Intellectuals are supposedly moving from Boston to Washington. I'm skeptical. Says the Times:

Louis Menand, the New Yorker writer and Harvard literature professor, who has also worked in Washington, said that while the capital has "this reputation of being wonky and boring," this can be appealing for practitioners of ideas. Washington journalists especially "become suddenly interesting in a way they might not be in New York," where they are competing with artists, actors, restaurateurs, advertising executives and Wall Street moguls for prestige, he said.

As is often the case, there's no trend in this Times trend piece, since The Atlantic's move from Boston to Washington "was driven by economics, not symbolism or a desire for cachet." Saying Boston's no longer "trying"—as if this were a performance review—is pure silliness. Even if what Menand says is true, there's something defeatist about it—it's like giving up on New York men and moving to Alaska to find a husband (or dialing up a faraway mail-order bride). Sure, tired people starved for conversation not about tax cuts will find your monograph riveting, but will that satisfy after the first few heady conversations? Of course there are smart folks who read in Washington, but you can't convince me that Boston still doesn't have more big thinkers, block for block and bar for bar, than D.C. I'm very fond of the proud northern city myself, though I lived there for only six days before moving to blizzardy Buffalo, NY. On the seventh day, I nested.

Washington's Egghead Quotient Keeps Growing [NYT]