|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
New York, New York, a helluva town.
The Bronx is up, but the Battery’s down
Back in ‘55 folded The Brooklyn Eagle
New York, New York, still stuck with Kriegel!
Everytime I go home to Manhattan, it feels less home-like. I suffer the symptoms of Tourrette’s Syndrome. You can find a Whole Foods, but not a Greek diner. It’s not my city anymore. The funky people — as insufferable as some of them might have been — have been banished in favor of the fund people. The resultant metropolis is Trump-like, which is to say, more crude and predictable and more like every other city with an Olive Garden and a Banana Republic.
Not all of these fund people are Yankee fans. Some of them are Knicks fans, too. The mythical aficionados of the city game have long since been replaced by sheep with BlackBerries. OK, maybe they deserve to be gouged. Then there are the Mets fans. The Mets are asking (and getting) only $495 for their best seat when Citi Field opens next year. After last year’s historic collapse, they are celebrated for a 79 percent increase.
Repoz
Posted: August 19, 2008 at 04:13 PM | 382 comment(s)
| Login to Bookmark
Related News: General, NY Mets, NY Yankees
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Sources: Cubs’ Starlin Castro Accused Of Sexual Assault (6120 - 5:50pm, Feb 10)Last: Lassus:Newsblog: Mets owners knew about Maddoff (24 - 5:47pm, Feb 10)Last: Ron JNewsblog: Curt Schilling Says Manny 'Quit on the Field,' Teammates Stopped Him From Confronting Slugger (12 - 5:43pm, Feb 10)Last: Tricky DickNewsblog: Grantland/Bill James: An Open Letter to the Hall of Fame About Dwight Evans (43 - 5:36pm, Feb 10)Last: lieiamNewsblog: ESPN: Law: Top 100 Prospects (paywalled) (9 - 5:36pm, Feb 10)Last: AROMNewsblog: Bluetales blog: JetBlue’s 605 Wears Red Sox Colors! (7 - 5:33pm, Feb 10)Last: TerpNatsNewsblog: FSKC announces on-air lineup for Royals - Rex Hudler and Steve Physioc to join (9 - 5:32pm, Feb 10)Last: TerpNatsNewsblog: OT: NBA Monthly Thread, February 2012 (409 - 5:29pm, Feb 10)Last: Athletic Supporter leads the nation in driftersNewsblog: 'Duk: Tim Lincecum slims down with swim routine, loses appetite for McDonald’s (292 - 5:23pm, Feb 10)Last: Moe GreeneTransaction Oracle: 2012 ZiPS Projections - Oakland A's (51 - 5:19pm, Feb 10)Last: Davo the MagnificentNewsblog: MLB: Hall of Fame worthy? Furthest thing from Schilling's mind (38 - 5:04pm, Feb 10)Last: The Good FaceNewsblog: Tom Brady getting new bro-in-law: Red Sox’ Kevin Youkilis! (17 - 4:43pm, Feb 10)Last: The Yankee ClapperSox Therapy: Offseason Minor League Thread (2 - 4:39pm, Feb 10)Last: ellsbury my heart at wounded kneeNewsblog: Knobler: Stay away from steroids -- but vote how you want (23 - 4:36pm, Feb 10)Last: Something OtherNewsblog: Whatever Happened to the Spitball? (25 - 4:21pm, Feb 10)Last: Something Other
|
|
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I should also qualify that I'm talking about art museums (but since the tenor of the conversation about DC is a bit contentious I'll leave the Smithsonian out of it).
The Getty is great, don't get me wrong (although they are having that pesky little problem of having the Feds starting to look into their acquisition practices and the provenance of their collection), but when you start to run down the list of other museums things like MoMA, the MET, the Guggenheim, and the Whitney are doing a lot better than things LACMoA or MoCA LA. In baseball speak NY museums have a much deeper lineup.
You can have all that stuff Kevvy- if you actually believe everything you wrote you must be incredibly naive. But hey...go local sports teams!!!
Andy, I took McCain's answer to mean that he thinks the question of whether someone is "rich" is irrelevant, since he thinks we should lower taxes for everyone in order to increase revenues, rather than look to punish "the rich" by increasing their taxes.
Also, contrary to Obama's notion of "fairness" in the tax code -- which as far as I can tell consists of "raise taxes on the people I consider to be rich because it's not fair they're making so much money to begin with" -- McCain thinks that it may actually not be all that fair to raise the taxes of someone who has a high income but works 7 days a week to earn it.
Quoting from the transcript now with my highlights:
Delineate which programs should be cut? Easier for him to just list the handful worth saving.
Sounds like the reality check is you shouldn't be living in new york.
I know two teachers, with 3 kids, who live on the Upper East Side. They make it OK. Remember, 2 experienced teachers in NYC probably make $150,000 between them, plus afternoon and summer jobs. If they pay $3500 per month ( a guess) that's ~25% of pre-tax income, which is high, but a lot less than some people pay.
What most people do is move to the suburbs (as my wife and I did a year ago). The cost of a 2 BDR apartment in Manhattan will buy you a 3000 sq ft house in a very nice town 40 min from Grand Central.
I don't, and I won't be voting for him (*). But that doesn't mean I disagree with everything he says.
(*) Barr is my candidate.
This, oddly, describes me as well. You like Barr better than Paul or vice versa? Been meaning to ask you, DMN, Bunyon, et al about that.
1) The Village and EV and Alphabet City have all been overrun by NYU types. These 18-22 year-olds pay the tuition that pays my salary, and I'm not condemning them as little antichrists, but they have made the neighborhood a lot less interesting, less diverse, and more expensive. Before I moved to NYC, I visited a lot in the mid and late '90s, and the EV was always the place to go for good music, off-kilter bars, and interesting clubs. Those places still exist, but now the problem is that most bar owners know they can make more money catering to frat and button-down shirt types than to those with eclectic tastes in music. Less club and bar owners will take a chance on something offbeat for Thursday-Saturday. The neighborhood on the weekends is overrun by the most boring people you'd ever want to meet. They're not bad, but they do seem to be churned out of a factory somewhere, and think they're cool as hell for being in the EV. And b/c they have seemingly limitless cash, the bars all cater to them, further entrenching their beliefs that they are in fact TEH AWESOMENESS.
So generally, we go out after 1:30-2 or not at all on the weekends. By then, all the lightweights have gone home, and places will generally stay open past 4 for a small crowd.
Food- Manhattan still has great cheap eats, particularly in the EV. Yes, there has been a proliferation of chains, but a lot of those have failed just like every other restaurant. On Ave A alone, the turnover rate for restaurants is pretty high.
Rent- This is my last year rent in Manhattan. I like it b/c I can walk to work, but it's not worth it anymore. Our rent went up 20% this year (we can't afford to pay a new security, moving expenses and everything right now, so we're sticking it out). That's absurd. I thought it would let up, but the rents haven't leveled off much even with all the new construction.
DC- The thing I love about NYC vs. DC is that the population is a lot more diverse in NYC- there's industry in NYC beyond finance, a thriving art scene, people who are actually from there, ect. DC bores the hell out of me. There's stuff to do there, but not on the scale of NYC. And the rent isn't that much cheaper, food is more expensive, and it's even more hot and humid than NYC is during the summer.
Wow, I agree with kevin!
The good ol' days. Seriously. Rich is one thing, yuppie is another.
Sure, you can get along in NYC on next to nothing -- I managed back in the early '90's starting at five bucks an hour and never making more than eight. But I had a bedroom not big enough for a bed, at least before moving into a nice mob-controlled neighborhood and sharing rent with two other people. God I loved it despite not being able to afford medicine and getting mugged. I was able to do whatever I wanted at any time of the day or night, including riding the trains and walking up Atlantic Ave. in Brooklyn when I was the only soul on the street.
If you dug, you could probably still find a place to live, but I have no doubt it's harder. I can't imagine having a family there, though obviously people do it.
Not true, but funny. Besides, most R. Sox fans I meet are people who only went to school in Bos/Mass, not lived there.
Truly, the Sox are the most front running team of all time.
Miami/Dade is the poorest county in America. That being said, my sister lived in Miami for about 8 years, if she hadn't moved TO NORTHERN MICHIGAN I'd probably be there now. I like Miami, but I'm sure living there would be something else entirely.
My bad, and thanks for giving the full quote to provide the context. In this case, though, the "McCain" part of my point was somewhat tangential to my main point that few people---probably including some in the $5 million category---will admit to being "rich," or even "wealthy," even though they're in the upper 5% income bracket.
------------------
I know two teachers, with 3 kids, who live on the Upper East Side. They make it OK. Remember, 2 experienced teachers in NYC probably make $150,000 between them, plus afternoon and summer jobs. If they pay $3500 per month ( a guess) that's ~25% of pre-tax income, which is high, but a lot less than some people pay.
First, it should be noted that if these teachers make those sort of salaries---which they almost certainly do if they have a fair amount of seniority---they can thank the late Albert Shanker for that. It's the non-unionized working class that takes the real hit in New York.
Beyond that, if they have three kids and a middle class sensibility, the chances are that they have at least a 2 bedroom, and probably a 3 bedroom apartment. And unless by the "Upper East Side" you mean Spanish Harlem (a possibility, but I'm assuming you meant below 96th St.), you're either talking about one of two things: (1) They're paying more than $3500 a month; or (2) They're under rent control.
And if that's the case, the scenario you outline for that couple goes out the window for more and more people every year, since both unions and rent control are going the way of the wind. For those of us who remember the "old" New York---and I don't mean the crime-infested parts, but the sort of neighborhoods you could find all over the larger city---those two fading phenomena were what helped give New York its special flavor. It enabled people like my late aunt, a retired hatmaker who was one of the true characters of Greenwich Village, to afford to live on Patchin Place right up to the end. When she died in 1989 the rent in her apartment went up twelvefold overnight.
In many ways New York is a better place today than it was back then. But there's a hell of a human price that was paid in the bargain.
Other than that, and the art scene you mentioned, NY also has better public transportation (though SF is very easy to get around in) and a nominally better music scene. Finally, SF does hold the unique distinction of being the only west-coast city not in Alaska that can be said to have worse weather than any place on the East Coast. Overcoats in June = me realizing I'm in the wrong end of the state.
Ahh, just what art snobs are all about. Asserting their "credentials".
Art is like everything else in the world, most of it is average, a lot of it is crap and only some of it is great. The elephant dung Virgin Mary was crap. I was at the Whitney in NYC about 7 months ago, one of the floors featured silhouettes of black children giving felatio to adults. Utter garbage.
Just because it appears in a fancy, well regarded museum, doesn't make it good. Just like a meal at an expensive restaurant isn't automatically great. Too many people are fooled into thinking shock always = quality art. In fact, shocking art is rarely great art. So few many people are good at using shock effectively in art. It is like all of the comedians these days that need to go to the gutter to get a laugh, they lack talent. Only a few people could pull that off, do it in a clever way while making a point.
Philadelphia has the front-line, if not the bench. And I say this as a sixth borough resident.
Somebody said LA #2. But isn't Wash DC and Chicago ahead of LA by quite a bit in museum quality/depth? By the way, I like Wash DC, although I have only visited, never lived there. It is a little too sprawling, so I'm guessing a large percentage of people that live in the TV market, don't really live in DC.
If you live "in" or near these very large cities, but live +45 min or more from the downtown area, can you really say you live there? There are a lot of cities in the middle tier in size, in the US, where you can live 10-25 min from the downtown area and still get nearly all of the same cultural attractions as NYC. I guess the question is, where is the line drawn, where you are "in" as opposed to "out"?
Jersey City is starting to claim 6th borough as well. Kind of like the UK, Poland, Australia, Canada fighting over who is the 51st state.
I relaly disagree on the use of the word "enormous" there as far as the difference. I could go out to any number of shows, late, go to bars until 2 AM in CA, and the ones that lingered, or punk shows, and be fine. I really fail to see the difference between 2 AM and 4 AM unless you're a 24-year-old frat boy or club girl. Not to mention numerous illegal raves for that anyhow when I was in San Francisco.
Kind of like the UK, Poland, Australia, Canada fighting over who is the 51st state.
No one in Poland that I've met while there wants to be an American state, and that's even from a country that loves America. Australia? Where are you getting these from? Do you mean ex-pats?
Dude, it is not literal. As Philly/Jersey City is not literally trying to become the 6th borough.
Well, it's not like they can call themselves the craddle of the U.S. or anything....
"As well"? Now I'm truly curious.
Um, I got that.
Even a figurative stance needs an origin, however, I just wanted to know where you got those from.
I have found the 2am shutdown to be particularly annoying, on occasion.
Other than that, and the art scene you mentioned, NY also has better public transportation (though SF is very easy to get around in) and a nominally better music scene. Finally, SF does hold the unique distinction of being the only west-coast city not in Alaska that can be said to have worse weather than any place on the East Coast. Overcoats in June = me realizing I'm in the wrong end of the state.
I *love* SF weather -- cool & foggy in summer, warm in autumn, clear & cool in winter. Civilized. You can have snowy winters. Most E. Coasters I know always talk up the snow through the holidays, then ##### incessantly about it from Jan. 2 through April or whenever.
The SF music scene is *awesome*. I live out by Golden Gate Park, I'm gonna literally walk across the street Friday and watch Beck and Radiohead. w00t!
I think there is a large difference between 2am and 4am. In fact, such a large difference, most cities in the US have laws that mandate bars must close at some point, usually between 1-2:30. People want choice. Some, 2 is fine, others 4 is not quite late enough. Does there really need to be a law telling bars when to close? I think not.
That being said, not all of NY practices 4am bar time, it appears only in portions of the city.
I just read an article saying how Philly is really the 6th borough. So both have made claims for a silly mantle. But then again, Jersey has put up a fight over the Island of Staten.
Sorry. I guess I thought it was common knowledge that our top allies are referred to as the 51st state from time to time within circles that follow such foreign affairs. Hopefully that didn't come across snobby.
Well we can all go out late, as long as your version of going out late doesn't include a sip of Cognac with your lovely lady and a group of friends at the Top of the Mark after 2AM. In fact, at that point the difference 2AM and 4AM is rather stark. Its sharper still if you spend time in a city with a real night life like a Madrid or Sao Paulo. Particularly in Southern California, where the Summer evenings are to heaven as dark is to night, the 2AM restriction is awful.
I'll look out for those frat boys though, I use to rum into them a while ago when I was in college, apparently they've become a dangerous lot.
Well, I think that someone who favors increasing the capital gains tax -- not because he thinks that doing so will increase revenues, but in order to punish people -- is a loon.
That would be Obama, as stated to Charlie Gibson in one of the debates. (No, he didn't use the word "punish"; instead he said "fairness.")
The chance to make new friends at BTF? I suppose a cynic would say, "The chance to run for president." But I have listened to Barr a couple of times, and he seemed sincere enough as pols go.
Babes, pure and simple.
Try and pay attention. I wasn't defending the work, and I certainly didn't whip out any credentials. You're defending against an argument you want to have, rather than one I made.
My point is that your definition of art as expressed by your original post was terribly limited and pretty much useless (the "I could've done that" argument). To use your example of comedians, you're dismissing a lot of great work, like Lenny Bruce or George Carlin (not to mention making yourself sound 90 years old). The same goes for art, there's plenty of work that incorporates spectacle and shock that's great (of course they also incorporate other issues as well, but you didn't really address those in your examples, or the idea that art might address some other issues at all, so we'll let that go).
A guy with no chance acting like a pol, even a sincere one, is evidence enough of lunancy.
Not in New York, depending on who you ask.
Obviously your eye is lacking. I never dismissed these two. In fact, they are both excellent. I only said shock does not ALWAYS = quality art. Maybe you are making an argument you want to have, but I did not make.
I also never made this argument. I said "I had that idea in 2nd grade." Don't try to lump me into a Simpson's kind of attack on art. You basically exhibit all of the sensitivity of an art snob, usually the people that are the most sheep-like of us all.
Can you expand on this? I find this subject interesting, in that my local diner "kingpin" claims to have flown planes in WWII, his son was currently in the USAF and about 4 years ago, when the US was struggling in Iraq, he demanded we make the place a PARKING LOT. "A PARKING LOT, I TELL YOU."
These were his exact words. Even I was a bit sweaty talking to him.
Not to mention the chance to be branded a "loon" by supporters of the two major parties.
Re Boston: As I said, Boston to me is not a city on the par of NYC, Chicago, SF, LA, and even DC. It's a neat enough place, but to me it's more like an overgrown college town with a mall and Revolutionary theme park.
The Museum of Fine Arts is one of the best I've ever been to.
'fraid not. everyone knows that all the hot political babes go for diminutive neo-socialist vegans from ohio ...
http://blog.cleveland.com/earlyedition/beth.jpg
The point isn't that there aren't pockets of affordable housing around here, but they're becoming few and far between, and by far the hardest hit are young couples who don't have the fancy corporate or lobbying jobs. People like me who bought a house long before the recent housing boom ago are much better off, but I'd hate to have to be buying a house today, even with the recent slump. That's why I said above that I'm rooting for the drop in housing prices to continue for a long time.
try living in LA, where it went from 4.5-5x1 (historically) to over 10x1.
that trend will reverse, though, expect a return to historical price-to-income ratios without inflationary lending products ...
I last visited New York in late 2004 after having lived over in Westfield, N.J., for nearly a decade. It did seem as if NYC, at least the Manhattan part of it, was becoming less interesting, more corporate. Before moving to Westfield, I lived in Bucks County, Pa. for about nine years, and regularly visited New York for its cultural attractions. Perhaps the guy who recalled the East Village remembers Theater 80 St. Marks, which showed classic Hollywood movies for many years until the market for that died out in the '90s due to home video. The site, on St. Marks Place, still has Grauman's-style footprints of stars such as Myrna Loy and Joan Blondell. If you want to learn more about the place, I wrote a piece about it at http://community.livejournal.com/carole_and_co/29850.html
Finally, while I admit Washington isn't anywhere as ethnically diverse as New York (its Chinatown isn't bad, although it has been squeezed in of late due to the growth of the Verizon Center neighborhood), it is making rapid strides. It's a far more interesting city culturally than it was two or three decades ago, and there remain some reasonable neighborhoods (e.g., Takoma in D.C./Takoma Park, Md.) if you eschew a bit of prestige.
It will also get you the adoration of literally dozens of people on the Internet, the chance to make a speech before an excited mini-throng, bumper stickers on a handful of cars, your name on the presidential ballot, the chance of getting mentioned a couple of times on the nightly news...
That might not sound like much, but remember that the alternative is to never be thought of at all, except once in a great while as a lunatic ex-congressman who went nuts during the Clinton years.
You realize of course that the theater is still there, it's simply returned to it's original form as an off-broadway theater. Isn't that better, more arty, and more indie than film re-runs? Well, I think so, but it's subjective, I guess.
You say that like lunacy is a bad thing. I think I'll vote Green, though Paul and Barr should be legitimate options in a true democracy.
Wrong again Kevin:
http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/departments/elearning/?article=educatedcities
I'm going to assume you're wrong on the rest too...
Also, what exactly makes Boston hospitals better. Is there a VORH metric we can use to compare cities. I've lived in LA (where I now reside) and San Francisco, with two long (3 month) NY stretches as well, and I don't remeber having any hospital issues. Can anyone Bostonian who didn't get his head rattled during his military service fill me in?
From my experience I'd much rather live in Boston than Los Angeles. As much as I love the Dodgers, Los Angeles itself is a hell of concrete and lip gloss. Boston has good mass transit, has a denser, livelier downtown, and just doesn't seem like a giant, desert strip mall.
Though perhaps I've just seen the wrong places. And Los Angeles certainly has better burritos....
Edit: I wonder if this will get me flamed
Remember, Barr didn't become a libertarian in 2008; he started this in 2004. That seems like an awfully big investment of time just for the chance to be the nominee and then get the dubious benefits you identify.
No, not in lower Manhattan, anyway. Off-B'way theaters are a dime a dozen there; good repertory cinema houses...well, there used to be tons, but now it's Film Forum, and that Anthology place on the LES, and...that's about all. I'm glad the Pearl came along to take the space when Theatre 80 closed, but I miss it, and the (original) Thalia, and the Regency, and all the others. (I know the economics of rep houses just don't work in the age of video, but why do I have to be realistic about what I want?)
Then again (as you know, Lassus, since you helped me move!), I'm a case study in Andy's tale of NYC, and just moved to the burbs for much the reasons he mentions, so I guess I don't get a say anymore anyway.
Don't forget the Mutter Museum, which might just be the most awesome museum in the country.
But Coney Island High is now an upscale supermarket and a Chipotle!
I guess the neighborhood grows up with the residents, dunnit?
That's an incredible cop-out of an answer. I feel that the fact that you actually give this incredibly lame reason to ignore his point about hospitals actually proves his point.
But then again, you do have a reputation...
Also the IFC on 6th Ave (formerly the Waverly) and the little ######## on E. 11th St.
you might find this informative ...
http://health.usnews.com/sections/health/best-hospitals
fwiw, LA is the only city with 2 hospitals on the "honor roll", UCLA Medical and Cedars-Sinai ...
http://www.travelandleisure.com/afc/2007/index.cfm
personally?
my top 5 cities to live in would be (no order)
new york
austin
seattle
los angeles
san francisco
I've spent an amount of time in 4 of those 5 cities. Good list, but Austin is getting pretty overrated.
I spent 5 days in Austin earlier this year, it is certainly fun and a very good time, so don't get me wrong, but people talk about it like it is Paris. Milwaukee has a more going for it than Austin. Including a better nightlife scene and better festivals. Pretty much the two reasons Austin gets talked about so much. Again, don't get me wrong, both do very well in these categories.
Milwaukee's a seriously underrated city, but I've got to give Austin the edge. The campus area, SoCo, Midtown--lots of great areas in Austin, especially considering the size of the town. I'd probably still live there if not for the Godforsaken summers.
As for the above list, Chicago beats out LA without debate. Actually, Midwest > any other region in the country.
Then again, I suspect I rank cities differently than most people. For one thing, I really don't care much about museums in my home city (I'm much more likely to go to museums in distant friends' home cities than I am in my own); or colleges, for that matter (I'm certainly not going back to school); and I tend not to enjoy eating at the top-rated restaurants in a city (not if I could have a meal 90% as enjoyable for 20% of the price). When I've been single, I've preferred living in Los Angeles to cold-weather cities -- everything else being equal, I don't mind if attractive people have the excuse to wear less clothes around me.
I dunno. I'm as big a fan as any of compulsive list-making, but it's not as if my experiences in Los Angeles and Washington DC (for two) are going to have been remotely the same as anyone else's, let alone what I wanted from these cities, so if I ultimately rank LA way ahead of DC (and I would, based on my experiences in them), I can't say with any confidence that my list has any meaning for anyone other than me. I'm judging both cities based on limited experiences (even though I lived in/just outside both). With a couple of flaps of a butterfly's wings, maybe my experiences would have been vastly different. Basing an assessment of a city on one's own experiences therein (compared to the number of possible experiences one can have in a city) is like basing one's ranking of ballplayers on how well they hit in their first at bat in the first (only?) game you see in a ballpark that season. I'm happy to live in LA and am surprised when people aren't, but I've met plenty of people who aren't; I'd be less happy to live elsewhere, I think, but I know plenty of people who feel otherwise. Dunno what any of it means, but there it is.
One of the major reasons I stay in Seattle is that there are three good aviation museums in the area, at least one of them world-class. I would not want to live in a city without a Spitfire on public display.
It means that we should all take the reasoned view that each person will have a subjective opinion of each place, and therefore respect the fact that some people will prefer some cities over others.
Regardless, Portland is better than any city yet discussed, and #### you if you disagree.
Any city that spends more than 60 days of the year below freezing opens itself up for debate. Regarding the viability of a nuclear strike to solve that problem.
NOTE: GREW UP IN UTICA
Regardless, Portland is better than any city yet discussed
We can send Mark Donelson to the Baghdad.
Nice. I'm there now visiting family. It was 43 last night. When did you move away?
Utica couldn't support a New York-Penn league team. Ouch...
Buffalo is underrated.
When you add Montreal and Toronto into the equation, I think things change significantly as well. Both great cities. I'd live in Montreal or Toronto before Philly, DC or Chicago. LA I don't think fits into the conversation with the rest of these places- depending on where you are, it isn't even like living in a city.
The day I started freshman year of college. Whooooooooosh! Oh, the date? Late 80's.
Yeah, 43 degrees sounds about right FOR FREAKING AUGUST.
(In fairness, I say Utica because it was the closest place, I was about 10 miles outside, in between Utica and Rome outside of the tiniest of Revolutionary War towns, Oriskany.)
I'm kind of surprised no one is touting Seattle, even if I hated it and far preferred Portland.
My folks live in Whitesboro now, I do the same thing. Do people in Oriskany call it "going into the city" when they go to the mall?
Lots of articles about brain drain in the local paper. To the extent that I have a brain, I'm guilty of the same thing. More significant for me is complete lack of attractive females over 22 that's accompanied the brain drain. I have a single friend in his mid-40s here, and he says it's more common to see Bigfoot than it is for him to see an attractive single woman his age. But he's still here out of some sense of civic devotion to make this place better.
(b) Montreal and Toronto are in a whole 'nother country.
Delta, my thinking was that for many of us on the east coast, relocating to Montreal or Toronto would be more feasible than relocating to SF, LA, or Portland, so we might broaden the discussion beyond the borders.
New York - Dirty and expensive, but it's still America's greatest city.
San Francisco - Foggy and expensive, but America's most beautiful city.
Chicago - Big, cheap, and fun. Winter stinks.
DC - Homer pick.
Boston - Abrasive and homogenous culture, but it's a fun town.
Philadelphia - Run-of-the-mill East Coast city.
Los Angeles - I hate car culture, but there's a lot to see and do.
New Orleans - Least American American city. QOL issues make it a better place to visit than live.
Baltimore - Cheap and lively, close to DC/Philly.
Denver - Decent city, great access to the mountains.
Miami - Nice beaches, not much else.
Pittsburgh - Small and isolated, but surprisingly pretty and varied.
Detroit - Sad and dreary.
Tampa - Boring.
Hartford - Halfway between Boston and New York. Has restrooms.
Sacramento - Valley feels like a prison. Escape is always on the mind.
Cities I don't know or barely know: Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Seattle, Phoenix, Minneapolis, Cleveland, San Diego, St Louis and Portland.
My dad was the JR. High gym teacher in Whitesboro from 1965-1998. What I love about Whitesboro was the logo on the side of the police cars of a SETTLER CHOKING AN IROQUOIS TO DEATH. I'm not even kidding. It may have changed at some point, but was like that for all of my youth and even upon returning. My internet searches are coming up short, however, so I have no proof.
Of the places I've lived in at least a year, I rank them best to worst:
San Francisco
New York City
Portland
San Jacintos (Idyllwild)
Los Angeles
Oriskany, NY
Rockies (Fraser)
Seattle
Ranking the places I've visited would be a greater project. But I agree with DKDC on Sacramento. (shudder)
The lament, at least with NYC, is that it has gotten substantially more expensive over the last few years, which means population that could have afforded to live in Manhattan 10 years ago are being pushed out by rising rents.
What I love about Whitesboro was the logo on the side of the police cars of a SETTLER CHOKING AN INDIAN TO DEATH. I'm not even kidding. It may have changed at some point, but was like that for all of my youth and even upon returning. My internet searches are coming up short, however, so I have no proof.
Alright Lassus, I've got a project for today. We're going out to run some errands and I'll swing by the police station to check it out. Will try to take pictures. When I went to NYC for grad school, the jaw-drop I got in response to spelling the name of the town for people in the administrative offices was priceless.
"Whitesboro"
"Can you spell that?"
"W-H-I-T-E-S-B-O"
"It's actually called 'whitey's borough'?!?!!"
"Ummmm....there are a lot of white people there."
I still don't get the criticism. You can only live in one place. That I cannot afford to live in Manhattan doesn't bear on the great, unique time I can have in Manhattan. To me, much of the "too expensive" critique smacks of nostalgia, possibly mixed with resentment.
I think the argument is that because NYC (really, Manhattan) is becoming so expensive, the only people who can afford to live there are financial people. Consequently, higher prices drive out the cultural people -- artists, actors, musicians, etc -- and middle class. So the city becomes less diverse, which ruins its greatness.
I think that is the argument, although I do not buy it.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main