Three of Uptown Almanac's "plugged in" readers forwarded along this article from your podiatrist's waiting room rag of choice, Travel + Leisure, which--drum roll, please--anoints San Francisco the third best American city for hipsters!
Done patting yourself on the back/pointing at yourself saying, "not my damn fault"? Okay, good.
This is amazing news to any Bay Area cool kids concerned with how they collectively stack up against other locales in the eyes of the elderly. Only Seattle and Portland surpassed our hallowed streets, and I'm pretty sure Seattle died of a heroin overdose 15 years ago and Portland... well Portland has probably one of the best PR campaigns on television right now. Also, who cares about Seattle and Portland?
The city which we're most often measured up against, New York City, didn't even crack the top 10. That's right, NYC sits ugly down at the #12 spot, behind Portland (Maine), Austin, Denver, and San Juan, Puerto Rico--that last one being this biggest diss of them all. I mean, who knew Puerto Rico was even in America, much less a tropical hipster haven?
Of course, the problem with this magazine's list is the scientific method used to make it. Namely, they didn't use a scientific method. From the intro:
[We] ranked 35 metropolitan areas on culturally relevant features like live music, coffee bars, and independent boutiques. To zero in on the biggest hipster crowds, we also factored in the results for the best microbrews and the most offbeat and tech-savvy locals.
Basically, they defined the undefinable not by the exaggeration in their collective eye roll, but by their fancy tastes in beer, coffee, and iPhone apps?
Anyone want to take a vay-cay to Puerto Rico and scope out some off-shore hipsters?