Another question is what makes some cities become not real cities? Why is there a massive migration out of some cities but not out of others?

Toronto, for instance, even undertook a reverse migration where people got fed up with living in the city’s butt ugly and hugely overpriced suburbs and massively moved back to the city.

Why did St. Louis become a not real city while Chicago didn’t? What is the big difference between the two? Chicago has a higher crime rate, the climate is intolerable to many people, yet it is alive. St. Louis has a much better climate (from the conventional point of view) but it stands empty.

“I’m a big city guy,” a colleague said. “But I have no interest in moving St. Louis because it isn’t a real city.”

This was the first time I heard that North American cities can be subdivided into real and not real ones. The real cities are the ones whose inhabitants have not moved out to the suburbs and continue to live their lives in the city. They sleep, eat, work, and do everything in the city and only visit the suburbs if they have a specific goal.

The not real cities are the ones that people only visit if they have a specific goal: working at one of the downtown offices, watching a baseball game or a music show, etc. Otherwise, the city just stands empty.

According to this classification, the real cities include Montreal, San Francisco, New York, Philadelphia, and since quite recently Toronto.

The not real cities are St. Louis, Phoenix, and Detroit.

Which other real and not real cities do you know in North America?

It is very curious how the same people who decry objectification find it impossible to believe that when you respond to their posts you are engaging with them on an intellectual level and addressing their ideas. Instead, they choose to believe that you must have something personal against them.

“I’m not ready for a relationship right now” means “I don’t like you all that much; please go away already.”

So does “At this point in my life I need to concentrate on my career.”