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

[edale]

Between the widespread use of IDGAF and now this utterly pointless 'conversation' about LA's waxing/waning film dominance...just lock this thread already, please!

[Quixote]

Circling back to what citywatch was saying about American cities’ lack of “charm” and a general “IDGAF” aesthetic compared to places in Europe…

For what NYC lacks in elegance and refinement (compared to London and Paris), it more than makes up for in terms of vibrancy, diversity, and a unique built environment, which does include lots of charming neighborhoods.

I don’t think polishing up NYC would make it any more appealing than it already is. I’m also trying to pinpoint what exactly it is that makes a city appealing, particularly as it relates to Los Angeles moving forward. I think the answer is simply how everything comes together. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Whether it’s Midtown, Downtown, Uptown, or the outer boroughs, there is a cohesiveness to NYC that makes it feel “European.”

SoHo has pretty architecture but mostly high-end shops that can be found anywhere, yet I still enjoyed walking its streets. Skyscrapers are generally not great at inducing pedestrian activity, yet the way they mingle with other building typologies in Midtown is distinct from Chicago, Toronto, and elsewhere. Hudson Yards is sterile, yet is integrated with the High Line and has the Vessel.

It’s not about beauty (e.g. pretty architecture, buried power lines) — although it doesn’t hurt, and NYC has both — and cleanliness, but rather public infrastructure. Walkability, rail connectivity, parks, squares, fountains, statues and sculptures, places to sit and relax, street vendors, etc. All of those things, combined with city-specific identifiers and offerings, are what make a city appealing and worth visiting. NYC, whether it’s the jaywalking culture or hearing the roar of the Subway through the sidewalk shafts, has a clear sense of place.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by citywatch

Most movies & TV shows often end with an acknowledgement of where they were filmed or give credit to a film bureau (& their special tax allowances, etc) in places like Vancouver, Georgia/atlanta, NYC, etc. Of course, there have been endings with 'hollywood' or 'Television City, hollywood', 'CBS Studio City,' etc. I guess because the creative & economic nature of the entertainment industry interests me more than the fleeting aspects of plot, characters, story location do, that the physical arrangement of soundstage technicians, actors, directors, scenic designers, etc, are more important to me.

As for scarface, I admit since I associate that closely with Al pacino & miami, it's seems not just symbolically "Pacino/nyc' & 'miami', but also the same thing creatively & technically too. Since it dates back to the early 1980s, I wonder if a remake of scarface in 2023 would still not only use actual locations in Fla, but would also do interior work in Georgia, closer to Miami than LA is?

Lol you're wrong and can't admit it.
Lol, now the boom mike people are more important than a story that you are watching. Holy shit.
Plot/characters/story aren't creative to you. Got it. I dont think another person on earth would even remotely agree to that.

Yikes.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Quixote

All of those things, combined with city-specific identifiers and offerings, are what make a city appealing and worth visiting. NYC, whether it’s the jaywalking culture or hearing the roar of the Subway through the sidewalk shafts, has a clear sense of place.

Also....& this is true of any place or any location overall...when lots of ppl are out & about, they add a sense of energy or popularity to a city. If these scenes had few to no ppl walking around, the picturesque quality of the UK's capital would drop several notches.

• Video Link

If the sidewalks of Watts or Compton, or any city in the US in general had lots of ppl out & about, that would affect their tone too, mainly in a positive way. Although I think attractive areas are more likely to encourage ppl to want to walk around them, NYC is admittedly less appealing to me than a european capital is. Yet the sidewalk scenes in manhattan are full of ppl out & about. Still, when any city is both attractive & lively with lots of pedestrians, that means two crucial elements are at play.

I've seen recent walking vids of a city like SF & it's apparent that famous area by Ca's northern coast....sometimes referred to in the past as 'Baghdad by the bay'....has taken a lot of hits. So its often praised physical looks without as many pedestrians as before means just 1/2 of the equation is being met. But the worst areas...cities, countries...are where they're both bad looking & don't have lively sidewalk scenes full of pedestrians. Some cities in Asia or south America, etc, tend to be a reverse version of today's SF.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I don’t think polishing up NYC would make it any more appealing than it already is. I’m also trying to pinpoint what exactly it is that makes a city appealing, particularly as it relates to Los Angeles moving forward. I think the answer is simply how everything comes together. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

I was going through an old copy of Time magazine at a garage sale. It was from the 1970s & had an article about foreign tourists visiting various major sites in the US, among them Niagara Falls, washington dc, SF, new orleans, NYC & LA. The writer described the reactions of the tourists, & she mentioned how they gave a thumbs down to LA & weren't too impressed with NYC either. One of the tourists described NYC as a 'grand has-been'. We all know how it came roaring back yrs later. In turn, all the tourists at that time in the 1970s praised SF, which today is taking a few hits to its reputation.

My opinion of cities & countries, both pro & con, has been duplicated by various ppl for decades. Lots of both good & negative trends can be seen mirrored over 90 yrs ago, 50 yrs ago, 20 yrs ago, today. European cities have been famous for their looks & charm going back generations, while American cities have been generally just the opposite of that. It is what it is. I don't want to make the mistake of judging things way too positively or way too negatively, & thinking the future follows a fixed path based on that.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Lol you're wrong and can't admit it.

I can argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but I don't think that will be too interesting.

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I've seen recent walking vids of a city like SF & it's apparent that famous area by Ca's northern coast....sometimes referred to in the past as 'Baghdad by the bay'....has taken a lot of hits. So its often praised physical looks without as many pedestrians as before means just 1/2 of the equation is being met.

How recent are those videos? The plural of anecdote is not data, but I was in San Francisco this past weekend. Both Fisherman's Wharf and Union Square were near shoulder to shoulder pedestrians.

[Xing]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

:::record screeches:::

Oh, no. No way lol.

The whole cowboy country music Christian thing can be annoying to me too, but hey it’s part of our country’s culture in a way I can’t entirely disregard. Lol.

[MAC123]

How did this topic of the cultural capital of the US turn into an argument about how important LA is to the Film industry?

I think a more important discussion would be how important is the film industry to US culture, especially in the age of the internet where more content is made, shared, modified and talked about in a single day than the film industry in a year.

This is not some dig at the film industry or me saying that it isn't important to US culture, it is, just that its overall importance is vastly overstated.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by citywatch

Also....& this is true of any place or any location overall...when lots of ppl are out & about, they add a sense of energy or popularity to a city. If these scenes had few to no ppl walking around, the picturesque quality of the UK's capital would drop several notches.

• Video Link

If the sidewalks of Watts or Compton, or any city in the US in general had lots of ppl out & about, that would affect their tone too, mainly in a positive way. Although I think attractive areas are more likely to encourage ppl to want to walk around them, NYC is admittedly less appealing to me than a european capital is. Yet the sidewalk scenes in manhattan are full of ppl out & about. Still, when any city is both attractive & lively with lots of pedestrians, that means two crucial elements are at play.

I've seen recent walking vids of a city like SF & it's apparent that famous area by Ca's northern coast....sometimes referred to in the past as 'Baghdad by the bay'....has taken a lot of hits. So its often praised physical looks without as many pedestrians as before means just 1/2 of the equation is being met. But the worst areas...cities, countries...are where they're both bad looking & don't have lively sidewalk scenes full of pedestrians. Some cities in Asia or south America, etc, tend to be a reverse version of today's SF.

Yep. Dirtiness and ugliness are fine if it’s because the place in question is bustling. Manhattan is dirty because it’s big and busy, not because it’s a sketchy dump.

To be clear, beautiful architecture, cleanliness, and overall presentation do count for a lot. But I definitely don’t think it’s the most important element at all, and having it in spades doesn’t necessarily yield the best results either. Hong Kong’s full of butt-ugly buildings and isn’t really a “cultural capital.” The thing to do in Hong Kong is eat and shop, not visit museums. Despite all this, Hong Kong is considered one of the greatest cities in the world. It’s the energy of the city, the convenience of the MTR, and skyline at night that make it decidedly better than cleaner and prettier Singapore.

As for LA and attractiveness, it starts with addressing the homeless population, developing convenient transit options, and building more developments that add to the streetscape.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by citywatch

Also....& this is true of any place or any location overall...when lots of ppl are out & about, they add a sense of energy or popularity to a city. If these scenes had few to no ppl walking around, the picturesque quality of the UK's capital would drop several notches.

• Video Link

Yep, this is every bit as lively as NYC sans Times Square and all the vehicular traffic. London's non-grid is an urban paradise for pedestrians. You could spend an entire lifetime getting lost in the streets of London. That's not possible in Manhattan.

I also find London more attractive than NYC; it's prettier and more my "temperament." NYC's "wow factor" is its intensity and scale. London's also as much of a "city" as New York is; the two are just different flavors. Equally tasty.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by citywatch

If the sidewalks of Watts or Compton, or any city in the US in general had lots of ppl out & about, that would affect their tone too, mainly in a positive way. Although I think attractive areas are more likely to encourage ppl to want to walk around them, NYC is admittedly less appealing to me than a european capital is. Yet the sidewalk scenes in manhattan are full of ppl out & about. Still, when any city is both attractive & lively with lots of pedestrians, that means two crucial elements are at play.

I've seen recent walking vids of a city like SF & it's apparent that famous area by Ca's northern coast....sometimes referred to in the past as 'Baghdad by the bay'....has taken a lot of hits. So its often praised physical looks without as many pedestrians as before means just 1/2 of the equation is being met. But the worst areas...cities, countries...are where they're both bad looking & don't have lively sidewalk scenes full of pedestrians. Some cities in Asia or south America, etc, tend to be a reverse version of today's SF.

I would argue that SF is still either first or second place for most charming major city in America. In fact, I think it's really only a contest between SF and Boston in the running for America's "most charming" capital.

New York has very charming sections (most have not been mentioned in this thread so far), but it is not a charming city, nor does it strive to be a charming city. Even though it's known for being a ridiculously expensive place, the core ethos of the city is to be a place for the people. The culture of the city is to accommodate as many people from as many places in as many way as possible.

[JManc]

I don't know if I would call SF or even Boston charming. They have charming areas but if you want charming in the SF area, head down to Carmel and if you're in Boston, head towards the coast. It's wicked chahming ovah by Cape Cod or up in Newbury(port)

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by MAC123

How did this topic of the cultural capital of the US turn into an argument about how important LA is to the Film industry?

I wanted to make the point that the singularity or uniqueness of a city.... cultural, financial or political capital or not....changes over time. Or just as detroit in the past was the symbolic, technical car capital of the US, if not somewhat of the world too, its standing has changed since the 1950s. Same idea with hollywood/LA as the movie capital.

In turn, NYC also isn't as culturally superlative as it was decades ago. Financially too since more of corporate America has spread to other sections of the US. Still, I'd consider NYC in 2023 as the cultural, financial capital of America, but not as singular as it was decades ago.

Originally Posted by Quixote

Yep, this is every bit as lively as NYC sans Times Square and all the vehicular traffic. London's non-grid is an urban paradise for pedestrians. You could spend an entire lifetime getting lost in the streets of London. That's not possible in Manhattan.

I also find London more attractive than NYC; it's prettier and more my "temperament." NYC's "wow factor" is its intensity and scale. London's also as much of a "city" as New York is; the two are just different flavors. Equally tasty.

In the past, I didn't give much thought to the notion of a job taking me or any person to either NYC or london. I know the two cities were in the news several yrs ago as to which of them was the world's financial capital. Previously, I was more agnostic about which place I'd feel better about moving to. Many ppl as they grow older view things differently, as the nature of NYC tends to be more appealing to someone under 30-40 yrs old vs ppl who are past that time in their life.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I would argue that SF is still either first or second place for most charming major city in America. In fact, I think it's really only a contest between SF and Boston in the running for America's "most charming" capital.

New York has very charming sections (most have not been mentioned in this thread so far), but it is not a charming city, nor does it strive to be a charming city. Even though it's known for being a ridiculously expensive place, the core ethos of the city is to be a place for the people. The culture of the city is to accommodate as many people from as many places in as many way as possible.

Something about the major cities of the US, including even SF & boston, don't do charming too well. There are smaller towns, villages, that come closer to capturing the so called charm of Europe, but areas with a large mass in the US & that are also charming generally don't exist. Even SF's natural terrain more than its manmade aspects make it charming....a lot of the streets of SF look like a typical urban American area or the somewhat ramshackle look (some would call that funky) of an older US, older Ca, community.

The differences between the US & Europe is probably because America is younger than europe is, partly because of the weather (the cities of the NE & midwest tend to have harsher climates), partly because Europe has seen waves of prosperity for longer than the US has.

[twinpeaks]

Originally Posted by JManc

I don't know if I would call SF or even Boston charming. They have charming areas but if you want charming in the SF area, head down to Carmel and if you're in Boston, head towards the coast. It's wicked chahming ovah by Cape Cod or up in Newbury(port)

Of course there would be many small charming places in the US. He said major City to be specific.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by MAC123

How did this topic of the cultural capital of the US turn into an argument about how important LA is to the Film industry?

Well it's pretty clear, given this thread's remarks from various LA-area forumers, that their physical proximity to this ridiculous "industry" is a big part of their personal self-image. For those of us from neighborhoods and cities that have had their livelihoods (real industries!) ripped from them by no fault of their own, and to have those damaged places lampooned by Hollywood, I and many others won't be showing any sympathy when the xenon-beam lyrics to Like a Rolling Stone are turned 180-degrees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhQGH6CbKhw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X08Y38927xI

[craigs]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Well it's pretty clear, given this thread's remarks from various LA-area forumers, that their physical proximity to this ridiculous "industry" is a big part of their personal self-image. For those of us from neighborhoods and cities that have had their livelihoods (real industries!) ripped from them by no fault of their own, and to have those damaged places lampooned by Hollywood, I and many others won't be showing any sympathy when the xenon-beam lyrics to Like a Rolling Stone are turned 180-degrees.

You schadenfreude regarding Los Angeles and those of us who live here is noted.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Well it's pretty clear, given this thread's remarks from various LA-area forumers, that their physical proximity to this ridiculous "industry" is a big part of their personal self-image. For those of us from neighborhoods and cities that have had their livelihoods (real industries!) ripped from them by no fault of their own, and to have those damaged places lampooned by Hollywood, I and many others won't be showing any sympathy when the xenon-beam lyrics to Like a Rolling Stone are turned 180-degrees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhQGH6CbKhw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X08Y38927xI

It's pretty clear you have a personal thing against LA and its pretty pathetic.Real industries. Hollywood isn't real? You sound crazy.
Youre just mad a place like Georgia has zero influence on Hollywood and you probably thought it did. Oh well.

Btw, since you're hoping for Hollywood's downfall, I have no sympathy for yours.
Don't give a fuck at all rural america is a ghost town and falling apart. Most of us don't.

[Steely Dan]

This clownshow of a thread is clearly no longer serving a useful purpose, so........