Oh, come on! 1. They (Europeans) usually visit the most European places in the U.S. - especially New York City and San Francisco. Since NYC and SF are basical

Oh, come on! 1. They (Europeans) usually visit the most European places in the U.S. - especially New York City and San Francisco. Since NYC and SF are basically uglier, scarier versions of the premiere European cities, it's natural for tourists to go home with a negative impression. New York may be scary. I don't think it's ugly, I personally find the skyline surrounding central park to be both thrilling and beautiful, but I suppose that's just a matter of taste. But New York definitely isn't a "version" of any European city. American cities pioneered the skyscraper (they weren't alone, London and a few other cities outside the US did this in parallel). I've lived in Paris and New York, and they are utterly unalike. Europeans visit New York to experience something different, not a version of home, and they get it. Some love it, some hate it, but I'd be amazed if they came home saying "yeah, Mahnattan is just another version of Copenhagen." 2. However, very few Americans live in such cities - even if they can easily afford to. Why not? Because the natural habitat of the American - including most affluent Americans - is the suburb. Dude, stop, just stop. No, Americans can not easily afford to live in Manhattan or San Francisco. I had to stretch incredibly hard to afford a small 2 bedroom house in an unfashionable corner of SF. I could have afforded a nice, spacious 3br in a distant suburb much more easily. I'm just amazed by this claim. Every month there's another article in the SF Chronicle about another family that wanted to stay in SF but moved out to the suburbs for financial reasons.