Sorry if I am on a Heideggerian binge language wise, but I was thinking of the cities that I have visited and thought about the Heideggerian term of a thing in and of itself. Say I am talking about Fort Lauderdale or San Diego. Some people like them because of X or Y is there. But even though neither has anything overly mind-blowing, like more friendly people or whatever, I feel like I enjoyed them in and of themselves without needing X or Y amenities there. It likely has more amenities (and maybe more opportunities to meet people), but I have realized that maybe what I need is not necessarily friends, but stimulation, and I can only get that from mega areas (Miami MSA, San Diego ,etc). I also liked Boston, but I worry that even Boston is not big enough. LA had pros and cons. Bogota was perfect (but I need a job). I have been honing in on Dallas and seems to have more jobs, things to do, etc. as compared to my current city. Smaller cities are nice for getting your career going, but when the cost of living is going up in even then with less benefits, it may make more sense to live in a large MSA. There are a few smaller areas I do like (Fort Meyers and Sioux Falls), but more to buy property in.

On the opposite end sometimes I would rather living in Wyoming and have acres to do what I want (build a pole barn with a virtuasphere in it or random projects). I think it is the cost of things to do (whereas smaller cities are too expensive to buy land, but there are less opportunities to do things).

Tldr. Small area and larger areas have a bell curve of usefulness for me as one is so inexpensive I can do whatever I want whereas large areas have more to do, even if land is more expensive, and medium cities are in the middle of the bell curve in terms of things to do vs cost