I’d go even with impossible. Cf. the map of churches in Poland: http://images3.bibsy.pl/8hpvdxf9/mapa-kosciolow-w-polsce.jpeg ;-)
miescie or miasto ?? a Polish friend told me that right is place (miescie) and city (miasto)
your friend was either mistaken, or you misunderstood.
miasto and mieście are different forms of the same word.
miasto is nominative(dictionary form)= accusative
mieście is locative
after "w" you can use accusative or locative depending on the verb before.
we use w+ locative when we talk about something being/happening somewhere(in something)
Or maybe your friend meant "miejsce"-place?
it is difficult to learn a language if the exmaple sentences are so far from the reality... I think even the Sovietunion there where churches in every city...
Nowa Huta (now part of Kraków) , was supposed to be a town without a church. It did not end well.
Why is 'In my city, there are no churches.' not correct? For this sentence speaking in plural would make more sense even if it is not a literal translation.
why can't this be correct? - ''there isn't 'any' church....". Why only 'a' church?
'isn't a church' or 'aren't any churches', but not 'isn't any church'. Any + singular doesn't work with countable things, though eg 'there isn't any water' is fine.
Actually, this somewhat depends on the countable object involved. "There isn't any road to London from here" is OK, but "There isn't any bottle of water in this shop" is not OK. I'd say that "There isn't any church in this city" is fine although this would interesting as (in the UK) a city usually has a cathedral for historical reasons.
But why? Shouldn't it be "In my city THERE is no church"? It's not a proper English sentence without a "there".