Does living in cities lead to dissatisfaction?

As Rem Koolhaas investigates a cultural revolution he shifts part of his focus to the interior of the building, and on the activities that occur within. The interior, he writes, “is in a constant state of flux – of themes, programs, iconographies – in which the volatile metropolitan citizens, with their overstimulated nervous systems, combat the perpetual threat of ennui”.

So from this I ask, does living in cities lead to dissatisfaction?

I am from a very small rural town and I love living in the city. Is it because it is an entirely new experience to me – living in a place so different from my home? Is it because of the isolation – the fact that I can walk down the street and not have to say hello to seven people I know as I pass? Or is it because everything is always constantly changing – activities to take part in – people to meet? In a small town hardly anything changes, and when it does, everyone throws a fit. People are used to being satisfied with the bare minimum here – thinking any change will shotgun the town into a downward spiral. A city in contrast is designed to appeal to the masses with everything at their fingertips leading to a constructed artificiality of the place in which people are tricked into thinking that they are having unique and natural experiences. One of the examples Koolhaas used to explain this artificiality was Coney Island’s steeplechase ride – allowing the masses to simulate horseback riding. I equate this to everyone wanting to live in a thriving and happenin’ neighborhood with new restaurants they can try (one ride), shops that are different than those in the mall (another), bars that have a funky-can’t-put-my-finger-on-it vibe (you get the drift). 

What happens when you “ride all the rides” in your neighborhood – in the city?