January 16, 2007

Your City Ain't Shit (Unless It's Got a River)

Having spent the first two weeks of 2007 wandering through Western Europe, I have arrived upon one resounding, ground-breaking conclusion: your city ain't shit unless it's got a river running through it. That's right. It's the river that makes the city.

Now clearly, this need-a-river-to-be-cool requirement places certain newer cities, including my beloved San Francisco (and of course, Irvine), at a distinct disadvantage, but when did being cool become summer camp for self-confidence? Discrimination is not bad when it comes to rating coolness; in fact, it's necessary: for someone or something to be cool, other people or things have to be uncool. To analogize: in 24, Jack Bauer wouldn't be nearly as cool unless there was a whole slew of uncool people also in the show (i.e., Chloe). That's the way it is; that's the way it has to be. And when it comes to cities, a river is a necessary (but not sufficient, mind you) condition for coolness—at least, in my opinion (which incidentally, is all that matters).

Nothing says cool about a city more than a river, no matter how polluted, repulsive, or hazardous to living organisms it may be. Hell, it can even be an open sewer, as long as I can take an artsy photo of a turd floating in those tepid waters while riding a touristy gondola. Besides the obvious coolness that comes with a river running through the city, there's also tangential aspects that are equally notable. For instance, with a city built on a river, you can immediately create neighborhoods based on the banks of the said river. That's instant cool status. How cool is it to say that you live in South Bank, or on the Right Bank, or even sur la Rive Gauche? Pretty damn cool. On the other hand, poseur terminology like NOPA¹—North of the Panhandle, for the nescient—can hardly compare. Cities built on rivers bring back wonderfully misplaced nostalgia about La Belle Époque; cities without rivers just bring up memories about The Jungle².

So, where does that leave you, you might ask. Well, if you live in London (Thames), Paris (Seine), or Vienna (Danube), your city is cool; same with Amsterdam (Amstel), Budapest (Danube), and Prague (Moldau). Then again, remember the necessary, but not sufficient thing? Baghdad (Tigris), Bogotá (Bogotá), and Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon) also lie on rivers, and I don't know if I would consider any of those cool—not to mention safe. However, by and large, if you live in the States, you're out of luck. Even beautiful San Francisco or Berkeley, with their breathtaking ocean views and frigid bay waters cannot qualify (no assholes, Strawberry Creek does not count). Does that just leave us Minneapolis, Chicago, New York, and various undesirable places along the Mississippi River? Maybe. But that's just the way it is: no city can be cool without a river. Give me a city without a river and I'll give you a city that ain't shit. Dixi.

¹ I hate this term.
² Sinclair, Upton. The Jungle. Ironically, Chicago has a river that runs through it, but it's a small, non-notable one.