[pieterhg]

Yes, cities like Budapest, Prague, Austin, Medellin, Tbilisi tick those boxes.

If you don't care about humidity, the usual nomad hot spots come up like Chiang Mai, Ubud etc.

If you don't care about humidity and don't care about it being a bit crowded, you also get Canggu (which can be busy now), Bangkok, Taipei and Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon).

Asia is just very humid.

My personal challenge is that I don't like sweating all day, even if A/C is available. I want to live somewhere where it's moderately mild/warm and where you can walk outside without getting drenched in sweat.

[ckris]

Definitely agree with you on the weather. At least in the tropical part of Asia it is either too hot, too humid or too dark. Personally I am not sure about Eastern Europe long term, it seems to be going the wrong way politically. Which is just a bother.

There seems to be an inverse (I guess pretty unsurprising) relationship between being decent and being cheap. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be 1 to 1. But almost everywhere attractive in Europe is now very expensive. Cities like Berlin, or even Lisbon, are pricing themselves out of the race. The US doesn't seem to be worth it anymore overall for Europeans.

So what I have managed to find on paper is Slovenia which supposedly has low taxes and decent quality of life but is tiny, relatively inaccessible and still a bit expensive. Another option seems to be something like a second tier city of a bigger country. Like Porto, Valencia and Montpellier and maybe Hamburg.

What sort of surprises me is that I haven't really been able to find any, at least not European, city which seem to want to attract people based on quality of life. All these "next silicon valley" type statements always only talks about things that largely doesn't matter. Not how to live there for 1 week, 1 month or 1 year. Have you noticed any city, or even region, doing better in this regard?

[pieterhg]

Great post, agree on all this.

One thing though: I think many cities as you say are now overpriced. Even with all the qualities of expensive cities like London, you get very little for what you pay for. That means there's an (economic) information lag where many people don't realize this yet. I hope my site helps reduce that information lag.

I think cities attracting people will happen organically as it's mostly always has been. People go to cheaper/better places to save money, then those places develop, get expensive/crowded etc.

In terms of non-organic ways of attracting people, I know governments in Spain, Ireland, France, Georgia, South Korea, Thailand, Taiwan, Indonesia and a few more countries where ministries (eg of tourism) are actively aware of remote work, nomads and wanting to attract them.

The challenge is that the things remote workers are attracted by in a city are either fixed (weather) or slow to change (internet speeds, infrastructure, safety).

Places that have become hotspots for nomads like Chiang Mai and Bali mostly did because they already had a giant tourism industry and supply of (cheap) accomodation, were relatively safe and had usable internet. It "happened" to them, not the other way around.

[ckris]

Good points.

I think the key for those places wanting to attract people is to not be beholden to overall developments. On the one hand they can't rely on large changes because they take too much time and often are marginal. Instead of making the Internet better overall (which of course be the ideal thing) they could make sure that hotels in one area have good Internet, and that there is for example a lesser tax rate for monthly stays. On the other hand they also need to offset local changes, like the area becoming expensive, to keep the ball rolling.

I think that is partly why these places became hotspots. Because as you said they already had the backpackers, expats, surfers or fighters, and therefor the facilities. But also because when things got popular, they just move down the road and open up another place. And it seems that places like Lisbon can't really compete in that way. When it gets more popular it gets less accessible and more expensive a lot faster than opportunities to for example stay longer. So they end up in the same place as somewhere like London, but on a smaller scale.

I guess they would see it as a good thing as it makes more money, but it also hiders the "catalyst" or the further development, which should be their ultimate goal. At least that is my current impressions, but maybe that is just the way of the world and part of the fun. It just seems like a bit of a wasted opportunity. I guess I will know a bit more when I travel again in the autumn.