Bit harsh if you ask me.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6911628/Wolverhampton-voted-fifth-worst-city-in-the-world.htmlAsk anyone about Wolverhampton, including the locals, about what the city is good for and Josef Stawinoga, who lived in a tent on the road for 30 years prior to his death in 2007, is right up there. Along with the football club and, well, not much else.
Still, residents of the Black Country are proud folk and have reacted with disquiet at the news that a Lonely Planet guide has voted Wolverhampton the fifth worst city in the world to live in. Keeping some glamorous company - it is still apparently nicer to live in than Los Angeles - and some not so – Chetamul, the decaying Mexican city is thought preferable – Wolverhampton has been slated by Lonely Planet users.
What Wolverhampton has done to irk the website’s community so is unclear. The most prominent criticism comes from an anecdote (its validity unknown) about a Wolverhampton local meeting George Bush in New York the day after the September 11 attacks and comparing his town centre to the Ground Zero site. Vivek Wagle, the author of the list, said that all other cities have a write-up in the printed version of the travel guide, while Wolverhampton is declared 'so bad we don't even have it on this site'.
The nine cities listed by the Lonely Planet are Detroit, Accra, Seoul, Los Angeles, Wolverhampton, San Salvador, Chennai, Arusha, Chetumal.