That, or not having sufficient dynamic range.
Have you perhaps considered that they're not very diverse? NYC and SF are a bit different yeah, but other than that they're all remarkably similar. Honestly it's a significant factor in why I decided to move back to Europe. It always bothered me when Americans claim that the US states are as diverse as separate countries in e.g. Europe. No, just no. You are blinded by the fact you've grown up there and are attuned to the small regional differences. There are as large regional differences within individual European countries as there are in the US.
Have you considered that they're not very large differences and you're just blinded by the fact that you're attuned to them?
Well, let's compare. You could drive for days across America, and hear truly microscopic changes in accent and dialect from one side to the other.
Here in Scotland, I could drive for an hour and hear a totally different accent, two hours would get me to a totally different dialect, and with a six hour drive it's literally a completely different language.
... and you'd still be further south than anywhere in the UK :-D
On the other hand, I'm not very attuned to the differences within e.g. Norway, the UK or Spain, but based on the politics that is visible to me, there are quite stark differences in many European countries and I have no reason to believe they are less diverse than Sweden or the US.
You can debate which are more or less diverse, but you have to admit that they are on the same order of magnitude. The difference between European countries is an order of magnitude or more different that the differences within the US. I can't understand how anyone can argue otherwise.
This. Being a European, after seeing NYC, SF and Las Vegas, I passed on an opportunity to go for a week-long business trip to Seattle. Even though I had the time, I imagine Seattle being just mostly more of the same (an uniform, boring city consisting of XX century architecture built on a grid) and absolutely not worth the trip.
Americans speaking about large cultural differences between regions always surprise me - I often suspect they don't understand what "cultural differences" mean and instead talk about political differences.
[1] In the Soviets, the cities were built on different premises, so they look very different - although the countries were so poor that, even though urban planning was excellent (ubiquitous parks, public spaces, houses built far away from busy roads etc.), the buildings themselves are drab due to resource constraints.
You later changed to "worth it" because you didn't want to admit that these places might not be "more of the same", because they aren't the same at all.
I suspect you also realized that if you find yourself "bored" in NYC, the problem is not the city. There are few places in the world with more things you can do 24/7 than New York.
I didn't change anything. I think it's clear that I passed on opportunity to go to Seattle because I didn't think it was worth it (why else would I pass on it)?
> I suspect you also realized that if you find yourself "bored" in NYC, the problem is not the city.
Where did I write that I was bored in NYC? I think it's great, but I also think it exhausts the experience of "large, dense American city built mostly in XX century" to the point where seeing another one doesn't add that much. Aren't Americans travelling to places like New Orleans or Nashville precisely because they're not like most ordinary American cities?
To the European eye, all parts of all American cities look exactly the same, with the exception of those bits that directly touch a body of water.
Yeah, that's what I imagine. A better, more beautiful, more pristine version of what I have at home. I'd gladly see that. But places like deserts or tropics or arctic are nothing like home, and a bit like traveling to another planet - more interesting to see, although there may be not that much to see there after a first couple of days.
> Florida is extremely boring, the only thing it has going for it is the warm water.
Doesn't Florida still have some pristine swamps? It would be cool to see them. Also, I've just never been to a place with oppresive heat, aligators, plenty of mosquitos (in the swamps) and all the rest of it - it'd cool to experience it once, even if to swear it off for the rest of my life.
Large American cities have many minorities that tend to congregate socially and geographically, hence "Koreatown", "Little Russia" etc. You have your Cuban-Americans and eat Thai food.
An American will say this is diversity. I guess it is in a sense, but with very flawed integration. Other countries also had large influxes of immigrants in the past century and they eventually are integrated, enriching themselves and their host country in the process. I wish people would reflect more why this doesn't happen in the US.
America is currently home to almost 50 million immigrants, representing about 13% of our population. This is more than any country on Earth by number, and something like 8th by percentage. This number is just immigrants, not the American children of immigrants.
The population of Chinatown in SF is around 35,000. Only 80% of that is some kind of Asian. The Chinese-American population of San Francisco is around 175,000 (out of around 850,000; total Asian-American population is around 280,000). There are areas of concentration, but you've a great chance of having a Chinese-American neighbor or two wherever you live in the city. The population of Little Italy in Manhattan is just under half white, with less than 10% being ethnically Italian. Similar demographic changes for Little Russia in SF. With the exception of some religious enclaves (e.g. Hasidic Jews), this is probably the case for most enclaves in the US older than (say) 50 years.
Enclaves existed in Europe historically and still exist today. Both in the US and in Europe, enclaves formed both naturally as a thing immigrants did to survive in their new host country and as part of government plans.
Ethnically, in the US the lines are essentially gone. Almost no one cares if your grandmother was Irish or your cousin married a Greek. (There are some pockets where people do care, but they're usually associated with historical beef—or generalized racism—and they're by far the exception.) To the extent non-white people care about ethnicity, it is probably correlated with how recently their ancestors immigrated, with recent immigrants themselves most likely to hold such views. I doubt this is that different from Europe.
We do tend to divide more along racial lines; especially between certain groups—usually with outspoken people in BOTH groups having a problem with mixing. This is seen both socially and geographically; especially in some places. (Even this has changed significantly over my lifetime in places I thought it wouldn't.) I don't really know how this compares to Europe.
It has people at all stages of assimilation, including communities of completely unassimilated immigrants, but it also has large populations from just about every ethnic background in existence that consider themselves Americans first, and are also considered fully and completely American by the vast majority of other citizens. I don’t think you’ll find that to the same degree anywhere else.
LA has greater concentration of a single dominant ethnic/racial group (Hispanic, 48%) than San Francisco (non-Hispanic White, 40%).
To the contrary, I find it odd that there isn't a single upper-tier livable city in the western 2/3rds of the US but every city in the eastern 95% of Australia is top tier. Hell, my neighbors immigrated from Australia.
And frequently people move for bigger money or career opportunities over livability.
The problem also is the laid-back culture which creates mediocrity in my opinion, the tech scene in Europe, America, Singapore is much better as a result.
Depending on priorities its a great place to live, but if you are super passionate about whatever you are doing, it may not be the best place to advance career wise.