. Frankfurt, Germany
13. Washington, DC
12. Miami, FL
11. Beijing, China
10. Cannes, France
9. Las Vegas, NV
8. Baltimore, MD
7. Philadelphia, PA
6. New York, NY
5. Los Angeles, CA
4. Marseille, France
3. St. Petersburg, Russia
2. Atlantic City, NJ
1. Moscow, Russia

[hotdogPi]

Unfriendliest:
22. Nice, France

Its name must be lying!

[SSOWorld]

Unfriendliest:
22. Nice, France

Its name must be lying!

No, it's Nice.  Don't let it fool you

These lists are from the average layman tourist's point of view.  I won't speak for anyone here, but the common tourist isn't exactly going to research the destination ahead of time to find out how to "adapt" and in the end won't leave the confines of a Times Square, French Quarter or Magnificent Mile.

Those that do research (if correctly) will "adapt" better.  Personally, I've found NYC more tolerant once I was able to figure out how to get around it by car, train, foot, etc.  Duke87 brings up the point of just being assertive.  You'll end up behind if you aren't.  I've seen more accidents, close calls and bumps in one morning than I've seen elsewhere.  Was I surprised? No.  Why?  I expected such behavior.

For a city like Los Angeles where the peddlers outnumber the tourists, ignoring them is my counterweapon.  Walk by and they won't bother for the most part, even if you have to wave them off.  If *that'* rude, I have two words. too bad.  I would rather not get myself into a bind where I get caught up in an unfriendly situation so I'll just walk away from it.  I'm pretty much of a solo traveler anyway.  (NOTE: My last "visit" to southern CA was more of a short term "residence" there and I've found that there weren't many problems encountered.  It was a bit different from staying in a hotel so I didn't have to deal with that hospitality.

[Zeffy]

I wonder where Newark ended up this year? Because last year, I thought it was the most unfriendly city, and now it's not even in the top 30.

[nexus73]

Tehran, Lagos, Pyongyang, Ferguson, Damascus, Tripoli, Benghazi...I wonder where these esteemed places rate?  LOL!

Rick

[Pete from Boston]

I wonder where Newark ended up this year? Because last year, I thought it was the most unfriendly city, and now it's not even in the top 30.

Mayor Baraka has launched a formal protest.

[AlexandriaVA]

Tehran, Lagos, Pyongyang, Ferguson, Damascus, Tripoli, Benghazi...I wonder where these esteemed places rate?  LOL!

Rick

Tehran - safe and friendly, unless you're riding in a car with an Iranian nuke scientist or attending a mass protest.
Lagos - crowded and generally safe and friendly - Nigerians there are english-speaking christians and the violence (boko haram) is generally to the north in the
Pyongyang - safe and unfriendly
Ferguson - unremarkable, as there's no sightseeing there
Damascus - avoid it, go to Latakia instead
Tripoli - avoid it, go to Morocco instead
Benghazi - avoid it, ibid

[J N Winkler]

Regarding slideshow lists, I don't think mobile devices are suitable for viewing them in the first place because the vast majority are locked down by the carriers and so cannot have HOSTS files installed to block the hover ads that greatly complicate swipe and touch navigation.  They prey on lower-income people who don't have a computer with a broadband subscription at home and so have to rely on carrier-provided smartphones for Internet access.

Giving serious thought to whether destination cities are "friendly" or not strikes me as something that seasoned travellers just tend not to do.

[SignGeek101]

I'm a little surprised Vancouver BC isn't on the friendly list. I guess every list looks at things differently.

http://www.vancitybuzz.com/2014/09/vancouver-named-one-of-worlds-friendliest-cities/

[Pete from Boston]

Tehran, Lagos, Pyongyang, Ferguson, Damascus, Tripoli, Benghazi...I wonder where these esteemed places rate?  LOL!

Rick

Tehran - safe and friendly, unless you're riding in a car with an Iranian nuke scientist or attending a mass protest.

Iranians I have known have all been classy, cultured, and exceedingly warm and hospitable.  I think it's a mistake to confuse a political culture with unfriendliness.

[Bruce]

I'm glad to not see Seattle on the (friendly) list. People often think of it, like Portland or San Francisco, as being this sort of "haven" for people of all backgrounds, but really we're all just a bunch of wet chimps waiting for something to happen, and then pouncing on whatever that thing is if it even slightly threatens to change the way the city currently exists. We're hardly open; in fact, I'd say we hate outsiders.

The Seattle Freeze is a known phenomenon for a reason...also the rampant passive-aggressiveness here.

[nexus73]

Tehran, Lagos, Pyongyang, Ferguson, Damascus, Tripoli, Benghazi...I wonder where these esteemed places rate?  LOL!

Rick

Tehran - safe and friendly, unless you're riding in a car with an Iranian nuke scientist or attending a mass protest.

Iranians I have known have all been classy, cultured, and exceedingly warm and hospitable.  I think it's a mistake to confuse a political culture with unfriendliness.

Say "Death To America!" enough times and image tends to tank over here in the USA.

Rick

[Pete from Boston]

Tehran, Lagos, Pyongyang, Ferguson, Damascus, Tripoli, Benghazi...I wonder where these esteemed places rate?  LOL!

Rick

Tehran - safe and friendly, unless you're riding in a car with an Iranian nuke scientist or attending a mass protest.

Iranians I have known have all been classy, cultured, and exceedingly warm and hospitable.  I think it's a mistake to confuse a political culture with unfriendliness.

Say "Death To America!" enough times and image tends to tank over here in the USA.

Rick

Americans are not the best at teasing apart the part from the whole, nor governments from their people.  Then again, neither our government nor our media has ever been particularly keen to have us be any smarter.

[nexus73]

Tehran, Lagos, Pyongyang, Ferguson, Damascus, Tripoli, Benghazi...I wonder where these esteemed places rate?  LOL!

Rick

Tehran - safe and friendly, unless you're riding in a car with an Iranian nuke scientist or attending a mass protest.

Iranians I have known have all been classy, cultured, and exceedingly warm and hospitable.  I think it's a mistake to confuse a political culture with unfriendliness.

Say "Death To America!" enough times and image tends to tank over here in the USA.

Rick

Americans are not the best at teasing apart the part from the whole, nor governments from their people.  Then again, neither our government nor our media has ever been particularly keen to have us be any smarter.

When you have masses of Persians chanting "Death To America" on TV it tends to look like those people really don't wish us much good.

Rick 

[AlexandriaVA]

Tehran, Lagos, Pyongyang, Ferguson, Damascus, Tripoli, Benghazi...I wonder where these esteemed places rate?  LOL!

Rick

Tehran - safe and friendly, unless you're riding in a car with an Iranian nuke scientist or attending a mass protest.

Iranians I have known have all been classy, cultured, and exceedingly warm and hospitable.  I think it's a mistake to confuse a political culture with unfriendliness.

Say "Death To America!" enough times and image tends to tank over here in the USA.

Rick

Americans are not the best at teasing apart the part from the whole, nor governments from their people.  Then again, neither our government nor our media has ever been particularly keen to have us be any smarter.

When you have masses of Persians chanting "Death To America" on TV it tends to look like those people really don't wish us much good.

Rick

Which means that the government propaganda on their end is working. Do you really think that even a large protest constitutes a significant portion of the population of Tehran? Tehran is one of the biggest cities in the world. With over 8 million people, a protest with 100,000 people would barely crack 1% of the population. And because their state-owned television cameras are pointing on the 1.25% of the city's population the street, you're not seeing the other 98.75% of the population.

Which is exactly the point of their propaganda - to convey an image that they want to project. They're not fools, and they know the evening news shows will display the mass crowds of people and that Westerners will tune in and see those images.

[Pete from Boston]

Tehran, Lagos, Pyongyang, Ferguson, Damascus, Tripoli, Benghazi...I wonder where these esteemed places rate?  LOL!

Rick

Tehran - safe and friendly, unless you're riding in a car with an Iranian nuke scientist or attending a mass protest.

Iranians I have known have all been classy, cultured, and exceedingly warm and hospitable.  I think it's a mistake to confuse a political culture with unfriendliness.

Say "Death To America!" enough times and image tends to tank over here in the USA.

Rick

Americans are not the best at teasing apart the part from the whole, nor governments from their people.  Then again, neither our government nor our media has ever been particularly keen to have us be any smarter.

When you have masses of Persians chanting "Death To America" on TV it tends to look like those people really don't wish us much good.

Rick

Yes, you said that.  Fortunately, we worldly Americans can view television with enough education, critical thinking, and personal experience to not paint 78 million people with one broad stroke, unless we concede that the world should view us all as Klansmen.

[Rothman]

Painting with one broad stroke is a heckuva lot more efficient than painting 78 million people one-by-one. 

[Pete from Boston]

Painting with one broad stroke is a heckuva lot more efficient than painting 78 million people one-by-one.

And cheaper, lazier, and less accurate than doing it right–perfect for media that are currently tuned to the level of nuance offered by the clickbait that pays their bills.