The insatiability of cities

I've always had this deep-rooted fascination with cities. They’re living, breathing entities, each with its distinct character and vibe. I’m grateful to have lived in a number of different cities – from Ashland, a small town in southern Oregon, to Denver, to LA, and now New York. And along the way, I've had the privilege of visiting a variety of international cities, each offering a slice of life that's intriguingly unique.

I feel though that I have yet to really feel satiated by a city.

I’ve had brief moments of “returning” to a city that have felt like returning to my shelter and familiar life, but I struggle to think of a place I’ve lived in so far that has truly made me feel holistically satisfied. Perhaps my hometown could be an exception, given the sheer amount of time I've spent there, but often when I go back I’ve felt the urge to leave to somewhere bigger, and more energizing.

Each city, I've noticed, comes with its own set of stereotypes, and its own “megaculture”.

LA is known as being an entertainment capital, and prioritizes looks and fame – I’ve been to house parties where people have requested my social profile before even starting a conversation. Not enough followers? You’re nobody.

Denver prioritizes getting outdoors – making time for nature and beating the crowds to the mountains. The weekend starts on Thursday, and happy hours kick off at 4pm Mon-Wed, so don’t expect to get a whole lot done very quickly. Ironically, I didn’t embrace any bit of outdoor lifestyle until I left Denver, but I’ve since come to appreciate the satisfaction of conquering a hike with a friend.

Now, in New York, I'm still figuring out how I fit into the city's mold.

This has me contemplating a stint in San Francisco, considering its status as a tech hub, and my alignment with its megaculture of working on early-stage companies. It seems each city has their own overarching identity, and I'm trying to piece together how my own eclectic mix of interests - art, music, DJing, design, tech - align with these urban personas. In San Francisco, there's a glaring focus on tech. But I’ve always felt that SF’s megaculture is too narrow, lacking the diversity I'm searching for.

And then there's the aspect of relationships. What are cities but the people that live in them?

The dynamic in New York is starkly different from LA. Here, the density of the city catalyzes quicker, more frequent connections, a stark contrast to the delayed social rhythm I experienced in Los Angeles, unsurprisingly due to the commute to much of LA. In New York, it may be the equivalent travel time, but the mental barriers of going somewhere are so much lower than in LA.

As I’ve lived now in three major cities in my adult life, I’ve realized that shifting my life to a new place is more than just a physical move. It's about trying to find an environment where my identity fits in, where I don't just adapt to the city's megaculture but find my own niche within it.

Is it even possible, or is the mission itself inherently insatiable? I would argue that cities are too dynamic to be aligned perfectly with someone’s microculture, so is the theory of going towards the perceived “best megaculture” even a valid one? Or is it more important to just prioritize finding people within the niches you’re interested in?

It seems that the microcultures within these megacultures are more important for aligning identity with being “satiated” by a city. You almost begin your search finding the largest magnitude of similar people, and then forge your way into your interest niches through meeting other people that may introduce you to groups that celebrate your other interests. The velocity of how you meet these people depends on both your time in the city and the serendipity of the city.

Maybe four years in LA and four years in Denver weren’t enough. I certainly made a lot of friends in both places, but maybe I didn’t put enough effort into finding the microcultures that I would best thrive in.

Then there’s my experience of leaving the cities I’ve lived in. My appreciation for places like Denver and Los Angeles really peaked in the final months of my stay. It's like you only start to really 'get' a place when you're about to leave – Or maybe your mind stops sweeping the infinite unknown for newer, better, more exciting opportunities, and starts to invest deeper into the relationships and commitments you’ve already made that are now coming to a new phase. A phase that may be the conclusion of most of those relationships.

Perhaps a city can be “satiable” if you go deep into it. A routine of running into the same neighbors, of building a diverse network of people you share similar interests with, and actively investing (yes, paying for classes and such) in your hobbies. While it’s much easier to maintain a lighter calendar, it may not be as fulfilling to miss consistent rituals.

While I haven’t felt like I’ve been fulfilled by a city, I am truly grateful for all of the friends I’ve made in the places I have lived. It makes me wonder whether relying on the physical place for meaning is too passive – That going to a place without putting in the effort to contribute back to it doesn’t provide opportunity to feel fulfillment, because I haven’t felt like I had an impact on the people or the environment. I haven’t given it enough of myself.

The satiability of a city may come from sharing as much of ourselves with the city as we can. The megacultures are there to magnetize people, but once you’re here, it’s up to you to decide the habits and hobbies of the person you are within that place.