Where would you rather live?

Ignoring all factors, like making a living and reality, I'd have to say in the mountains. That would just rule.

It would all depend on the other people living there.

Uh... How about "in the desert"?

Where I live! I live in a country town that seems like a city, and it's so near to the city that is seems also a suburbia, but is very peaceful and not much contaminated.

What would be perfect for me would be a small country town (pop. 500) that's 20 miles away from a City.

A tropical beach that wasn't deserted but not over-marketed.

It sounds so much like a frontier place

I grew up in suburbia, and I loathe it. I'll take the city or, failing that, the country.

I live in the country (pop 1200) with lots of land and trees and animals outside, but I'm also 35 min from the largest city in the state. It's a good mix, because I have a nice place to live but still have access to the benefits offered by the city -- like cheap gas, food, computer parts, etc.

I'm from Newfoundland. Anyplace that's by the ocean makes my heart warm.

gotta love that suburban life!

a simple place in the woods on a mountain, and an apartment in nyc or london.

I chose Alaska because it is beautiful up there - especially in the summer, and you can fish in the cleanest lakes you have ever seen. Sure, the winters are tough but I feel I have the strength to endure it. It would be worth the quiet and seclusion. Small town life is for me.

Small farm within 15 minutes of a town with decent grocery/hardware store and within two hours of a good metro area. And a loft in the city. Unless the farm was on Mars, then I could do without the city. (I was the 22nd person to answer this question).

Sun, sand, as long as I had my man with me, my life would be great. And a yacht to bring beef from the mainland!

IN LAS VEGAS, THAT'S WHY I MOVED HERE!

Hey, Matthew, wanna timeshare? I've often thought a cabin in the Berkshires and a condo in Manhattan would be the perfect combo.

On the beach, as long as I have my scuba gear, a decent internet connection, and a source for SPF 50 sunscreen.

Good craggy mountains. I'd need a good valley for the house. It's not healthy to always look down on the world...

It all has to do with phases. Right now, I just want to be somewhere that everything is happening. I feel too young to be complacent and bored--I'd much rather take life intravenously, have it slap me upside the head and throw me to the ground and then body-slam me. There's too much going on in the world right now, and I don't want to miss a thing.

I'm a sucker for a good compromise, so I have to go with suburbia.

where i am right now. dvmike: turn off the caps lock key, you sloppy dog.

What a tough one! Depending upon my mood, I could go for any of these. But, being in the heart of things has more appeal for most of the time.

In the valley of a mountain, with a small lake and loads and loads of animals nearby. Need lots of greenery around too!

Living in a tropical paradise would be terrific!! The ocean, waves, sand, and serenity of it all would almost be like Heaven on Earth. It would be the perfect getaway.

Can my beach have a library? I can't live anywhere without books (and a net connection).

ahhh, the suburbs: close to the city, close to the country. the best of both worlds.

I'd like to think that there was a suburban country town that wasn't "suburbia" I like being *near* the city, but I don't like being *in* it. some level of local communnity is a good thing.

Kuai, HI.

I hate polution, noise, traffic... I'll live in a city

I've often thought the ideal is a nice townhouse on Commonwealth, and a house in the Berkshires.

In the asteroid belt.

I love going to the beach and backpacking through the high sierra mountains, but you have to live near the city if you want the conveniences of modern life.

as far away from other people as possible

Love the sun, love the sand, love the waves, love to surf :)

Near the ocean and wooded hills (big hills/little mountains, on the order of 1Km)

On a deserted island. Civilization is over rated.

but it has to have internet access..

I picked mountains... My ideal place to live would have seasons, mountains, ocean, forest, no neighbours, and reasonable proximity to city/town (say about an hour driving a car). ***phi: Quito is not! :) Well, at least it wasn't when I was there ('84-'86).

But if the heart of the city could be high in the mountain tops, that would be ideal. Sadly, I hear Quito is a hole.

lelle: good to hear! I'll have to go visit.

by the ocean in a not-too-tropical area.

Oh man, it so depends! The general principle is "close enough to a city to get access to resources, far enough to have some privacy and a natural setting." Assuming I don't have to commute and want to save money, that translates to the far outskirts of a big city... somewhere 1-2 hours outside of Boston, for example, rural enough to get a few acres of woodland. If money is no object, I'd get closer to the city, even if I have to buy up some properties and leave them empty. Ideally, a house somewhere in the mountains with a reliable teleporter.

** Phi -- As Ecuadorian cities go, Quito was unpleasant and Guayaquil was worse, but I highly recommend Cuenca.

I like the wide open, where i can wear my dresses in private.