i’ve come to detest good-byes and over the years and years, i’ve done my best to avoid them.

then again, considering my life that is divided between apartments in three cities (which means that i am often in transit, i am often saying hello, often saying good-bye), i am routinely confronted with a ritual that generates a lot of anxiety in me. i comfort myself, however, with the thought that no good-bye is permanent. the beautiful lie that i’ve purchased over the years is that most of my good-byes are “good-bye for now. i’ll see you soon.”

and so, it is with this thought i mind that i am now about to say “good-bye for now, los angeles. i will see you soon.” and i will also say “good-bye for now, san francisco. see you sometime soon.”

if you are reading this, then you are part of a limited audience who is among the first to know. i’m still getting around to telling my friends who live here in los angeles. i’m telling them face-to-face. not by phone, nor by email. when i’ve told my friends here in los angeles, then i will tell the rest of my friends by way of a more general announcement.

we’re moving to new york city. we’re moving back to new york city. it may be short term. it will likely be at least a year. it might be two.

the decision was made a few days ago, though it’s been in the works for well over two months. we’ve already given notice on our apartments. we’re leaving in a few weeks.

new york city is where it all began for me. the city was not my first love, but it was the first city that i lived in as an adult. it was the first city that quenched my thirst for the gorgeous cacophony of urban living.

i did not expect to return to new york right now, in this way, but when i left new york after my first stint (back in 1993), i had a feeling that i would be back.

i lived in the east village and alphabet city during the late eighties, moving up (geographically and socially) to the more central parts of the village by 1990. i went to university back then. i left new york city when i was done with school and could no longer enjoy living in the urban chaos.

but a part of me needed to return to prove myself. i was not done with new york.

ironically, this is similar to how i feel about los angeles.

i’m not done with los angeles. this city is meant to be my long-term home. i want to live in the shining slum by the sea – the venice that i have dreamed of, the dream that i have tasted and lived in, in fits and starts, bits and pieces, for the last two somewhat discordant years.

for all of its faults, i really adore venice. it is a wonderful city to wake up to. and los angeles still fascinates me. for all of its clamor, bluster, wasted space and clogged arteries, the city is filled with surprises, beauty, generosity, creative zeal, compassion and slow-burning humour.

the move to new york city is the right move. it brings into harmony several different streams that had been diverging for too long.

even though the last few years have been fulfilling and filled with adventure, by moving to new york, adriana and i will finally be able to reestablish a way of living that has been missing for many years.

taking into account the way that we live our lives today, the shortest explanation for why we are choosing new york is the belief that by moving there, we will move closer to returning to los angeles on a full-time basis. there are many compelling reasons for why and how this is the case.

the most difficult part is the leaving.

there’s a community of friends and colleagues in los angeles whose daily presence i will greatly miss. i find it hard to stomache the thought of leaving these people and their lives that i have enjoyed the privilege of sharing in.

over the last two months, i have slowly become increasingly aware of the limited numbers of days and hours that i have left to enjoy this city, during this particular time of my life.

i’ve been reminded of how nothing lasts, nothing really endures. time is always in such short supply, and i’ve wondered about the time lost to idle thoughts and inactivities. suddenly, i have a long list of unfulfilled tasks and pleasures that need to be experienced before turning east.

highest on the list is time to be spent with friends. so that’s where i’m going to be for the next few weeks. until then, i’ll see you later.

i admire the eames’ simplified approach to design. the modularity and adaptability of their work appeals to me, and part of that is achieved by working within a strict set of guidelines. on first view, these guidelines appear to be restrictive but they are liberating because they keep things simple. it is very consistent with the scandinavian way of looking at design and problem-solving – though the eames’ approach is warmer and it feels more humane. with this thought in mind, i also appreciate the humility and playfulness in their work.

having been familiar with much of the eames’ work for a long time, i finally had a chance to visit their home in the pacific palisades last saturday.

with the exception of a docent and the curator (who were exceedingly gracious and generous with their time), we had the residence to ourselves for about 90 minutes.

standing in the meadow, gazing towards the two structures that form their home and office, one is overtaken by a fleeting moment of joy, there is wonder and beauty in the space that they have created out of this hillside grove: it is comprehensible, peaceful, a home, a laboratory.

the next morning, i wrote to a friend, charlie becker, whom i consider somewhat of an expert on eames.

csk: “it’s hard not to notice the use of common building materials in the eames’ constructions – and, as far as i understand, these choices of building materials play an important role in their approach to design. i like this a lot, and wonder if one of the motivations behind this is that the eames felt that it was important to open up the fields of architecture and design to a wider audience – to make it more affordable and therefore more accessible. more democratic. is this the case? did the eames promote this philosophy? or am i confusing their approach to materials as also representative of their philosophical approach to the societal role of architecture?”

cb: “the eames legacy was very much about democratization, charles was always striving to make their designs the most cost effective, the most available to as many people as possible. it’s a great testament that so many schools, libraries, and offices were outfitted with their furniture. they were definitely not elitist design snobs. as for the house, i’m not sure it was purely their motivation, as the case study program and mandate was developed by john entenza, from arts & architecture magazine. they were one of around three dozen houses designed for it. and that’s about all they did as far as buildings are concerned. i think part of that was frustration with the business of architecture. they focused instead on furniture, films, exhibits, and the like.”

csk: “so, the eames were indeed proponents of the idea that architecture and design should have an expanded role in society and should be, in essence, more affordable. great. i had a feeling that this was the case. the reason why this interests me is i find it a bit sad that as the years go by (and perhaps it is inevitable), the prestige of owning an object designed by eames has only increased, as has the price tag. eames has become exclusive – and i wonder if this is consistent with their original ambitions? i want to know if, in this zealous quest to an own a work designed by eames, people are overlooking an important aspect of eames design?

cb: “the current prices are sadly just a function of the marketplace. the eames’ would not have condoned it.”

to be continued…

los angeles.

the first day of the new year was spent surfing with a. at the venice breakwater (as we celebrated our 12^th anniversary together).

on the second day, we hiked a 10-mile loop hike up sullivan canyon and down mandeville canyon.

this is a good way to start the new year.