Probably not wrote: in case you hadn't heard, Seattle, San Diego, and Boston are, in fact, CITIES.
Seattle? A capital C - let alone capital ITIES - city?
Probably not wrote: in case you hadn't heard, Seattle, San Diego, and Boston are, in fact, CITIES.
Seattle? A capital C - let alone capital ITIES - city?
Well I didn't designate them that but they do seem to have tall buildings and everything.
On behalf of all Chicago dwellers on this thread looking to be offended, perhaps you could write to them and inform them they are merely a town?
Probably not wrote:
Overreact much?
The man is considering moving somewhere. He has his choice of many places. In that case, it makes sense to pick someplace that has such options if he can. What is wrong with you?
Incidentally, in case you hadn't heard, Seattle, San Diego, and Boston are, in fact, CITIES.
where in his post did the OP ask about mountains or waterfronts or woodchip trails? heck, he didn't even mention running. he asked about single life. maybe if you're really outdoorsy or something such things are important. however, if you're considering moving to a city like chicago, i have a feeling such things really aren't that important.
chuck d wrote:
where in his post did the OP ask about mountains or waterfronts or woodchip trails? heck, he didn't even mention running.
Yes he did:
"I'm looking for opportunities to meet both men to hang with and running partners and of course women"
You're right that he didn't mention "woodchip trails" but then again, neither did I.
he asked about single life. maybe if you're really outdoorsy or something such things are important. however, if you're considering moving to a city like chicago, i have a feeling such things really aren't that important.
If you are into running, you are already "outdoorsy" at least to that extent. It isn't much of a stretch to think that perhaps the person might be considering such things as I mentioned. If you live in Chicago, your choices in these options are limited compared to many other places. That's all. Doesn't mean it isn't a great city.
Seriously, are people just LOOKING to be offended here? If the OP decides the information I originally mentioned is not important to him then so be it, but it's hardly a stretch to mention it.
It's a no win situation for single men and women who run, train, are active, etc. on where to live. Cities are good because you can meet other singles more easily. Places that are small towns that are good for training like Flagstaff, Boulder, Mammoth Lakes are great for training and outdoor activities but don't have the social scene. See post Shortage of Single Women in Boulder:
http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=2308243
Where the hell is a single active person supposed to live?
Probably not wrote: On behalf of all Chicago dwellers on this thread looking to be offended, perhaps you could write to them and inform them they are merely a town?
Just to clarify - well hell, in truth just to take advantage of your invitation to bash a second city in this thread - I grew up near Chicago and wouldn't consider moving back or spending more than a few days unless forced at gunpoint to choose *some* Midwestern location. And it sure ain't full of fatties because of sheer culinary excellence (aside from the world's best hot dogs and lots of good Mexican and Polish chow).
The Best U.S. Cities for Singles - Gadling
http://www.gadling.com/2007/07/11/the-best-u-s-cities-for-singles/
Men should move eastward, women should move westward.
According to that map, there are more women than men in Chicago. Hmm, maybe I should move there?
That is a great map.