We don't need your pity. There might be better examples of what an urban center could be, and some aspects of NYC are definitely a shitshow. But in my not-so-humble opinion -- nowhere else in the states comes close.
True, but his examples were not from the US, which is reasonable. The USA does cities very poorly. New York has been forced into some true urban functionality by being the biggest city in the US, but that doesn't mean it's a fine model.
You don’t have to be a regular at a restaurant to point out its flaws.
SF comes close.
After moving to SF from [small city/town] Europe a few years ago I spent a long time thinking about what it is that draws me to SF and why the only other city in USA that I'd even consider is NYC.
The answer I came up with was population density combined with population size. You want a big dense population. That creates the economies of scale that make a city feel like a city.
For example I've got 2 corner stores, 3 bars, and 2 restaurants on the same block as my apartment building. That just wouldn't make sense if there wasn't enough people around here to support those businesses.
If you look at US cities by population density on Wikipedia you'll notice the only places with more than 100,000 people and a density above 10,000 per square mile are San Francisco and New York with some surrounding cities in the greater megalopolis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
Next on the list is Boston. Then Chicago, Philadelphia, and Miami. But those have densities in the low 1X,000/mi^2 whereas SF is at 17,000/mi^2 and NYC a whopping 27,000/mi^2.
Without density a city feels like a sprawling suburb.
Not knocking on your opinion, just adding my 2 cents. Brooklyn is large, fun, exciting, etc, all the things I’d describe SF as, but I don’t know if I’d call it a metropolis on its own (at least not based on my personal opinion), whereas I would easily describe NYC as so (either defined in its entirety or just Manhattan, which would probably bug the natives).
But it’s the only upgrade on SF that I can think of in USA based on the cities I’ve visited.
It most certainly does not. SF is a simulacrum of a proper city, but it's sadly the "best" of what's available in the bay area.
Ok.
Commonly known in NYC maybe. That view is antiquated in the rest of the US.
> USA to be worthy of your sympathy based on their choice to live there is not constructive, nor rational.
Wow, so sensitive. The pity is not because of their choice. It’s for how the urban planning of NYC has been consistently squandered for 50+ years. You can simultaneously like a city and have pity for its fixable flaws (e.g. homelessness in San Francisco).
Respectfully, I doubt it. People may not _like_ NYC, but ...
- Wall Street - Carnegie Hall -MOMA, etc - As the other poster mentioned, the U.N. - Still tons of movies and shows use NYC as the setting for their story - Broadway, and theatre in the US - A huge part of the publishing industry is in NYC - Along with LA, Nashville, and Atlanta, NYC is one of the hearts of the US music industry.
And I’m sure there’s plenty I missed that we all could add to the list given a little time.
Those all seem like pretty obvious and objective markers identifying NYC as a US, if not world cultural, financial, and political hub.
Edit: the rapid downvotes show how fragile the egos of New Yorkers are, this was always something I knew... really can't handle being told New York isn't the greatest place in the world!
1) Top-tier companies to work for (second only to SF)
2) Top-tier arts/culture/park systems (second to none)
3) Wife is Korean and this is the place she's felt most safe walking alone on the street in the US (having previously lived in the Philly suburbs, Philly, and LA).
3b) Extremely multi-cultural and accepting. "Accepting" as in no one cares about anyone, which can be paradoxically nice. (second to none)
We couldn't find a city that improved on these trade-offs elsewhere in the US. Actually we've had a hard time finding places with better trade-offs anywhere else in the world (Toronto is a good candidate). But I want to work outside North America sometime.
We pay for it in the insane rents.
Certainly no harm done living in NYC for two years especially if you come with a job lined up. It will definitely make you a bit more street smart and more adaptable, I think. As far as settling down permanently and raising a family, nope.
One good thing is that living in NYC, for the first time I didn't feel like a minority. It's so different to most of the rest of the US. There is no majority "in charge" of the place. I think that was an important experience for me.
I don't regret living there, but I wish I left sooner.
Edit: if your career is, and always will be, extremely important to you, and you have a good position with lots of potential to move up, and you are workaholic type, you will probably love it.
What's the draw of Europe? Personally I don't think I'd like being a foreigner and not having any friends there. Might be cool to visit for a month or two but 2 years is kinda.... stretching it? At least in NYC its still in the states
This is a strange assertion. What do you mean by this? Are you regurgitating the standard complaint about (white, midwest) transplants? From what I've seen over the years, most of the hyper-aggressive ding dongs are braying and bleating with thick, native NY/NJ accents.
Otherwise, my experience has largely been the opposite. I’ve worked with expats from Japan and Europe, and most of them love it here. Most of the Japanese folks actually chose to bypass the West coast entirely, having never been there, and came straight to NYC. One described it as “the future” in terms of diversity.
But yeah, it’s a big city, and I see shitty behavior all the time, so I’m not surprised by your experience.