I live in that 'vast wasteland,' and I can count a vast number of restaurants within a 3 mile circle of where I live. Expand the radius to a 10 minute driving distance, and I can reach (via Creek Turnpike and Riverside) an even larger array of fine dining. Easy biking distance as well. Vast wasteland? Sounds like another mid-town bigoted comment that's not really based on any facts. If you want to talk facts, let's drag out the crime statistics by location...and we'll clearly see the factual difference between the 'vast wasteland' and mid-town.

As someone who's lived in both mid-town and the south suburbs, I can state for a fact it is much quieter in the burbs. No barking dogs here. We wouldn't put up with them either. The ambient noise is simply quieter. I can stand out on my deck at night, and it's just quieter. In mid-town, there was always the background noise of far-off traffic, etc. It's more noticeable in the winter even.

Truth is, there are advantages of each. I know mid-towners that hardly ever venture south of 41st. I know many southerners who have no need to ever venture north of 41st (or 71st for that matter). One can argue the benefits of their particular region, but I think it's mainly a matter of pure preference. However the theme we tend to hear from mid-towners is that "it's the place to be...if you aren't mid-town then you're not in the best place." Ugh. I like the new Blue Rose, but parking just plain stinks. But I also like Los Cabos on a nice evening. The two places are so different they can't be compared, but there's something fun about each one. Why does someone have to argue that one is 'better?'