Which city would you declare as the US cultural capital if there is one?

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Quixote

All three cities are sophisticated. But I would say that New York is less elegant and more brash in a sort of "nouveau-riche, bigger is better" kind of way... which is very American. You can still tell that it was a city built by working-class immigrants.

I read an analysis yrs ago from I believe a writer who specialized in business & finance, & he said he couldn't figure out why NYC wasn't appealing the way certain other cities are...I don't recall the article mentioning specific cities, but I think he may have had a city like London in mind. Although I remember his commenting on....& you've seen what I've posted in the past to the dtla compilations pg....how NYC's utilities were mainly underground, but that still didn't seem to be enough to make the city look more friendly & appealing.

Because the US is younger & traditionally more hardscrabble & less prosperous than parts of Europe are, its standards & sophistication have been different...sometimes lower, sometime higher...but different. I've watched vids since last yr on many of the major cities of America & many of the major cities of Europe, & not even thinking of things like homelessness, poverty, dirty sidewalks & abandoned properties in the US, cities in the East, the midwest, south & west, seem less & less impressive to me. Sorry, America, but to me you're going through a dry spell right now.

As for any city in general, including LA...whether a city is a cultural capital or not...I always wonder how much emphasis the average person in such places has given to making their community look more attractive? For financial, logistical & technical reasons, a lot of Americans in the past seemed to have said, 'who gives a damn!?'

Voters in LA, for example, in the early 1920s were willing to spend millions of dollars to create a huge aqueduct proj to bring water from the north of Ca down to its south. IOW, when ppl think something is important enough, they'll dig down deep to fund it, whether it's a city's cultural activities, its infrastructure....its aesthetics too. Europeans have historically dug down deep for most of those things, whereas Americans (cities like LA grew up mainly after the mid 1900s) are newbies.


• Video Link

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by citywatch

Because the US is younger & traditionally more hardscrabble & less prosperous than parts of Europe are,

You realize the U.S. has a larger economy than the entirety of Europe, right? U.S. has probably had higher household median incomes than the richest European powers since at least the mid-19th century or so. California alone has a bigger economy than any European nation excepting Germany. The Bay Area alone has a bigger economy than any European metro.

My parents hail from one of the most prosperous corners of Germany, and there was one personal car in their village until around 1960. There were no privately owned TVs until that point. My dad essentially walked for everything, even towns miles away, until he went to college and the military. It wasn't really until the 1970's that Western Europe had what we now think of as first world Western living standards. Of course everything was well-built (much better quality than the U.S.) and infrastructure was pretty good (and is now great), but people were comparatively poor.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Crawford

From my admittedly very biased perspective, Paris is the only European city that possibly matches NYC, or serves as a rough peer. I don't get the London comparisons, outside of the Anglosphere thing and finance. London feels like a gigantic, cosmopolitan Philly, or Toronto if you moved it to Europe and founded during Roman times.

I actually think Madrid comes much closer to NYC than London in terms of urban punch. Madrid has very high density over a huge geography. London isn't even an apartment city, or a core-focused city, it's more like a collection of villages that grew together into an urban colossus. Historically more Tokyo or LA, with activity nodes over a huge geography. It's about neighborhood pubs and charm and tending tiny gardens, not towers and tenements and grit. Paris, despite the romantic reputation, is gritty as hell.

Finance, media/publishing/advertising, diversity and cosmopolitanism, live theater, similar-sized populations and rapid transit networks, etc. Both are the only two cities that could proclaim themselves the capital of the world.

London's urban form is decidedly very different, but it's very intense. It's the human-scale buildings that allow it to be bustling with pedestrians. I honestly didn't find Paris to be any more intense. Gritty? Absolutely. But the city is probably the most beautiful there is.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I read an analysis yrs ago from I believe a writer who specialized in business & finance, & he said he couldn't figure out why NYC wasn't appealing the way certain other cities are...I don't recall the article mentioning specific cities, but I think he may have had a city like London in mind. Although I remember his commenting on....& you've seen what I've posted in the past to the dtla compilations pg....how NYC's utilities were mainly underground, but that still didn't seem to be enough to make the city look more friendly & appealing.

It's the city's wide avenues, big boxy skyscrapers, mundane tenement-style housing, and the fact that you can't go a single block without seeing at least one building covered in scaffolding. If all of Manhattan was laid out like Lower Manhattan (or south of 14th Street in general) or looked more like Center City Philly with the narrower streets, I think NYC would be much more charming.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

I'm surprised how few people said San Francisco. Progressive politics, technology, 'health'/'outdoor'-focused culture. Highly influential movements in most of the country. I think there is a strong case for SF when you look at who influences the 'influencers'.

yes, San Fran has a very solid outdoor focused culture. In fact, lots of people live outdoors.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Finance, media/publishing/advertising, diversity and cosmopolitanism, live theater, similar-sized populations and rapid transit networks, etc. Both are the only two cities that could proclaim themselves the capital of the world.

London's urban form is decidedly very different, but it's very intense. It's the human-scale buildings that allow it to be bustling with pedestrians. I honestly didn't find Paris to be any more intense. Gritty? Absolutely. But the city is probably the most beautiful there is.

They don't have similar populations or economies. Almost all Western megacities have extensive transit and live theater. In 2023, London isn't really NYC's peer. This is a one-way claim.

Also, practically every major Western megacity has the same general economic/cultural strengths. Paris is obviously the center of francophone publishing. Berlin has a massive German language theater scene. Yes, they attract similar types, ambitious cosmopolitan Anglosphere professionals, but that doesn't make the cities similar. Manhattan, the Hamptons, Palm Beach and Malibu all attract similar types, but aren't remotely similar.

And Paris has vastly more intense built form and street energy than London. Paris is an extremely dense city. Madrid and Barcelona too. These are apartment block cities, with extreme density over a huge geography. London has very moderate density and has a foundation of townhouses and neighborhood high streets. It's laid out with activity nodes, a la Tokyo, Mexico City, LA. The intensity is highly variable. It doesn't have a huge core, with flat intensity, a la Paris, Madrid, Barcelona.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

yes, San Fran has a very solid outdoor focused culture. In fact, lots of people live outdoors.

You could take this picture in any metro area in the Western world with reasonably moderate winters. I've seen this in Paris, Rome, Berlin, even Toronto, which doesn't have moderate winters.

I don't even understand the issue. What do you want, we go out and have the cops shoot them, like in Brazil? It's sad, and the encampments are usually intermittently cleared, but I don't understand the ostensible public policy reaction.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

From my admittedly very biased perspective, Paris is the only European city that possibly matches NYC, or serves as a rough peer. I don't get the London comparisons, outside of the Anglosphere thing and finance. London feels like a gigantic, cosmopolitan Philly, or Toronto if you moved it to Europe and founded during Roman times.

I actually think Madrid comes much closer to NYC than London in terms of urban punch. Madrid has very high density over a huge geography. London isn't even an apartment city, or a core-focused city, it's more like a collection of villages that grew together into an urban colossus. Historically more Tokyo or LA, with activity nodes over a huge geography. It's about neighborhood pubs and charm and tending tiny gardens, not towers and tenements and grit. Paris, despite the romantic reputation, is gritty as hell.

Yeah. Paris comes closest in terms of density and scale. Barcelona is like a smaller version of Paris.

I think London is culturally similar to NYC, but physically New York is far more dense and tall than London.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You realize the U.S. has a larger economy than the entirety of Europe, right? U.S. has probably had higher household median incomes than the richest European powers since at least the mid-19th century or so. California alone has a bigger economy than any European nation excepting Germany. The Bay Area alone has a bigger economy than any European metro.

I realize that beauty may be skin deep, & that historic, classically attractive architecture may easily hide a lot of warts. Similarly, I know that some of the older residential highrises in a city like Hong kong, with its famous urban profile, are like vertical slums. I tend not to think of highrises the same way I think of rundown woodframe bldgs, but slums are slums. Yikes either way. The same applies to any city or country when judging it from a distance. Still, most American cities, whether cultural capitals or not, when looked at from a distance sure do give off a 'feh' or charmless vibe. But this has been true for over 100 yrs, so the ironies & contradictions always result in unexpected outcomes.

I know that on the West coast, SF has historically been the more saluted or flattered city....perceived as more charming....while LA has been more just the opposite. So 'SF' is analogous to Europe and 'LA' is analogous to the US. Yet LA has evolved through the decades into a more complicated dynamic, while SF is more of a '2 day city'. Or SF is like the high school beauty queen who doesn't do well after graduation, while LA is like the homely, pimply faced nerd who went on to bigger things. Same idea applies to various cities of Europe compared with various cities in the US.

Originally Posted by Quixote

It's the city's wide avenues, big boxy skyscrapers, mundane tenement-style housing, and the fact that you can't go a single block without seeing at least one building covered in scaffolding. If all of Manhattan was laid out like Lower Manhattan (or south of 14th Street in general) or looked more like Center City Philly with the narrower streets, I think NYC would be much more charming.

I think it's the architectural style of NYC....& other American cities in general....that can't compete with a design tradition associated with older parts or European cities, from London to Lisbon, from Madrid to Rome. Builders of properties in Europe had centuries to reach a certain level & were affected by generations of wealth or aesthetics. Since much of the US was populated by largely newbies not interested in...or trying to escape....the conventions of Europe, their sense of standards & expectations were different. But, again, this has been true for generations, yet American cities have done well (or not?) in spite of that (or because of that?), while European cities have done well (or not?) in spite of that...or because of that?

Lots of moving parts, both pro & con, including things like a city's weather & terrain, which has some influence on its culture, whether a cultural capital or not.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I think it's the architectural style of NYC....& other American cities in general....that can't compete with a design tradition associated with older parts or European cities, from London to Lisbon, from Madrid to Rome. Builders of properties in Europe had centuries to reach a certain level & were affected by generations of wealth or aesthetics. Since much of the US was populated by largely newbies not interested in...or trying to escape....the conventions of Europe, their sense of standards & expectations were different. But, again, this has been true for generations, yet American cities have done well (or not?) in spite of that (or because of that?), while European cities have done well (or not?) in spite of that...or because of that?

Lots of moving parts, both pro & con, including things like a city's weather & terrain, which has some influence on its culture, whether a cultural capital or not.

What about London's townhouses look so much better than ones found in New York?

Regarding architecture... Paris, yes. Barcelona, okay. But London's residential architecture doesn't really look that great, nor is it that distinct from North American architectural styles, IMO. A lot of their housing stock is that ugly brutalist stuff that Americans tend to associate with public (or low income) housing.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think London is culturally similar to NYC, but physically New York is far more dense and tall than London.

Large portions of London (or Paris, etc) looks like a real life theme park.....architecturally manicured in a way that most of NYC isn't. But, again, when comparing the cities of Europe with the cities of the US, this has been true for generations. It is what it is, not necessarily guaranteeing one place always does well & another place doesn't.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

What about London's townhouses look so much better than ones found in New York?

Regarding architecture... Paris, yes. Barcelona, okay. But London's residential architecture doesn't really look that great, nor is it that distinct from North America, IMO. A lot of their housing stock is that ugly brutalist stuff that Americans tend to associate with public (or low income) housing.

Aren't London's townhouses generally much simpler and smaller than in NY? In London, practically everyone lives in some form of terraced housing. In NY, townhouses were really only built for the wealthy. There aren't Philly, Baltimore or UK-style working class row neighborhoods. The only grand London townhouses are in Mayfair, Chelsea and environs. Working class NYers lived in apartment blocks, and later on, in suburban-style housing on the metropolitan fringe.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

What about London's townhouses look so much better than ones found in New York?

NYC's brownstones do riff on a bit of this, but something about devlpt in London to me has more old world appeal. But that's personal opinion only...I can easily see a person saying they're more alike than different, or NYC's older devlpt is equally good in its own way.


alamy

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by citywatch

Large portions of London (or Paris, etc) looks like a real life theme park.....architecturally manicured in a way that most of NYC isn't. But, again, when comparing the cities of Europe with the cities of the US, this has been true for generations. It is what it is, not necessarily guaranteeing one place always does well & another place doesn't.

London? lol. No, I don't agree about London. It has beautiful historic architecture but that's in a pretty limited area of the city that is roughly the size of lower Manhattan. That district is mostly from Hyde Park to Westminster, which is roughly 1 mile. Surrounding that it has nice urban districts that are basically standard fare for a big rich mega city (Soho, Belgravia, Paddington, etc). Beyond that the city gets pretty mundane, architecturally speaking.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Aren't London's townhouses generally much simpler and smaller than in NY? In London, practically everyone lives in some form of terraced housing. In NY, townhouses were really only built for the wealthy. There aren't Philly, Baltimore or UK-style working class row neighborhoods. The only grand London townhouses are in Mayfair, Chelsea and environs. Working class NYers lived in apartment blocks, and later on, in suburban-style housing on the metropolitan fringe.

Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx have a lot townhouses that were oriented for the working class, in addition to those built for the super wealthy and moderately wealthy. A lot of the ones for the super wealthy were actually demolished to build Midtown.

A couple of examples:
https://goo.gl/maps/Le12ay12u5uouqdi6
https://goo.gl/maps/swcNfLPA34to6GJ87

NYC doesn't have those really small row houses that you see to our south in Baltimore, Philly, Wilmington, Richmond, etc. I suspect that they did have them here at one point but they were demolished to build higher density housing to support the growing population.

[Quixote]

Ironically, I actually find NYC’s best townhouse nabes (Greenwich, UWS) to be more attractive than London’s. In Belgravia, everything feels to austere, monolithic, and lacking in trees. The architecture itself is also less ornate. It’s still gorgeous though.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Beyond that the city gets pretty mundane, architecturally speaking.

I get what you mean, but something about this is more appealing....or less unappealing....to me than various older outer districts of NYC or other US cities are.

https://www.google.com/maps/@51.1836435,0.2679891,3a,75y,314.84h,98.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sS2JWE78Yfn6e3rRn7ZLjNw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

As for London proper, much of it was trashed during WWII, but when it was rebuilt in the 1940s, 1950s, it didn't seem to go down the same dowdy pathway that post war American cities took...& cities in the US didn't suffer as much...or at all...the way that various cities in Europe & Asia did. But, again, ppl have different opinions & experiences with things like this. If I visited or lived in London & got mugged, had my car stolen, or found out my employer had just let me go, or noticed my landlord was becoming a slumlord, that would color my impression of the city, cultural capital or not.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx have a lot townhouses that were oriented for the working class, in addition to those built for the super wealthy and moderately wealthy. A lot of the ones for the super wealthy were actually demolished to build Midtown.

A couple of examples:
https://goo.gl/maps/Le12ay12u5uouqdi6
https://goo.gl/maps/swcNfLPA34to6GJ87

NYC doesn't have those really small row houses that you see to our south in Baltimore, Philly, Wilmington, Richmond, etc. I suspect that they did have them here at one point but they were demolished to build higher density housing to support the growing population.

True, there are some. Not sure I agree with your characterization of "a lot". Bushwick is an apartment neighborhood that happens to have some modest rows. And not one-family rows, like in the UK, Philly or Baltimore. Glendale, yeah, but Glendale is an outlier in a lot of ways. And it doesn't look like a UK or Philly type area.

In the UK, Philly and Baltimore, the row is the dominant housing type. It's rather uncommon in NY, especially one-family rows.

And you're right, Midtown was once rowhouses. But that's almost entirely gone, for a century now, and they were multifamily rows, like you see in a few cases here and there around the United Nations neighborhood, or in Hell's Kitchen.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Quixote

In Belgravia, everything feels to austere, monolithic, and lacking in trees. The architecture itself is also less ornate. It’s still gorgeous though.

But something about this comes off as more affluent to me than upscale row house devlpt in NYC does. However, if I were very wealthy, I'd want more land & landscaping around my home, whether in London or NYC, etc.


wikipedia

NY's UES to me doesn't look quite as fancy or exclusive...


nyt.com

[Quixote]

I know the analog to Belgravia is the UES (Lenox or Carnegie Hill), but the best townhouses are on the UWS… much more ornate. Although you still have plenty of exposed A/C units. This is admittedly one of the nicer streets:

https://goo.gl/maps/Vnchmqfps8ag3f7T7

Personally, I don’t understand why the UES is the automatic go-to choice for the most elite of society when the UWS is so much nicer, housing projects aside.