If

From practical considerations year-round camping would require somewhere with equable temperatures and no cold winters. Ideally, somewhere where the native wildlife was not conspicuously fierce or venomous. On these grounds I would choose somewhere like Tonga or Samoa. A small boat for fishing and a patch of ground to plant taro would give self-sufficiency in food, so no need for a city.

I wondered the same Stuart. Also I've tried sleeping on a beach before and it was cold, noisy and uncomfortable, I didn't feel safe either.

The beach would have to be my primary consideration as bed time is when comfort is needed most. That means it needs to be not too windy, not too hot and not too cold, which rather limits the choice as it needs to be in a city. Keeping nearer to home, it would have to be somewhere in Europe, and weather wise, that is likely to be Faro, in the Algarve, Portugal, if that is close enough to a beach to count. Failing that, Paphos in Cyprus.

Those places aren’t my favourite cities though. 

I would choose the beaches of Salvador in Brazil - hot all year round but not unbearable. beautiful sand / sea mix, loads of free growing tropical fruit and veg when you are a bit away from the busy spots and plenty of fish in the sea.

The locals are pretty friendly and it is a hippy place so lots of mellow people.

You do need to speak Portuguese to get by but other than that it could be a great place to live.

How romantic 

Cinnabar_wing said:

we got engaged there

I really want to go back, I hadn't realised how long it's been, we got engaged there just after my brother-in-law got married over there (it was one of the countries you could do that).  My husband (Irish) did a university placement in Florence and lived there for 6 months so he was very familiar with the place and catching transport.

From Tuscany for the wedding, we went to Venice (it was a magic in 2008 but still busy), Florence and Rome. Would really love to go back, it's one of the places you can go with kids and not worry about them finding stuff they will eat!

Cinnabar_wing said:

somewhere in Italy probably, as a city I really loved was Florence

Italy is wonderful. 

I have been to Rome and Sorrento including tours of the Amalfi coast, Pompeii, Vesuvius and Capri ️

I am watching the Ripley series at the moment and it is making me want to return. 

Venice would be great preferably in the 1950's with fewer tourists. 

If it had to be a beach, somewhere in Italy probably, as a city I really loved was Florence (not on the coast I know), when we went there. And the food is amazing. Although now I just realised it was 17 years ago...

I would find a quiet spot with hills away from people.

I love Scotland, but camping, the midges... you need to be indoors!

I don't get the question. If you were looking to be closer to nature, why would you want a beach by a city? You'd have the noise, traffic, litter, people and lack of security and safety. I you wanted a beach you would want some peace so you can hear the waves.

If you just wanted to live by the sea, then a house on a cliff overlooking the sea is nicer. Although I always think of storms, in which case being inland a bit but within walking distance is preferable.

But I'd rather live in the mountains near a lake.

Somewhere on the Amalfi coast.