Both have their benefits, but I'd prefer the city initially to live in. If only because there's more people there and a better chance to meet someone. After that **** it, I'll live wherever. I love the country and the open spaces though, and just nature in general.
The city by far. I like clubs, bars, nice places to eat out and good shopping. I much prefer the fast paced life of the city.
The country is nice to visit and sometimes it can be interesting, but becomes quite boring after a while. It's not really for me.
I'm from the "country" and I have always hated it. It's beautiful, yet terribly bland, boring, and unsubstantial. You are completely isolated from civilization for years. You do the same thing every day, see the same people every day, and hear about the same things everyday. Cultural, social, and intellectual diversity is also very rare, as most small towns are populated by people of similar mindset and experience. It's where people go to live because they can't deal with reality. Occasional visits are great though, especially for a vacation.
You mean "city" or "village"? Well a city of course, I live in a village atm and it's the pits. I have lived in a city before and it was heaven. It's just so much better, there is NOTHING to do in a village, well there is nothing to do in the villages I know.
The city is a mess. Some parts are nice like clubs and other entertainment but other than that, it's annoying. I'm more of a suburban type person. Plus the country is so relaxing.
As someone in my early 20s? Obviously the city. I could never, ever live in the country, even when I'm older.
I grew up in the suburbs/outskirts of the city and I found that it was ideal. You are somewhat away from the busyness but at the same time are close enough you can go out to clubs, restaurants, malls, museums, etc whenever you desire.
I live in a town/suburb outside of Boston and love it. Boston's only a half hour away, yet I don't have to deal with noise, gunshots, homeless people, or pollution.
