| Category: General
Well I’ve seen enough movies to know that’s almost certainly not true.
The top ten cities are:
1. Houston, TX
2. New York ,NY
3. San Antonio, TX
4. Miami, FL
5. Los Angeles, CA
6. Austin, TX
7. San Diego, CA
8. Las Vegas, NV
9. Chicago, IL
10. Orlando, FL
The bottom 10 cities:
191. West Valley City, UT
192. Garden Grove, CA
193. Port St. Lucie, FL
194. Detroit, MI
195. Surprise, AZ
196. Pembroke Pines, FL
197. Paterson, NJ
198. North Las Vegas, NV
199. Jackson, MS
200. Miramar, FL
Edit: The premise seems to be that if you *had* to be in a large city, then these are the best and worst ones to be in. There were 30 different criteria, ranging from outdoor supply stores, available bunkers, access to food, available firearm supplies, etc.
Of course you want to be out in the woods somewhere ideally, but it’s pretty tough to rank the top 10 best wooded areas to have your ass in when the zombies attack.
Yes… ammo, guns, and hideouts… that’s the deciding factor in a zombie apocalypse. Never mind that once the water pumps stop operating, the entire town of Vegas gets wiped out. Or that after the canned rations run out there’s really not much to eat in a desert.
Did the zombies put this list together?
Yeah don’t agree with this at all. Besides being the driest place to be, there is no natural water source. Add to it that the summer temps are absolutely abysmal – adding to the fact that not having water would be a problem. Plus it’s also a land locked city with mountains around most of it to create a soup bowl like scenario…. Prob would be one of the lowest cities on my list.
Nah, I’ma go somewhere with water.
The best places to survive a flood of zeds ARE NOT cities.
I don’t think any large city would be a safe place to be during or after a zombie apocalypse. These are the first places that would have the largest outbreaks of infected. They would also be the first places to lose all semblance of law.
I guess it depends on the zombie type? Honestly, I’d be fine living in a self-sustaining little house where there was access to water, few people, and enough sunlight for solar. So, a ton of places in like Northern California suddently become viable.
I saw the movie where it got taken over by zombies I do not agree. Somewhere that gets below freezing for days at a time would be the best place.
I think if a zombie situation gets bad enough to qualify as an ‘apocalypse’ rather than just an outbreak, it’s A given that the cities are overrun
I will give away my zombie hideout spot only because I’m fairly sure I won’t need it but…..Alcatraz I’m fairly certain it would be pretty easy to defend and hard to reach but a desert is not my first choice but any means.
Las Vegas is the literal worst place to be in a zombie apocalypse, nothing for miles and the chaos of supply line disruption means there won’t actually be much in the way of food and fresh water long before the zombies become a serious threat.
The best places would be anywhere near the ocean and doesn’t get very cold, has ready access to fresh water, and is useful for growing crops.
The last place you want to be is anywhere that you can’t reach a large supply of fresh water or travel long distance all year round with a bicycle or sailboat.
I’d argue that living in the Appalachians are much better. You’d have access to water and food, as well as a fairly mild climate. Plus good hiding spots natural resources
Absolutely not, by the time you notice there is an outbreak in Vegas it’s too late. What you assumed were just drunks and junkies are actually flesh eating monsters.