I can hate the song “New York, New York,” which is played after every Yankees’ game.

If it were the Ryan Adams song, I wouldn't hate the Yankees as much.

I can hate the way the franchise spent gobs more money than anybody else to build a team of stars and then talked about “team chemistry.”

I'll bet they do get along great. They have plenty in common.

I can hate the song “New York, New York,” which is played after every Yankees’ game. Start spreadin’ the news: It’s the anthem of a completely self-absorbed city.

I love the Yankees and I love my hometown, but this song does suck. It just sucks even worse when it's Liza singing it.

At one point, the Yankees used to play the Liza version following a loss, and the Sinatra version following a win. That says it all.

Yankee haters are like women; they're so gosh darned cute when they're mad.

a completely self-absorbed city.

This obsession with the idea that everybody hates you being the final proof of self-absorption. The fact is you're not important enough to hate.

Basically any city with a personality is self-absorbed. Having lived in Boston, New York City, San Francisco and now Jakarta, the most self absorbed to least absorbed are:

1. Boston
2. NYC
3. Jakarta
4. SF
Boston is the most insular city I know. The expression "all politics is local" originated there (right?), but in Boston it might as well be "all things is local". It's an incredibly unwelcoming place. The city is only interested in itself. People are so caught up in their own Bostoness that there is an unbelievable homogenity in things like dress and food and conversation topics.

It's early in my experience here, but the insane traffic experience (something that happens every day) has to create a distinct Jakarta identity and personality that pushes the citizens to reflect constantly on their shared experience.

New York is filled with natives and non-natives alike. The natives are infinitely cooler. The non-natives say things like "only in New York".

I never got the sense that San Franciscans took insane pride in their city. It's so quiet there.

It’s the anthem of a completely self-absorbed city.

It's been my experience that people who are not from New York spend a lot more time thinking about New York than people who are from New York do.

It's been my experience that people who are not from New York spend a lot more time thinking about New York than people who are from New York do.

We have the natural confidence of the born aristocrat.

Portland and Seattle are pretty self-absorbed (and I really like Portland).

Hateful of hollow.

That Joke Isn't Funny Anymore.

I stayed in Portland for a weekend and loved it. I have never seen as many indie hipsters (hooded sweatshirts, bad postures, trucker hats) in my life. It seemed like they were wearing a uniform. Also, the locals seemed to all (I mean everyone of them) have a great sense of humor about the Trailblazers. This was at the height of the Jailblazers era, and I think Portlandians took a weird pride in having this amazingly messed up team in the city.

Incidentally, the coast of Oregon might be the most landscape I've ever seen.

the coast of Oregon might be the most landscape I've ever seen.

...?

...we Oregonians pride ourselves on having more landscape per square mile than anywhere else in the world. Why, in the neighborhood I grew up in, there were several tons of landscape within just a ten-block radius!

Basically any city with a personality is self-absorbed. Having lived in Boston, New York City, San Francisco and now Jakarta, the most self absorbed to least absorbed are:

1. Boston
2. NYC
3. Jakarta
4. SF

I dunno, when a bank (that since has gone belly up) uses a tag line of "the most important bank in the most important city in the world", complete with a Vivaldi accompaniment, I think it rates a bit of a toot. And you know that only Washington is capable of coming up with a slogan as self-inflated as that.

Portland and Seattle are pretty self-absorbed (and I really like Portland).

I grew up in Portland, and love it, but there's no more self-regarding community on this planet, I don't think.

I dunno, when a bank (that since has gone belly up) uses a tag line of "the most important bank in the most important city in the world", complete with a Vivaldi accompaniment, I think it rates a bit of a toot. And you know that only Washington is capable of coming up with a slogan as self-inflated as that.

Couldn't have been New York. The federal government doesn't allow the banks there to fail.

Early 90s, New York City gives a tax break to any tech company headquartered in a certain part of Manhattan so it can be "Silicon Alley" because Silicon Valley was not in one of the five boroughs and New York City could not stand the fact that it was not the "capital" of something.

Frisco used to be almost as bad but the oldtimers finally called it a life and sold to dot-commies, most of who are from Boston and New York and get more Bostonian and New Yorkee the further they get, so it is an even more annoying city of transplants than it ever was of locals.

Early 90s, New York City gives a tax break to any tech company headquartered in a certain part of Manhattan so it can be "Silicon Alley" because Silicon Valley was not in one of the five boroughs and New York City could not stand the fact that it was not the "capital" of something.

Or perhaps the plan was to diversify the local economy so that there wasn't such a monoculture in the duplicitous hall of mirrors that is high finance. Just a guess there.

One can debate whether it was a worthy endeavor, but the notion that it was a civic pride thing is silly.

"Boston is the most insular city I know. The expression "all politics is local" originated there (right?), but in Boston it might as well be "all things is local". It's an incredibly unwelcoming place. The city is only interested in itself. People are so caught up in their own Bostoness that there is an unbelievable homogenity in things like dress and food and conversation topics."

Example: Bostonians tend to be impressed by those who graduated from Harvard or MIT. In New York, no one really gives a rat's ass if you graduated from Columbia or NYU (or Harvard for that matter).

Frisco

A term only used by people not from SF and even more annoyingly used by someone from SoCal. I have lived and traveled to quite a few place around the world, including
1. Boston
2. NYC
3. Jakarta
4. SF

and Seattle, Portland, London, Hamburg, Tokyo, Sydney...well you get the point. And far and away the most insular, self-absorbed corner of the planet is southern california. There is no argument here whatsoever. 10 million people thinking that nothing outside their realm can be better or more interesting and all going about their business of mass accumulation of useless material goods. Man, I hate that place...and I grew up there in the 70's...when it was nice.
Diatribe over.

Hugh Jorgan, from Southern California, there in the 70s. I thought Johnny Holmes was dead.

There is no argument here whatsoever. 10 million people thinking that nothing outside their realm can be better or more interesting and all going about their business of mass accumulation of useless material goods. Man, I hate that place...and I grew up there in the 70's...when it was nice

Thanks for that from a UCLA and UCSD grad and SoCal resident since the 1970s.

The thing that's so disappointing about New York is the combination of pretensions of sophistication with a provincial point of view to match anything in Kansas City or Cleveland.

And has anyone ever been anywhere in another american city in the company of a new yorker without the new yorker feeling compelled to mention that they have more of X in New York, whatever X may be? It can be anything. It comes across as some weird combination of pride/one upsmanship and insecurity.

#20 is very clever, BTW. And based on that post, his name appears to fit his personality.

LeBron, is that you?

And has anyone ever been anywhere in another american city in the company of a new yorker without the new yorker feeling compelled to mention that they have more of X in New York, whatever X may be? It can be anything. It comes across as some weird combination of pride/one upsmanship and insecurity.

New York has more of a lot of things than other American cities. A lot of those things are good (public transit options, World Series championships); some of them are bad (maniac taxi drivers, investment bankers); some things New York sorely lacks (Bojangles locations).

Few places that I've been to are truly hateable. Despite the accent, even Boston is a nice city. It's really only South Florida in the United States that should be condemned.

I lived in the Inland Empire. The world could do without that place.

France has a hate/envy thing going with its Parisians. The British have similar feelings about London. India, ditto on Mumbai. Russia, Moscow. Japan, Tokyo. For all I know, Tongans think the Nukuʻalofa'ers are snobs. It's not exactly a unique cultural dynamic, nor is it terribly interesting.

And has anyone ever been anywhere in another american city in the company of a new yorker without the new yorker feeling compelled to mention that they have more of X in New York, whatever X may be? It can be anything. It comes across as some weird combination of pride/one upsmanship and insecurity.

I should hope so. I'm the New Yorker (ages 5-16) who didn't like it and left. Though it's true that even so, I remark on its massive advantages (most notably 24 hour subway) quite a bit.

It's really only South Florida in the United States that should be condemned.

Two words: West Texas.

If all the people who move to L.A. from New York would leave. SoCal would be the greatest place on earth.

And has anyone ever been anywhere in another american city in the company of a new yorker without the new yorker feeling compelled to mention that they have more of X in New York, whatever X may be? It can be anything. It comes across as some weird combination of pride/one upsmanship and insecurity.

Let's face it. New York City is the best.

For instance, I think New York City is the best big walking city in the world. Most mega cities are awful to walk through. Walking around New York City when the weather is right is one of my favorite things to do.

Boston and San Francisco are also great walking cities, but they're small. Huge Asian cities are traffic nightmares where cars get priority over pedestrians. Los Angeles obviously is car-based. Chicago has some nice little streets but it still favors the car. I've never been to Paris or London. Jakarta's sidewalks are nightmarish. The streets smell like one big egg fart and you will die from either the heat or a crashing taxi.

I have lived and traveled to quite a few place around the world, including
1. Boston
2. NYC
3. Jakarta
4. SF

ROFL at including Boston as a place you have traveled to.

For instance, I think New York City is the best big walking city in the world. Most mega cities are awful to walk through. Walking around New York City when the weather is right is one of my favorite things to do.

I found Berlin to be a great city to walk in. And the subway runs 20ish hours a day, too.

And far and away the most insular, self-absorbed corner of the planet is southern california. There is no argument here whatsoever.

I was there on and off for a good four years in the early 90's in L.A., the Inland Empire, some work in San Diego, and I have to say I just didn't get that at all. There were PLENTY of people who didn't think it was the be-all end-all as far as I saw. In all seriousness, I really do think the Pacific Northwest was far worse, from my four years there. And even moreso, they made it clear that not only did they live in the best place on earth, but they rather you didn't move there. Imagine an entire region of Sruls.

ROFL at including Boston as a place you have traveled to.

He was quoting post 6.

London.

My experience is that London is the only city I've ever been to that quite approximates the feel of New York, though obviously there are differences. The accents are sexier, the teeth aren't quite as nice, and the tall buildings are farther away from the parts of town you want to hang out in.

My experience is that London is the only city I've ever been to that quite approximates the feel of New York, though obviously there are differences. The accents are sexier, the teeth aren't quite as nice, and the tall buildings are farther away from the parts of town you want to hang out in.

I was disappointed that the subway cut out around midnight. I also found the English to the the homeliest people in Europe (assuming England qualifies as part of Europe).

I also found the English to the the homeliest people in Europe (assuming England qualifies as part of Europe).

I think I've just been insulted...

In all seriousness, I really do think the Pacific Northwest was far worse, from my four years there. And even moreso, they made it clear that not only did they live in the best place on earth, but they rather you didn't move there.

That's a long-standing joke, started by Seattle P-I columnist Emmett Watson, and his Lesser Seattle movement.

Keep the Bastards Out

@34

One reason #19 sucked even as a rant is that SoCal has so many different kinds of people, from so many places, cities and countries, and so many transplants. #19 would work as a rant about, say, real estate agents in West LA, but really doesn't work at all the way it is posted. The transplants are usually divided between:

"Thank God I don't live in ________________ anymore where it is seven degrees today!"

and

"________________ is so much more real than it is out here, particularly the _________________" (usually women, men, cultural institutions, or sports teams/fanbases).

What SoCal lacks is are well-developed downtown areas, although those are developing a bit over time, and traditions. As EL Doctorow wrote, everyone has just arrived, and it is a place you recognize immediately.

Why does Morrisey think Nick Swisher is a phony?

That's a long-standing joke, started by Seattle P-I columnist Emmett Watson, and his Lesser Seattle movement.

Keep the Bastards Out

When I lived in Austin, I saw a guy wearing a t-shirt that read, "Welcome to Austin. Please don't move here."

No doubt, his roots there traced back to the primordial soup.

I think I've just been insulted...

I'm sure you're one of the handsome minority.

When I lived in Austin, I saw a guy wearing a t-shirt that read, "Welcome to Austin. Please don't move here."

Jesus, at least the Pacific Northwest has a reason for saying so.

As far as it being an old joke up there, it simply wasn't. They really didn't want you moving there.

The only thing that made an impact on me in my time in southern California was how shockingly poor the poor people were. The weather is nice, which is a good thing because otherwise they'd be picking frozen bodies off the streets by the thousands.

I've never been to Paris

Paris is a *great* city, and a great walking city. I can't recommend it enough.

Also, anyone who has never been to Stockholm owes it to themselves to go, preferably in May. It's probably the most underrated city in the world - that is, when it's not -40 deg, lol.

In Southern California, being that poor won't kill you, so it kills fewer of them (us). Nothing's more depressing than a drive through Northeast DC in the dead of winter, no pun intended.

You should check out some neighborhoods in Las Vegas. There are fates worse than freezing to death.

they made it clear that not only did they live in the best place on earth, but they rather you didn't move there. Imagine an entire region of Sruls

It's not that I don't t want anyone else to move here. Just you.

I've lived in Boston, New York, Salt Lake City and Honolulu, spent significant time in India and a few other places, and done a bit of traveling. Every place has its unique charms,and everybody thinks their little spot is special. Hell, I even know people who like New Jersey.

The only thing that made an impact on me in my time in southern California was how shockingly poor the poor people were. The weather is nice, which is a good thing because otherwise they'd be picking frozen bodies off the streets by the thousands.

What an American thing to say. There is American poor, and there is third world poor. Travel around places like India or Africa. The you'll have an idea of poor.

For instance, I think New York City is the best big walking city in the world. Most mega cities are awful to walk through. Walking around New York City when the weather is right is one of my favorite things to do.

Boston and San Francisco are also great walking cities, but they're small.

I mostly agree. I've walked all around these placed. But New York can in fact be too big. Most of the time, it is hard to cover more than 60 to 80 blocks at the most. But that only covers part of Manhattan. I've walked across the 59th street bridge and a variety of the lower manhattan bridges, and those are great walks.

My experience is that London is the only city I've ever been to that quite approximates the feel of New York, though obviously there are differences. The accents are sexier, the teeth aren't quite as nice, and the tall buildings are farther away from the parts of town you want to hang out in.

I love London, and I agree. I am also quite fond of Sydney, which is quite a different town, but has great public transit, and makes really great use of the water for public transit.

I just went out to get a gallon of milk. The three closest 24-hour drug stores were completely ####### out. Finally walked 2 avenues to a bodega and spent $5 on a half gallon.

Frisco. A term only used by people not from SF and even more annoyingly used by someone from SoCal.

Which is why it's a term that everyone should use it as often as possible until the people from Frisco get over being annoyed by it. Seriously, what's wrong with "Frisco?" What makes "Frisco" that much more annoying than "San Fran" or "SF" or whatever else is preferable? I've yet to have it adequately explained to me why "Frisco" should merit such eye-rolling.

In all seriousness, I really do think the Pacific Northwest was far worse, from my four years there. And even moreso, they made it clear that not only did they live in the best place on earth, but they rather you didn't move there.

Because we're all afraid you'll #### it up.

Which is why it's a term that everyone should use it as often as possible until the people from Frisco get over being annoyed by it. Seriously, what's wrong with "Frisco?"

Seriously. A group of people who have the world the word "hella" should suck it up and get used to slang that annoys them.

In Southern California, being that poor won't kill you, so it kills fewer of them (us).

In Hawaii, the poor have the option of subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering wild fruit. And the weather won't kill you, unless it's a hurricane, a tsunami or you wander into a lava floe.

I just went out to get a gallon of milk. The three closest 24-hour drug stores were completely ####### out. Finally walked 2 avenues to a bodega and spent $5 on a half gallon.

Where in the city do you live? The 24 hr bodega across the street from my house (I'm looking at it out my window right now) has twice as much for half that. Of course, I live in Brooklyn.

I always say "FRISCO" and it always brings out the 'tude and I then relish in (although Voxter beat me to it) pointing out the 'tude, usually asking "How am I supposed to call it THE CITY when it has fewer residents than San Jose?" And the person either admits they are from somewhere else or runs to call mom and dad to up the trust fund.

Getting milk from a bodega is a risky affair. The expiration date means nothing.

What an American thing to say. There is American poor, and there is third world poor.

It's always excitingly new and refreshing to see the word American used as an insult, but I take your point. The people you are referring to I don't even think of as poor, honestly. They are victims of something far worse than simply a lack of economic resources. Their interests are unrepresented in even more fundamental ways.

It's not that I don't t want anyone else to move here. Just you.

Kisses to you too.

Finally walked 2 avenues to a bodega and spent $5 on a half gallon.

I've been in NYC for a long time, and I can't imagine where you are that it's going to cost you 10 bucks for a gallon of milk, even these days.

Because we're all afraid you'll #### it up.

Yes, I imagine the great people of the northwest would be utterly incapable of that themselves. I always thought being there was a great microcosm for the attitudes of U.S. immigration.

I've walked across the 59th street bridge and a variety of the lower manhattan bridges, and those are great walks.

Other than the fact that THAT walk puts you in Queens. Yikes. I say that because I've lived there for two years, I bike that bridge.

I am also quite fond of Sydney, which is quite a different town, but has great public transit...

One of my favorite places is Krakow, and the same can be said about there.

I've been in NYC for a long time, and I can't imagine where you are that it's going to cost you 10 bucks for a gallon of milk, even these days.

Maybe if he bought one of those expensive trendy super-organic brands...

Where in the city do you live? The 24 hr bodega across the street from my house (I'm looking at it out my window right now) has twice as much for half that. Of course, I live in Brooklyn.

Upper west side. And close to West End, so I probably shouldn't complain because it might as well be the suburbs late at night (and people who don't mind paying $5 for a half gallon).

Getting milk from a bodega is a risky affair. The expiration date means nothing.

Uh-oh. Thanks for the tip.

I imagine the great people of the northwest would be utterly incapable of that themselves.

Since we're perfect, I'd say that's true.

Look, we have no issue with immigration from other countries, or from New England or the Midwest, at least in the cities we don't. We're just trying to keep the ####### Californians out. They already destroyed their own state; let them live with it and leave Oregon & Washington alone.

Uh-oh. Thanks for the tip.

I think you can disregard this tip if you're getting your milk in the suburbs.

When I lived in Austin, I saw a guy wearing a t-shirt that read, "Welcome to Austin. Please don't move here."

Jesus, at least the Pacific Northwest has a reason for saying so.

Pardon? Son, I lived in Salem for two years. It sucked. Hard. Portland ain't that great, either. Seattle's cool, but not as cool as it thinks it is. What else is there, Walla Walla? Bend? The Pacific Northwest can call when the entire region can support more than 3 professional sports teams.

I didn't know Dayn lived in Austin, so I don't know when it was, but I'd lay 2/1 that that guy was wearing that shirt during South By sometime after 2000. We actually do have a reason for saying please don't move here, because:

1) Nobody wants Austin to turn into California, including the raging liberals (me)
2) South By is an annoying time for locals now. It used to be that you could, you know, actually go to shows. Back when wristbands were $80 and badges were unheard of. Now wristbands are $200 and they don't even guarantee you entrance. Meanwhile, *every* bar/restaurant/bookstore/club/music store/open field/parking lot in the city is taken up by 1400+ acts over 3.5 days (For SX proper, you can toss another 4-500 ancillary.) Preceded by Film and Interactive, which are now bringing thousands in, as well. It's already impossible to park here. We're nice, and polite, but live in great fear that one year they just won't go home.

Salem

Salem is a black hole of suck, as is almost every town of its size I've ever been in.

Portland ain't that great, either.

Well, you have a right to this opinion, but it's wrong.

For instance, I think New York City is the best big walking city in the world. Most mega cities are awful to walk through. Walking around New York City when the weather is right is one of my favorite things to do.

Boston and San Francisco are also great walking cities, but they're small. Huge Asian cities are traffic nightmares where cars get priority over pedestrians. Los Angeles obviously is car-based. Chicago has some nice little streets but it still favors the car. I've never been to Paris or London. Jakarta's sidewalks are nightmarish. The streets smell like one big egg fart and you will die from either the heat or a crashing taxi.

This.

Haven't been to Jakarta, but I live in S Korea, and have visited several Asian metropolises, and it is godawful to walk around those most of the time. There's the weather, sure, but mostly it seems to me that since a lot of the ones I've been to were planned agriculturally and then, um, edited to include car traffic, the streets and sidewalks aren't really proportioned for the both. The little street I live on in Daegu (pop. 2.7 mil) is basically an alley that is somehow supposed to be a two way street that also includes a trash gutter and a mystery place I'm supposed to use for walking.

I like it here, and will be sad to leave. And I will admit that a lot of the downtown areas include spaces free of cars (haven't seen Times Sq. since this has happened; what's it like, fellow NYers?). But I used to leave my dad's apartment in Manhattan and just walk around for hours if the mood hit me right. I don't find it nearly as pleasant here (or in Ho Chi Minh, Seoul, KL, or some of Tokyo. Tokyo has itself together more.).

And, yeah, it's plenty annoying that in cities as ginormous as Seoul and Tokyo, you can't be hopping that late night subway home. But maybe that's how those subways stay so pretty....

As a London resident, I would say it's a fantastic city for exploring on foot, but not so much for navigating. You can wander into and past some absolutely fascinating parts of the city without meaning too - some of my favorite corners of town are those I've stumbled upon randomly - but the large number of tiny streets and lack of signs makes actually getting from A to B surprisingly difficult without consulting a roadmap every couple of turns. And that, of course, leads to jostling on the tiny, tiny sidewalks.

When I was living in Hammersmith, I spend several Saturdays walking through Kensington to the West End through a different route each time. Even detoured through Fulham and Putney down towards Wimbledon one surprisingly warm Easter weekend - reckoned afterwards I did about 20 miles without meaning to.

I find New York the opposite - excellent for walking to where you want to go, obviously due to the grid layout, but not so outstanding if you just want to walk, and find whatever happens to be in your path. It's still worth doing, but London just has this supply of odd-looking street turns at strange angles with intriguing content that seems inexhaustible.

Amsterdam's also good for random exploring, though you can stumble across mini-Red Light districts at surprising places. And occasionally bridges aren't at logical places, so you can end up backtracking a lot. But the fact that Amsterdammers don't really care too much about keeping their curtains closed (I'm told for historical reasons), combined with the endless invention in their homes, makes residential street window-peering a truly entertaining pastime.

San Francisco's actually one of the best cities for wandering I've been in because of the hills. Great views if you need them for orientation, and if the weather's clear, you can spot a point of interest a long way off. Maps are cheating.

I never got the sense that San Franciscans took insane pride in their city. It's so quiet there.

Oh, we do, it's just the annoying transients have moved in and so there's none of us left.

I think I am no more than 2-3 degrees of separation from every native San Franciscan my age and that's not because we're all close knit and cuddly. It's that there's just so goddam few of us.

I always say "FRISCO" and it always brings out the 'tude and I then relish in (although Voxter beat me to it) pointing out the 'tude, usually asking "How am I supposed to call it THE CITY when it has fewer residents than San Jose?" And the person either admits they are from somewhere else or runs to call mom and dad to up the trust fund.

San Francisco has fewer residents than San Jose because San Jose has five times the area of San Francisco. It's the City and will always be the City because 30 years of booming economy in Silicon Valley still hasn't bought jack #### in culture to San Jose. It's a frickin' cowtown.

Frisco is stupid and marks you out as a out-of-towner, probably from SoCal as well. And God knows there's no more forsaken ######## than SoCal.

Upper west side. And close to West End, so I probably shouldn't complain because it might as well be the suburbs late at night (and people who don't mind paying $5 for a half gallon).

The Associated on Amsterdam at 97th is open 24 hours and has milk at reasonable prices. I'm quite certain there are other places where you can get milk that won't be ten bucks a gallon. Duane Reade, for example.

The Pacific Northwest can call when the entire region can support more than 3 professional sports teams.

Oh, Texas. Your view of what makes a city or area great is quite... Texan.

Also, does EVERYONE complain about how it ain't like it used to be? This is definitely a get off my lawn thread.

As a London resident, I would say it's a fantastic city for exploring on foot, but not so much for navigating. You can wander into and past some absolutely fascinating parts of the city without meaning too - some of my favorite corners of town are those I've stumbled upon randomly - but the large number of tiny streets and lack of signs makes actually getting from A to B surprisingly difficult without consulting a roadmap every couple of turns. And that, of course, leads to jostling on the tiny, tiny sidewalks.

Back in the 80's I spent two months book scouting in England, and besides the relatively high prices of the books, what kept me mostly out of London was trying to find my way around by car, driving with my left hand on the stick shift (actually that became second nature in about ten seconds, though I still don't know how) and cursing the fact that the streets change names every other block. Absolutely maddening when you factor in the density of the traffic. By contrast, you can take Broadway from lower Manhattan all the way up through Westchester.

That said, it's still a city that I'd move to in a minute in one of my other eight lives, at least if the Brits ditched cricket and "football" for baseball and football. It's always so nice to find foreigners who speak English....(smile)

Also, does EVERYONE complain about how it ain't like it used to be? This is definitely a get off my lawn thread.

No, New York is objectively much better than at any other time in my lifetime. Safer, cleaner, better transportation.
You'd have to go back to the early 60's to find an equivalent era.

Of course, that has made it much more expensive, but hopefully the depression will cure that.

The only major loss is the traditional ethnic (Italian, Irish, German, Polish, etc.) enclaves; most of the former residents have decamped for the burbs and been displaced by yuppification or more recent immigrant waves.

I didn't know Dayn lived in Austin, so I don't know when it was, but I'd lay 2/1 that that guy was wearing that shirt during South By sometime after 2000. We actually do have a reason for saying please don't move here, because:

FWIW, I absolutely loved my time in Austin. Great town, full of character. After a few years, though, I just couldn't take the summers anymore. And I say this as a Mississippi native.

Back in the 80's I spent two months book scouting in England, and besides the relatively high prices of the books, what kept me mostly out of London was trying to find my way around by car, driving with my left hand on the stick shift (actually that became second nature in about ten seconds, though I still don't know how) and cursing the fact that the streets change names every other block. Absolutely maddening when you factor in the density of the traffic. By contrast, you can take Broadway from lower Manhattan all the way up through Westchester.

In no way meant as a criticism of you, but I can't help but post what I tell Brits who complain about driving in London: it's a city. You're not meant to drive in it, save for exceptions like transport of goods, off-peak travel like shift workers, and parents of the very young.

If the people who didn't need to drive actually tried getting off the roads of London, there'd be a lot more space for delivery trucks, taxis, buses, cyclists, and those ferrying books, food, and booze. You don't need a car to get from Woolwich to Greenwich, or Shepherd's Bush to Kensington, or Camden to Liverpool St.

To me, those who choose to drive around London - and complain about it - when they could easily take trains, buses, tube, etc. are behaving like those who say they like the countryside but really wish there were more Starbucks and big buildings. Except no-one says that; it's stupid. Cities and driving are not a natural marriage - people need to get used to that idea and not expect urban areas to be re-arranged for the benefit of motorists.

In summary, Jeremy Clarkson's a dolt.

My city is awesome and yours sucks. And I hate all the people like you who moved here.

For instance, I think New York City is the best big walking city in the world. Most mega cities are awful to walk through. Walking around New York City when the weather is right is one of my favorite things to do.

I moved to Philly about 9 months ago, and this statement is wrong by a mile. Philly while a step-sister of NY is a much better walking city.

Everything Saxman says about London is easily applied to NYC as well. I can give caveat for some of the outer boroughs, but anywhere close-in, and the same thing stands. People shouldn't be forced to give up their cars, but the way they cling to them in metropolitan areas is bloody stupid.

Back in the 80's I spent two months book scouting in England, and besides the relatively high prices of the books, what kept me mostly out of London was trying to find my way around by car, driving with my left hand on the stick shift (actually that became second nature in about ten seconds, though I still don't know how) and cursing the fact that the streets change names every other block. Absolutely maddening when you factor in the density of the traffic. By contrast, you can take Broadway from lower Manhattan all the way up through Westchester.


In no way meant as a criticism of you, but I can't help but post what I tell Brits who complain about driving in London: it's a city. You're not meant to drive in it, save for exceptions like transport of goods, off-peak travel like shift workers, and parents of the very young.

I don't disagree with that, but it does make the transport of goods a bit dicey for an outsider. I think that somewhere around my sixth life I'd like to spend a year or two mastering "the knowledge," just so I could make my way around London without a GPS. Of course in my fifth life I'd have to first save up enough money to pay for all those central city zone charges, but that's part of the deal.

Everything Saxman says about London is easily applied to NYC as well. I can give caveat for some of the outer boroughs, but anywhere close-in, and the same thing stands. People shouldn't be forced to give up their cars, but the way they cling to them in metropolitan areas is bloody stupid.

Living in Manhattan and owning a car is a crazy stupid thing to do, in most instances. If you live out in the provinces, a car might be useful, but is unlikely to be necessary. I didn't get a license or even learn to drive until I was 30 because it was totally superfluous to my life. I only learned because I was moving away.

I moved to Philly about 9 months ago, and this statement is wrong by a mile. Philly while a step-sister of NY is a much better walking city.

It might be better than trying to traverse Queens, but, I've never liked walking around Philly. It always seemed to me like it had pockets of nice mixed in haphazardly with pockets of ugly. But maybe that's just where my aunts/uncles (and now my mother) lives.

I think the thing that's odd about The New York Area & the Yankees is the way the relationship is portrayed by the media both Local/National as a Yankee Hegemony. There's 19 odd million people in the New York area, 1/4 love the Yankees, 1/4 are mild Yankee fans, 1/4 Hate the Yankees, and about 1/4 could care less about baseball.

I think the thing that's odd about The New York Area & the Yankees is the way the relationship is portrayed by the media both Local/National as a Yankee Hegemony. There's 19 odd million people in the New York area, 1/4 love the Yankees, 1/4 are mild Yankee fans, 1/4 Hate the Yankees, and about 1/4 could care less about baseball.

Very true. If New York was as crazed for the Yankees as Boston is for the Red Sox, they could have a $400M payroll.

JuanGone, I was saying that nyc was the best big city to walk around. I think philly is a great walking city, but it ain't big.

I don't disagree with that, but it does make the transport of goods a bit dicey for an outsider. I think that somewhere around my sixth life I'd like to spend a year or two mastering "the knowledge," just so I could make my way around London without a GPS. Of course in my fifth life I'd have to first save up enough money to pay for all those central city zone charges, but that's part of the deal.

The Knowledge would be cool - I think you can do it on a moped pretty easily, which dodges the congestion charge neatly. I've got no problem with people actually transporting goods around London by car/truck. Hell, I order from Ocado, so I'm technically doing it myself by proxy! But all the more reason why the couple popping out for some clothes-shopping on the King's Road, or the commuter travelling 4 miles in 30 minutes each morning and evening rush hour, don't need to be on the road.

I live in a fairly unfashionable part of London, though near some nice parts. Lots of people have cars; my apartment block comes with a parking space and I'm nearly the only resident who doesn't use it. This works out for me, because I can sublet it and use the funds to move all my storage boxes into a separate unit down the road. But who in the name of buggery lives in Zone 2, SE London, 10 minutes from a train station and 5 minutes' bus ride from the Jubilee line, and needs 2 cars?

The Knowledge would be cool.

And in my perverse world, that's the kind of cool that I like. I love to ask people who claim to know DC, where all 47 state avenues are located within the city, and which of the other three states has a Circle, a Drive, and a Street, rather than an avenue. Knowledge that's totally useless to anyone but a cab driver or a drug dealer (who with a GPS don't need it anymore themselves), but something I just kind of like to have stored away in case the computers crash and the President needs me to take him to Hawaii Avenue.

I spent two months book scouting in England, and besides the relatively high prices of the books, what kept me mostly out of London was trying to find my way around by car, driving with my left hand on the stick shift (actually that became second nature in about ten seconds, though I still don't know how)

Wow. I think my head would explode. I've never driven in another country, & as someone who will drive only standards when I have a choice I've somehow never factored the different-hand stick-shifting dynamic into the equation ...

San Francisco has fewer residents than San Jose because San Jose has five times the area of San Francisco. It's the City and will always be the City because 30 years of booming economy in Silicon Valley still hasn't bought jack #### in culture to San Jose. It's a frickin' cowtown.

*shrugs* "Culture" usually refers to things like opera houses and museums to which too few people go (and which struggle to remain afloat as a result) but to which residents like to point whenever they need a reason to claim more "culture" than another. Whatever. And yeah yeah, San Francisco has some good restaurants that many people can't afford and it probably has some museums and a historic Chinatown that I can get lost in. So? How often would I need to eat out to think "Boy, I'm glad there's a 3-star Michelin restaurant in this town in which other people (but not I) can afford to eat?"

Frisco is stupid and marks you out as a out-of-towner, probably from SoCal as well. And God knows there's no more forsaken ######## than SoCal.

God help someone for being an "out-of-towner" (in a city which is roughly 150 years old, give or take), but still, um, what's so "stupid" about "Frisco?" Why do the people from Frisco loathe it so? (This isn't one of those things like talking about "fanny packs" in England, is it? I.e., there's no hidden meaning to it, is there?)

How long has your family lived there anyway? A generation? Two? Three? Why the scorn for out-of-towners who dare to say such awful things as "Frisco?"

I've got no stake in the Frisco debate, but if you're ever referring to Kentucky's largest city, don't say Lou-ee-vill. The local pronunciation is superior.

Louisville, KY = "Lewuhvull"
Louisville, MS = "Lewisveal"
Lafayette, LA = "Lahfeeyett"
Lafayette County, MS = "LuhFAYett"

"Culture" usually refers to things like opera houses and museums to which too few people go (and which struggle to remain afloat as a result)

Really? A lot of people go to the Museum of Modern Art, the Legion of Honor, the DeYoung museum, and all the other museums San Francisco has that makes it great. I went there all the time. It's got one of the best symphonies and one of the best opera companies in the United States. I like living in a city that has those kinds of options for me. Other than hockey (who cares), what does San Jose have in recreation that you can't find in San Francisco? It's got more major league teams, it's got more used bookstores, it's got more burrito places, it's got better dive bars, it's got better used record stores, it's got better anarchist bookstores, it's got better sushi bars, better beaches, et al, so on and so forth. High and low culture is simply better represented in San Francisco.

And yeah yeah, San Francisco has some good restaurants that many people can't afford and it probably has some museums and a historic Chinatown that I can get lost in. So? How often would I need to eat out to think "Boy, I'm glad there's a 3-star Michelin restaurant in this town in which other people (but not I) can afford to eat?"

My family and I ate out all the time. San Jose simply doesn't have those options, unless it's Vietnamese. You can diss a Michelin three-star restaurant if you like (though to be honest I don't think San Francisco has one - Gary Danko has one star, IIRC) but everybody who likes food should have that experience once, and I can eat in a Michelin starred restaurant in my own city limits. Someone from San Ho has to drive up 50 miles to my city to do so.

I don't hate San Jose, but I don't know how anybody but the biggest San Jose fanboy imaginable can make an argument that it's a better city.
God help someone for being an "out-of-towner" (in a city which is roughly 150 years old, give or take), but still, um, what's so "stupid" about "Frisco?" Why do the people from Frisco loathe it so? (This isn't one of those things like talking about "fanny packs" in England, is it? I.e., there's no hidden meaning to it, is there?)

I'm from San Francisco. San Francisco has been invaded by transients in the last 15 years, making it very difficult for natives to continue living there affordably unless they want to pay way over the odds for a house or they're lucky and their families own property. Excuse me for resenting that; there's not a city in the country where the locals love that stuff, and probably no city that feels it acutely as San Francisco. When they also do stuff like tag it with a nickname that fundamentally mispronounces the city it just shows the disregard in which they hold my city. We're the ####### locals and if we don't like it, tough. You don't go to people in San Pedro and say they put the emphasis on the wrong syllable because that makes you an #######. don't call it Frisco.

I mean yeah, my parents came from somewhere else too, but they tried damn hard to integrate into the local culture and didn't ##### that the local bar shows the Giants over the Yankees, or how they can't get a good pizza slice here, or how cioppino is overrated. Show the same courtesy, and start by not calling it Frisco.

...and probably no city that feels it acutely as San Francisco.

OH. HELL. NO.

Again, I love Portland, but was there in early and late 90's, and San Francisco three years in the mids. I heard it from everyone all the time in Portland, seriously, they never shut up about the Californians and New Yorkers coming to ruin their city, and this and that and this use to be this way and now this and now that. And make no mistake, they ARE right, it has changed, but, well, welcome to the world. I have little doubt that Portland has changed more and does feel it more than San Francisco. But San Franciscans at least have an idea of the place and cache it has as a world city and can understand why people want to move there. Portland (and less so, Seattle, they are bigger and a bit more accepting) just can't believe the concept of growth, even when they - far more than the isthmus of San Francisco - have the capability.


(Also, a super-late shout-out to #10 - good work.)

During my time at Cal Berkeley, I learned to really like SF, but the people there are about as unwelcoming as any I've ever met — hell, they're openly hostile — especially once they find out you're from Southern California. Honestly, people, I was a frickin' student and locals treated me like I was the enemy. Really? #### you guys. Everything Zuvella wrote about Boston in #6 can be applied to SF in triplicate. (I mean, 'Frisco.)

San Francisco has been invaded by transients in the last 15 years, making it very difficult for natives to continue living there affordably unless they want to pay way over the odds for a house or they're lucky and their families own property. Excuse me for resenting that; there's not a city in the country where the locals love that stuff

That same thing happens to the rest of us, too. You know what we do? We move. To the suburbs, to other cities, to wherever we can reasonably afford to live. It's a city, it's not the Holy Land. Get over yourselves.

I hate to pass up a chance to rip Jeff and the JC that he went to, but if you can't enjoy yourself in Austin- that says a lot more about you than it says about Austin.

As for walking cities, you just can't compare American cities (even "old ones") to European cities. One of the best nights I ever had was the first night I was in Rome. I got in about 10:00 in the evening, and we spent whole night just walking around Rome. It's simply incredible how much "stuff" you run into just wandering around aimlessly. We were stumbling about with no clue where we were, and at about 2 in the morning when we run smack into the Trevi Fountain, which just seems to appear. Bright as day with tons of people milling about, it was like accidentally walking into heaven- I'll never forget it.

Eddie Izzard Dressed to Kill

So, San Francisco! ( singing ) San Francisco, San Francisco… Not “San Fran,” no, apparently not! I didn’t know that, I would’ve said “San Fran,” but you’d go, “No, we don’t like “San Fran,” #### it!” Or what’s the other one you don’t…? Oh, Frisco! You don’t like that either. ( audience hissing ) And you’re a city of snakes, I see! ( Eddie hisses ) Everyone goes to a gig with a snake in their bag. ( hisses ) No other cities have snakes as much as you. I’ve been to New York, no ####### snakes; Paris, no snakes; London, no snakes. San Francisco, full of ####### snakes! ( hisses ) We did that at school! So you call it ( rolling eyes ) “The City.” ( mocking sounds ) “The City.”

Yeah, that's about right.

And has anyone ever been anywhere in another american city in the company of a new yorker without the new yorker feeling compelled to mention that they have more of X in New York, whatever X may be? It can be anything. It comes across as some weird combination of pride/one upsmanship and insecurity.

The great irony is that so many of the people who go on and on talking about how great New York City is left there because they couldn't take living there any longer.

I prefer the grim realism of Detroiters. They continue to remain loyal and root for their teams even after they've moved out, but they know the city is an unlivable hellhole and they don't try to insult your intelligence by pretending otherwise.

The great irony is that so many of the people who go on and on talking about how great New York City is left there because they couldn't take living there any longer.

That's mostly due to money issues though. Many people who leave don't really want to, but to enjoy the quality of life requires you make a pretty nice living.

...but to enjoy the quality of life requires you make a pretty nice living.

Make a nice enough living, and almost every city becomes a great city to live in.

Make a nice enough living, and almost every city becomes a great city to live in.

True for many cities, but not to the same degree. Basically all the downsides of NY, post-Giuliani, are easily solved with money: living space, bad commutes, high taxes, etc.

The only major loss is the traditional ethnic (Italian, Irish, German, Polish, etc.) enclaves; most of the former residents have decamped for the burbs and been displaced by yuppification or more recent immigrant waves

After growing up in one of those I'd say you have to choose between safety and ethnic enclaves. The one Ii grew up in was not safe if you weren't from there. If you were it was like Mayberry RFD.

Basically all the downsides of NY, post-Giuliani, are easily solved with money: living space, bad commutes, high taxes, etc.

Not the downside of living in such close proximity to a lot of New Yorkers, though.

Not the downside of living in such close proximity to a lot of New Yorkers, though.

If you've got the money you can live on a gorgeous multi acre property in the burbs or even Riverdale about 30 min from the office via a nice clean commuter train, or car service.