[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.