I find that when it comes to communities, I like the extremes. Give me a rural, wooded, empty landscape. Or New York City. Either works for me. The in-betweens, "small cities," and especially suburbs, just don't feel right to me.
On a recent weekend, I was spending time in Vermont. In many ways, it felt like Michigan's UP: small towns, rough landscape, and hardy locals. Lynn and I strolled through tiny towns, ate lunch along a crystal-clear river, and rode horses through mountain forests.
Immediately upon returning to the bustling metropolis of NYC, we had to quickly transition back to city folk. We had massages at a spa (we were celebrating our second anniversary, after all). That evening we attended the film premier of "Stone" at the Museum of Modern Art. Edward Norton was there (didn't meet him), and apparently a host of other people I probably ought to have recognized (didn't meet them). The after-party was at a swank hotel near the main public library building (think Ghostbusters) where the food was amazing, drinks unending, and coolness factor far out-matching myself.
But it was fun, all of it. I enjoyed horseback riding miles from nowhere as much as attending the premier in the metropolis. And somehow, putting them within 24 hours of each other reminded me why the two places I've explicitly chosen to live are on the opposite ends of every spectrum.
If nothing else, the extremes are interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
I totally agree!
I see what you're saying about liking extremes, but I think you need to give suburbia and small cities more of a chance. Rather than viewing a suburb as a bit city-like and bit countrified, see it as an extreme case of suburbia. All places have their own kind of unique characteristics that can make you smile when they live up to their stereotypes, though it's true that's little consolation if there's not a single pub open after 9pm.
Post a Comment