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

[bossabreezes]

Yeah, this discussion seems to mainly be surrounded by those claiming their city is the most representative of American Culture because it has high end retail������.

The usual suspects throwing snobbery around to try and act like they are better than everyone else.

Culture isn’t about just high fashion and art- the majority of people don’t care about that. If you do, cool, but again- it means very little to the majority. Media is far more important, which is heavily LA based.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Are we really going to argue that L.A. is "urban" in the context we're using? lol. If L.A. is urban then there's really no reason to exclude Detroit or Minneapolis or Seattle or perhaps even Atlanta from the "big urban" list.

I actually just read a comment from you in another thread mentioning that there isn't really a huge distinction between the city of L.A. and the suburbs. This is an enormous cultural difference between "urban" cities and Sun Belt cities.

One difference is that LA is actually big, especially compared to those other cities you listed. A former colleague of mine who grew up in the NYC area and was visiting LA for the first time from the DC office commented on how “huge” LA was.

Through a combination of size, enough early-20th-century bones, and that it still manages to feel like a big, populated, and cosmopolitan city even without the pedestrians and built form says a lot. There’s a bus line along nearly every major east-west, north-south artery in LA County. The busy commercial corridors every mile between Downtown and Santa Monica are in an ironic way Manhattan-like, and certainly something that you don’t see between, say, Dallas and Fort Worth.

What qualifies as “urban” is also more nebulous and very much a granular, niche topic that’s been discussed at length on this forum throughout the decades.

NYC should not be included because it wins across all quantitative and qualitative metrics for evaluating urbanism. So with that said:

Philly has the best urban form and scale, yet it has either the lowest or second lowest transit share (and the highest or second highest percentage of car-owning households).

SF has the worst urban design with curb cuts, garages, and wide streets, yet it’s near the top when it comes to transit share… albeit in large part due to bus ridership.

Etc.

But people riding buses in LA doesn’t count because they’re not “choice riders,” yet transit-rich Philly with its poorer demographics gets a pass?

Are you aware that, sans NYC, those “urban cities” have car-owning household majorities? And with the pandemic having altered how and where we live and work, the percentage of people taking transit, walking, or biking to work has become less relevant.

Just like density doesn’t necessarily mean “urban,” driving doesn’t necessarily mean “not urban.” Even transit ridership and share needs to be contextualized. Metros in which commuter rail ridership comprises a larger portion of the transit share suggests that many pedestrian experiences are nothing more than walking to and from place of employment and the train station.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Quixote

One difference is that LA is actually big, especially compared to those other cities you listed. A former colleague of mine who grew up in the NYC area and was visiting LA for the first time from the DC office commented on how “huge” LA was.

Through a combination of size, enough early-20th-century bones, and that it still manages to feel like a big, populated, and cosmopolitan city even without the pedestrians and built form says a lot. There’s a bus line along nearly every major east-west, north-south artery in LA County. The busy commercial corridors every mile between Downtown and Santa Monica are in an ironic way Manhattan-like, and certainly something that you don’t see between, say, Dallas and Fort Worth.

What qualifies as “urban” is also more nebulous and very much a granular, niche topic that’s been discussed at length on this forum throughout the decades.

NYC should not be included because it wins across all quantitative and qualitative metrics for evaluating urbanism. So with that said:

Philly has the best urban form and scale, yet it has either the lowest or second lowest transit share (and the highest or second highest percentage of car-owning households).

SF has the worst urban design with curb cuts, garages, and wide streets, yet it’s near the top when it comes to transit share… albeit in large part due to bus ridership.

Etc.

But people riding buses in LA doesn’t count because they’re not “choice riders,” yet transit-rich Philly with its poorer demographics gets a pass?

Are you aware that, sans NYC, those “urban cities” have car-owning household majorities? And with the pandemic having altered how and where we live and work, the percentage of people taking transit, walking, or biking to work has become less relevant.

Just like density doesn’t necessarily mean “urban,” driving doesn’t necessarily mean “not urban.” Even transit ridership and share needs to be contextualized. Metros in which commuter rail ridership comprises a larger portion of the transit share suggests that many pedestrian experiences are nothing more than walking to and from place of employment and the train station.

No real need to overthink this. LA is the only city of the top 7 or whatever that is littered with strip malls, drive-thrus, gas stations, and auto-centric uses throughout the city. All cities have these, but in LA, they are much, MUCH more frequent. That's what makes LA questionably urban compared to the other 6 (NYC, Philly, DC, SF, Chi, Boston). It's built form is quite obviously different than those other cities, and it's obviously much more auto-centric. It has urban nodes where these things aren't prevalent, but if you drop into the city, you're almost never going to be more than a couple blocks away from an auto-centric use. That's not the case in the other 6.

[MAC123]

Originally Posted by Quixote

One difference is that LA is actually big, especially compared to those other cities you listed. A former colleague of mine who grew up in the NYC area and was visiting LA for the first time from the DC office commented on how “huge” LA was.

LA is bigger in land area (just considering city limits), but not so much bigger as too make NYC look or seem small, which it definitely isn't.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Philly has the best urban form and scale, yet it has either the lowest or second lowest transit share (and the highest or second highest percentage of car-owning households).

I'm not sure exactly where Philly stands in the transit share category but the reality is we have very good transit. To the extent that people commute by car is because our jobs are very decentralized in the region. We have a number of job centers not just in Philadelphia, but throughout the region. Namely, King of Prussia, Conshohocken, Ft Washington, Malvern/Great Valley, Wilmington Delaware, etc. While most of these places are on Regional Rail, depending on how close your employer is to that rail station, it may or may not be feasible to get from the station to your office in a reasonable amount of time. As such, a lot of people need cars. Though, the % of carless households is at 33% in Philadelphia proper so obviously you can get by without one quite easily. In LA, the comparable number is 12%.

SF's bus share is what it is for obvious reasons (topography).

Edit to add: 10% of Philadelphia residents walk or bike to work. So depending on how transit share is calculated, to assume one is in a car if they're not on transit is incorrect. In LA, 3% of residents walk to work.

[Crawford]

Philly transit should probably be higher. It isn't terrible, but considering the quality of urbanity, and the fairly robust network, one would expect somewhat higher ridership. I think it's a few things. Jobs are somewhat decentralized, SEPTA might be more intimidating to many potential riders (heavily low income black ridership, general feeling of dilapidation), and Philly area isn't quite as immigrant-heavy as the other U.S. transit-oriented metros. Also, I get the sense that it isn't hard to drive and park in Philly, once you get a hang of the narrow streets.

[JManc]

The fre times I rode SEPTA, it was pretty gross.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by JManc

The fre times I rode SEPTA, it was pretty gross.

I think the regional rail is pretty good, and not at all gross, but yeah, the subway lines are pretty grungy, even compared to the other legacy U.S. systems. Haven't ridden the buses or trolleys.

[iheartthed]

It has been a good decade since I was on the Philly subway, but yeah that system needed some TLC. I don't recall them being completely dirty or unsafe but the system just felt very out of date, even for American standards. They were still using subway tokens, which was somewhat absurd lol. The only other rail system in the U.S. that I can think of that still uses tokens is the Detroit People Mover.

The SEPTA commuter rail is fine too. It's not MTA or New Jersey Transit quality level of commuter rail, but it is way more than 90% of what U.S. urban areas have availble.

[cabasse]

i took the airport line from phl to suburban station last year on my visit and the train seemed decent - definitely on the cleaner side; not sure if this is reflective of the metro/subway as i didn't get to ride it any, ended up walking entirely for the duration of my trip

[JManc]

Speaking of tokens, do other metros use NFT (i.e., your phone) to pay? Handy when it works. The 'Clipper Card' here in the Bay is tempermental.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Speaking of tokens, do other metros use NFT (i.e., your phone) to pay? Handy when it works. The 'Clipper Card' here in the Bay is tempermental.

NYC has had it in all stations for about 2 years now. It was first launched in 2019.

[RC14]

Growing up, it always felt like LA was the cultural capital of the US. Mostly because that's were Hollywood is of course. You could say New York is but with terrestrial television declining in significance, I feel like LA will have much more impact going forward.

I feel like Las Vegas and Austin will continue to grow in cultural importance for different reasons. Vegas is becoming the world entertainment capital, while Austin is benefiting from an inflow of influencers in different areas. The SF bay area should be mentioned as well because of Silicon Valley but as long as LA has Hollywood, it will probably remain the cultural center.

[Docere]

Why did the OP get banned after 1 post?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Docere

Why did the OP get banned after 1 post?

Cuz you didn't see/remember the 35 other trolling shit posts he made that I subsequently deleted. I couldn't delete the post he made that started this thread because deleting the first post of a thread deletes the entire thread.

[Docere]

I guess I must have missed that lol

[Docere]

Anyway, the answer is obviously Jacksonville.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by JManc

Speaking of tokens, do other metros use NFT (i.e., your phone) to pay? Handy when it works. The 'Clipper Card' here in the Bay is tempermental.

Chicago has been using NFC (not NFT... that would be interesting!) since 2013. It's great because you can use most credit cards nowadays directly (and my Ventra "card" is my phone...).

[e40]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

I'm not sure exactly where Philly stands in the transit share category but the reality is we have very good transit. To the extent that people commute by car is because our jobs are very decentralized in the region. We have a number of job centers not just in Philadelphia, but throughout the region. Namely, King of Prussia, Conshohocken, Ft Washington, Malvern/Great Valley, Wilmington Delaware, etc. While most of these places are on Regional Rail, depending on how close your employer is to that rail station, it may or may not be feasible to get from the station to your office in a reasonable amount of time. As such, a lot of people need cars. Though, the % of carless households is at 33% in Philadelphia proper so obviously you can get by without one quite easily. In LA, the comparable number is 12%.

SF's bus share is what it is for obvious reasons (topography).

Edit to add: 10% of Philadelphia residents walk or bike to work. So depending on how transit share is calculated, to assume one is in a car if they're not on transit is incorrect. In LA, 3% of residents walk to work.

Some of the highest ridership lines in the city stay relatively flat for their entire route.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by JManc

All this discussion of fashion industry...does this really translate to the average person? Especially here in the US? Sure, Europeans tend to be more stylish but in a more classical way (i.e., less yoga pants, flip flops and sports shirts) rather than the cutting edge latest trends. Here in the US, kids now are wearing recycling fads from the 90's which were terrible then.

No, it doesn't. And some people might hate Hollywood or whatever but it's popular with the mainstream. It hooks viewers when they're kids and doesn't let go.

But if Hollywood was bad at its job, people would stop watching. They dont.