December 9, 2004

• what city would you most like to live in?

   

   

   boston
   chicago
   los angeles
   new york
   san francisco
   washington d.c.
   other

  i've been been out of town the last two weekends in row.  i had a restful thanksgiving break in boston with family, followed by a weekend trip to los angeles for a mini-reunion with some old bay area friends.  i enjoyed each weekend immensely for opposite reasons - one for its placid time of tranquility with loved ones, and the other for its two nights of wild debauchery and tomfoolery.  you can guess which was which.    

  anytime i travel, thoughts of living in another locale creep into my mind.  i've moved many times before, so the idea of moving is nothing new.  and having lived in the bay area for over four years now, feelings of restlessness and boredom have started to hang over my head.  while significant time in one place usually creates inseperable bonds and a feeling of contentment, it's had the opposite effect on me.  you'd think i'd become weary of movement and change, but instead i've become weary of routine and repetition.  i still thrive on the newness of things, whether it be from people, places, or opportunities.  not surprisingly, weekends out of town present opportunities to experience plenty of things anew.

  realistically i won't be going anywhere anytime soon.  i recently changed jobs and still have a variety of commitments in the area.  and i do love life in the bay area - i just won't let myself admit it sometimes.  regardless, my time in boston and los angeles has made me reflect on what i like or dislike about each city, and think about the qualities that attract me to certain places.

  if i do wind up anywhere, it'd probably be one of 6 areas, 4 of which i've already lived in - boston, chicago, los angeles, new york, san fran, or washington dc.  needless to say i like large metropolitan areas, particulary cities of global importance.  for my own amusement, i've put together a comparision chart of each area.  a plus means the city does well in that category, a minus not too well, and a plus/minus is somewhere in the middle.  as always, these are merely my own baseless viewpoints, so feel free to correct any blanket statements or foolish perceptions i may share. 

  city/environment	cultural	intellectual	physical	social	other
  boston	+	+	-	-	+
  chicago	+	-	-	-	+
  los angeles	+	-	+	+	-
  new york	+	+	-	+	+/-
  san francisco	+	+/-	+	+/-	-
  washington d.c.	+	+	-	-	+/-

  a quick rundown/interpretation of this chart:

  cultural:  pretentious yuppie stuff like museums, symphonies, restaurants, etc.  i tend to like cities with an abundance of all of these, hence the + ratings on all 6.  if i were to rank the cities, new york would come out of on top with the others all being pretty similar in standing.  it's not like i go out to san fran every week to eat out and visit some cultural institution, but it's great to have so many options to do so.  in all these cities, you've got world-class performers and institutions at your fingertips, not to mention endless culinary options. 

  intellectual:  the intellectualism of the area.  note that this doesn't necessarily mean how smart people are, but rather how intellectually curious they are - i.e. do they seek to expand and understand their own knowledge of the world.  boston, dc, and new york all do well here.  sf is great as well, but the south bay brings down an area that is otherwise liberally enlightening.  i'm not claiming to be a die-hard intellectual myself - my shallow and insipid posts already reveal that.  but i am inspired by people who can think globally, constantly explore new ideas and thoughts, and apply such knowledge to their own lives in a tangible way. 

  physical:  the natural environment of the area.  basically this is where i consider the weather.  if it were just the physical architecture and beauty of a city, los angeles would come in last and all the others would do fine.  but in terms of weather and nature, the west coast can't be beat.

  social:  social factors like nightlife, number of friends in the area, attractiveness of females, etc.  how much 'fun' i might have in each area.  no doubt i could find good friends in each area and have a great time, but for whatever reason certain cities just seem to have more going on, or at least more activites that would attract someone like myself.  i was often pretty bored in both chicago and dc.  sf gets a plus/minus since i live in the incredibly dull south bay.  granted my experiences in los angeles and new york are from a limited sample, but i always have a blast in those cities.  it also seems like every friend from the bay area who's moved to los angeles is now hooked up with a 5'7 beauty.  now that i think of it, what am i doing in the bay area.

  other: there are plenty of other factors, which i've lopped into an 'other' column.  boston, new york, and chicago all get pluses for their public transportation systems since i hate driving.  conversely, los angeles and san francisco get minuses for the need to drive eveywhere, almost excessively.  boston also gets a plus for being my hometown and where my family lives.  san francisco also gets a minus for it's exorbitant real estate costs, while chicago gets a plus for its reasonable costs.  new york gets a minus for its high rents and cost of living.  no real other factors for dc, hence the plus/minus.

  you'll notice from the chart that new york does particularly well, with chicago and dc lagging.  but such a deduction is too simple to make; i do love each of these locations, in ways that a simple chart of pluses and minuses can't possibly reveal.  i could see myself in any of these cities; only time will tell where i eventually do end up.

  • 4:47 am
  • 14 Comments