At run club last night a friend and I were discussing how we never saw this third friend any more, and debated whether he had maintained any social life at all after he acquired his girlfriend, etc. etc. And I confessed, "Well, it's not like I ever go up to S.F." It's true - ever since this guy moved to the city a few years ago, our frequency of interaction has gone way, way down.
Ace is on this lightning hot competitive triathlon team, which encourages its members to do their track workout as a group up in San Francisco on Wednesdays. This has caused Ace to miss Wednesday evening run club for several weeks and somebody was asking me last night how his new team was working out.
I hate commuting much more than Ace does, so I started editorializing as to whether the perks of being on the team were really worth the hour and a half of driving once a week it required.
These two exchanges reminded me of a conversation I had years ago with my friend Jeff, because it made me wonder whether the commute question typifies a number of Bay Area calculations.
Jeff was a great dater. He dated widely and often - and he was a great date, too (we went out for a while before we downgraded to friends, then upgraded to roommates). I remember talking to him after a date he'd gone on with a girl up in the city. He had told me it was a great date, she was attractive, they got along really well and had a good time. It sounded very promising.
A few days later, I followed up. "What about that girl up in the city?"
"Oh," he said, "I decided she wasn't a forty minute girl."
"A what?"
He explained that, in the Bay Area, eligible single people are sprinkled so widely and pursue their activities so broadly that you can easily find yourself living in South San Jose, and meeting then dating a person who lives up in Marin. Which, assuming no traffic, is a good hour-fifteen drive, one way, not to mention a $5 toll.
Consequently, he said, you always have to weigh the potential of a particular target against their geographical proximity, or lack thereof. Thus, he said, he thought this girl was great, but not great enough that he was excited to drive forty minutes to see her. And she lived forty minutes away.
"Would you drive twenty minutes to see her?"
"Oh yes. She's definitely a twenty minute girl."
I think in most parts of the country, single people generally cluster in urban areas, so that "commuting" to date one another is a non-issue - though it obviously takes time to catch a cab/ride the subway/drive around the Beltway, one potential date takes approximately as long to meet up with as any other. And that is similarly true in San Francisco proper.
But Silicon Valley is an odd place in that on the one hand it is very suburban, but on the other, there are a lot of young single people down here anyway - spread all around in the various towns where housing approaches affordable. And social activities are similarly decentralized - sports seem to be about joining one of many many clubs that rarely overlap except for infrequent competitions - there don't appear to be too many simple 'pickup' (game, not date) opportunities. And nightlife is scattered. So it's as easy to meet somebody in your neighborhood as somebody who came from really far away. And Jeff's calculation, while unromantic, was eminently practical.
So I was curious to know whether people have a perspective on how the near/far question plays into your social - or recreational, or other - lives.
Recent Comments