4 ms·

And they're still better than most cities in the US in terms of housing, density, and infrastructure. With its half-million population, Lisbon has better publi

And they're still better than most cities in the US in terms of housing, density, and infrastructure. With its half-million population, Lisbon has better public transportation than my lovely Philadelphia, with its joke subway with two lines. I'd bet Lisbon's trolleys have better coverage than SEPTA has for the whole city in PHL. And, mind you, Lisbon is among the poorest capitals in the European Union. I could easily live in Lisbon right now if it wasn't for the low EU salaries (and my wife really loving being in the US). My goal is still to claim my citizenship and retire there eventually or in Porto. And I'm not even considering the really good infrastructure places, like Madrid, with its circular subways (two lines). The wealthiest country in the world must do better.

RestlessMind 3y ago
Context of the discussion is that density solves the housing cost problem. I pointed out that European cities have both a high density and a serious housing problem, which is now impacting national elections (see the example I gave about Dutch elections thread). Saying they are better than the US is not really relevant to this discussion. > I could easily live in Lisbon right now if it wasn't for the low EU salaries (and my wife really loving being in the US). Exactly my point. Lisbon has all the goodies you mentioned (I too liked it when I visited) and yet one needs a US salary to afford a decent house there. Not possible on the median local salary.