A couple of weeks back, Boston was all a-twitter with having been named the worst dressed city in the US by GQ.
Naturally, I wasn’t surprised to learn that a city with a population of what seems like 62.5 million college kids would rate so low, or so high, depending on the way you look at it. And as one who spends a good deal of time on the streets of Boston, it has not escaped my notice that the average male is wearing either a Brooks Brothers sack suit, or some sort of professional team jersey and a baseball cap. There are two clothing stores in my neighborhood specializing in whale pants and Nantucket reds, so I understand that Boston doesn’t exactly scream “fashion.”
Yet I’ve traveled around the states quite a bit, and Boston doesn’t exactly stand out as all that different than other cities, so I had to wonder who GQ’d like. Manhattan, I supposed. Lots of money chasing lots of bespoke suits. Or Dallas, where the Neiman influence must rub off. Or LA where looking good seems to matter more than it does in these parts.
But, no, the GQ article, which I gather was kind of silly, even by GQ standards, pretty much had it in for pretty much every place you can think of, and then some that were just thrown in for good measure: Bristol, CT (home to ESPN); Wasilla, Alaska (home to you-betcha-know-who); and Martha’s Vineyard, which isn’t even a city or a town, but is home to a number of wearers of the odious Nantucket reds.
Number two on the bad-dressed hit parade was LA. Pittsburgh was three, Chicago four, and Manhattan five. Dallas rated 23.
So I guess there’s no place safe from GQ’s gimlet eye, other than perhaps their own HQ.
As a nation, we’re apparently way too casual for their discerning tastes. Perhaps they’d be happier if we had a few more Milans or Parises, where everyone’s dressed to the nines and snottily looking down their noses at American tourists in jeans and comfy shoes.
Dressing well is all well and good but, at the end of the day, if someone’s dressed in a way that’s presentable, comfortable, and not too revealing (yes, you with the butt hanging out, I am talking about you), who cares?
I wore a uniform for 12 years, so it’s probably not surprising that I’m perfectly happy wearing the same thing day in, day out. Cold weather: jeans, turtle necks, and wool sweaters; warm weather: khaki capris or Bermudas, tee-shirts with cotton sweaters. Decent pair of black pants for the odd occasion requiring dress up.
Anyway, Boston being Boston, it is taking enormous reverse pride in having been anointed the worst dressed city in the nation.
We are above all that, more intellectual, less superficial, blah-di-blah. That is, until you read the list and realized that it’s even more utter nonsense than you might have thought a priori.
So we’ll have to grab out true satisfaction from the University of Michigan survey that claims that Boston is the least friendly city in the country. (Source: WERS – Emerson College – News.)
Now this is something that definitely looked worth delving into.
How was this decided? What cities did we beat out? Where’s friendly-ville, so I know where to avoid?
Alas, there was scant detail to be found on this survey. I googled the name of the survey’s author, looked at the Survey Research Center site at the U of Michigan, searched all over for “least friendly city survey” and “most friendly city survey.” And all I found were cites to Boston being the least friendly.
Once again, just the sort of non-award we revel in.
Personally, I find Boston perfectly friendly.
That’s likely because I’m a native New Englander, and like a goodly level of reserve.
I want people to be courteous and pleasant when I have any encounter with them, and generally find Bostonian’s to be so – unless they’re operating a motor vehicle, or working at the registry, in which case all bets are off. But there is an absence of the hiya-hawaya, in your face, “friendliness” that some seem to regard as an indication that the territory flows with welcome, milk, and honey for all. Personally, a little of this goes a long way, and while maybe New England could do with a bit more Midwest openness and Midwest nice, I associate really invasive “friendliness” with judgmental nosiness. My fear is that you casually mention to the waitress at the Down Home Café that you find kiddie pageants a depraved, pornographic atrocity, and the next thing you know the Grand Kleagle’s paying a courtesy call. But this is just me.
I do acknowledge that New England/Boston may be a hard place to move into. But that’s because so many of us have always been here, we have friends and family around and aren’t necessarily looking for more of either. Moving to a place with a lot of non-natives likely makes it easier to make new friends.
But, lucky me, I’m not moving here. I’m here. And I’m from here.
Least friendly city in the United States? I’ll reserve judgment until I get a hold of that full survey and see what we’re up against.
But if we are, indeed the least friendly, the gruffest, the meanest, the surliest, the toughest, well, so be it.
Apparently I’m in the right place.
1 comment:
My friend (native Arlingtonian) and I (native Worcesterite) have discussed Boston's alleged unfriendliness before, and came to much the same confusion. Bostonians (and New Englanders) are not unfriendly. Sure, we aren't all warm-and-fuzzy, strike-up-a-conversation-with-a-stranger friendly like they are in other parts of the country, but if you approach one of us with a direct request - for directions, for help with a fare machine, whatnot - we'll do what we can to help you. We're conditioned, I think, to avoid eye contact so as not to give an opening to someone who "just needs twenty bucks to take the bus to Springfield to see my PO/dying mother/grandmother's funeral," and, more than that, we don't want to bother you.
I've always found the rampant friendliness in other parts of the country a little fake and kind of creepy - like it could be gone in an instant, with something sinister in its place. At least here you now what you're getting.
Post a Comment