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

[iheartthed]

I don't really think it's worth debating the first two slots. I think the more interesting debate is the third most relevant cultural city. I think the ordering of culturally relevant will naturally change over time, but I'd say 3 cities have had a legitimate claim since the start of the 20th century:

• Chicago- Easily the second most culturally relevant city prior to the 1970s, and third most relevant until at least the 1990s, if not still today.
• Detroit- I'd argue was the third most relevant from the 1920s until the 1960s or 1970s when L.A. really established itself as America's second city.
• Philadelphia- I'd argue it was easily the 3rd most relevant in the early 20th century until the 1920s.

[TempleGuy1000]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

• Chicago- Easily the second most culturally relevant city prior to the 1970s, and third most relevant until at least the 1990s, if not still today.
  
• Detroit- I'd argue was the third most relevant from the 1920s until the 1960s or 1970s when L.A. really established itself as America's second city.
• Philadelphia- I'd argue it was easily the 3rd most relevant in the early 20th century until the 1920s.

I think that is fair in terms of overall importance, but I would say that Detroit was not nearly as well-rounded as Philadelphia was at that time and the metro area size still leaned heavy in philly's favor in the early years. While Detroit defined the auto-centric new America, it isn't like the Levittowns outside of Philadelphia and New York don't hold a certain place in American cultural history and helped define how the suburbs reshaped the country. Sunoco and Pep Boys were iconic 20th century brands that came from Philadelphia in that period and left behind a legacy with the Pew Trusts that provide a variety of societal services like polling and research on our culture.

My full spectrum opinion of Philly in this regard: It was the most important city until 1825. There's a clear break here in history when the Erie Canal opens and NYC has water access directly to the Great Lakes. IMO there is a clear 50ish year period in the 19th century after that where Philadelphia is the second city in the US. A lot of it comes to fruition with the 1876 World's Fair where many inventions and firsts were demonstrated while setting into motion the desire for other places to emulate it. During the Fair, officials broke ground on a parkway to match Paris and an Acropolis to match Athens which gave birth to the Ben Franklin Parkway, Fairmount Waterworks and Philadelphia Museum of Art. On the other end of the parkway, City Hall was built which held the record for world's tallest building from 1894-1908. In that time period, The Pennsylvania Railroad was the largest corporation in the world also HQ'd next to the parkway, but the railroads influence and a lot that 19th century power was waning going into the 20th century and Chicago was known as the 'Second City' by the time their world's fair kicked off in 1893

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by TempleGuy1000

I think that is fair in terms of overall importance, but I would say that Detroit was not nearly as well-rounded as Philadelphia was at that time and the metro area size still leaned heavy in philly's favor in the early years. While Detroit defined the auto-centric new America, it isn't like the Levittowns outside of Philadelphia and New York don't hold a certain place in American cultural history and helped define how the suburbs reshaped the country. Sunoco and Pep Boys were iconic 20th century brands that came from Philadelphia in that period and left behind a legacy with the Pew Trusts that provide a variety of societal services like polling and research on our culture.

A Pulte home was pretty much shorthand for suburban tract housing in the second half of the 20th century. Pulte Homes was founded in Detroit. K Mart was founded in Detroit. The car rental counter at the airport was by Avis in the 1940s at what was then then former primary Detroit area airport (Willow Run). Little Caesar's was founded in suburban Detroit. Domino's pizza was founded in a Detroit satellite city.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't really think it's worth debating the first two slots. I think the more interesting debate is the third most relevant cultural city. I think the ordering of culturally relevant will naturally change over time, but I'd say 3 cities have had a legitimate claim since the start of the 20th century:

• Chicago- Easily the second most culturally relevant city prior to the 1970s, and third most relevant until at least the 1990s, if not still today.
• Detroit- I'd argue was the third most relevant from the 1920s until the 1960s or 1970s when L.A. really established itself as America's second city.
• Philadelphia- I'd argue it was easily the 3rd most relevant in the early 20th century until the 1920s.

I don’t really like the idea of cultural capitals in the modern era.

Prior to internet and mass transportation, you could convincingly argue that a single city and it’s immediate hinterland was producing culture.

Nowadays, your average “culture-producer” has moved 5-6 times between completely different regions and has received media from all corners of the globe from birth.

I would agree that NY and LA the chief distributors of pop culture products, but pop culture’s effect on American culture as a whole is debatable.

Using Michael Jackson as an older example. He grew up in Gary, In, performed around the Midwest, moved to Harlem, relocated to LA, and so on. Yet average Americans don’t exactly moonwalk when they dance,


I could argue that the most important aspects of culture are what your house looks like, how you get around, how you speak, what you eat, how you behave, and how you worship.

These are areas where NYC and LA are not that representative or influential at all.

Tokyo more resembles Nagoya and the rest of Japan, than LA resembles Dallas.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

I don’t really like the idea of cultural capitals in the modern era.

Prior to internet and mass transportation, you could convincingly argue that a single city and it’s immediate hinterland was producing culture.

Nowadays, your average “culture-producer” has moved 5-6 times between completely different regions and has received media from all corners of the globe from birth.

I would agree that NY and LA the chief distributors of pop culture products, but pop culture’s effect on American culture as a whole is debatable.

Using Michael Jackson as an older example. He grew up in Gary, In, performed around the Midwest, moved to Harlem, relocated to LA, and so on. Yet average Americans don’t exactly moonwalk when they dance,

Pretty much every American born between 1920 and 2000 recognizes the Moonwalk if they were alive and conscious in that period. Most people couldn't play the piano in the 1890s but it was a key part of culture then. I think Michael Jackson's career is a perfect example of the shift from east to west, though. He was discovered while playing venues in the industrial northeast and Great Lakes, his big break came from a Detroit based record company, but he achieved megastardom by moving to Los Angeles in the 1970s.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by galleyfox

I don’t really like the idea of cultural capitals in the modern era.

Prior to internet and mass transportation, you could convincingly argue that a single city and it’s immediate hinterland was producing culture.

Nowadays, your average “culture-producer” has moved 5-6 times between completely different regions and has received media from all corners of the globe from birth.

I would agree that NY and LA the chief distributors of pop culture products, but pop culture’s effect on American culture as a whole is debatable.

Using Michael Jackson as an older example. He grew up in Gary, In, performed around the Midwest, moved to Harlem, relocated to LA, and so on. Yet average Americans don’t exactly moonwalk when they dance,


I could argue that the most important aspects of culture are what your house looks like, how you get around, how you speak, what you eat, how you behave, and how you worship.

These are areas where NYC and LA are not that representative or influential at all.

Tokyo more resembles Nagoya and the rest of Japan, than LA resembles Dallas.

There was no such thing as pop or mass culture (outside of books and magazines) until media came into existance that enabled visuals and sounds to be reproduced cheaply:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wo...l_Reproduction

World pop culture centered around the U.S. for a long time because movies are very expensive to make and distribute but the U.S. has a huge domestic audience as well as many English speakers overseas. Spanish, French, and Chinese were all huge languages as well, but they didn't have as many consumers who were able to shell out $ for movie tickets every week. Before television, the average American was playing to watch over 100 movies each year.

Creation of a recorded album, by contrast, is much cheaper and so many or most countries had their own recording studios and record companies. For example, back in the 1960s, reggae was spread to the world thanks to a modest recording studio in Kingston, Jamaica.

[JManc]

Even Motown moved to LA.

[galleyfox]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Pretty much every American born between 1920 and 2000 recognizes the Moonwalk if they were alive and conscious in that period. Most people couldn't play the piano in the 1890s but it was a key part of culture then. I think Michael Jackson's career is a perfect example of the shift from east to west, though. He was discovered while playing venues in the industrial northeast and Great Lakes, his big break came from a Detroit based record company, but he achieved megastardom by moving to Los Angeles in the 1970s.

Americans recognize the Moonwalk, but almost nobody actually dances that way.

At least with pianos, even the smallest American towns and camps had somebody who could play the piano and entertain the crowd.

By comparison, Zumba was founded in Columbia, gained popularity in Miami, and is now performed by millions of people.

That’s what I mean by pop culture product vs behavior that has been adopted by millions of people.

LA and NYC are very good at turning culture into financial products, but I think they are far weaker in recent decades at actually coming up with the new ideas that become part of daily life.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by mavillav

The name America and the demonym "Americano / American" is important for Latin Americans because Vespucci was first part of one of the Columbus expeditions sponsored by the kings of Spain and then by Portugal. As heirs to those old empires, that name is an important part of our identity, that´s why we considered ourselves American.

just said... that is another history


on the main topic of the thread, NY and LA have a major relevant when it comes to spreading the US culture to the rest of the world

What about "estadounidense"?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Shawn

There's no answer to this question.

NYC may very well be "quintessential America", but it's not representative of the majority of Americans' lived experiences.

LA may very well be where consumption culture is manufactured, but a substantial amount of the creators and producers living in LA moved there from outside California, bringing their cultural frameworks with them.

And that's about it. Only NYC and LA could reasonably be positioned as the singular cultural capital of the entire country, and neither truly fits the bill.

There is no Paris, Kyoto, or Rio of the United States in this regard. We're better off for it, too.

Such an odd choice of cities to make this point.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Acajack

What about "estadounidense"?

That means a citizen/resident of the United States. American in Latin America tends to mean anyone who lives in North or South America.

[Double L]

I asked ChatGPT what it thought the US’s most cultured city was. It gave me this answer:

It's difficult to determine which United States city has the most culture because culture is a subjective concept that can be defined in many ways. Some people might consider a city with a thriving arts scene to be the most culturally rich, while others might prioritize a city's history, cuisine, or diversity. With that said, here are a few cities that are widely regarded as having vibrant and diverse cultures:

1. New York City: Known as the cultural capital of the United States, New York City has a thriving arts scene, with world-renowned museums, theaters, and galleries.

2. Los Angeles: The city of Angels is famous for its film and entertainment industry, but it is also home to a diverse population that contributes to its rich cultural landscape.

3. New Orleans: This city is famous for its unique blend of French, African, and American cultures, which is reflected in its music, food, architecture, and traditions.

4. San Francisco: Known for its diversity and liberal politics, San Francisco has a thriving arts and music scene, as well as a rich history of activism and social justice.

5. Chicago: The Windy City is renowned for its architecture, theater, music, and sports, as well as its diverse neighborhoods, each with its own unique cultural identity.

[jayden]

Charlotte for sure.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

That means a citizen/resident of the United States. American in Latin America tends to mean anyone who lives in North or South America.

Yo sé, amigo.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Oh yeah, NHWs are definitely a plurality here, but that's still true pretty much everywhere outside of the usual suspects like Honolulu, Miami, and the Cali cities.

“Comfortably white” to me means 45% or more NHW, with the second-largest racial minority not being more than half the size of the NHW population. I think NYC might be below that threshold given white flight and greater growth of the Asian and Latino populations. But the NYC area is also 10% Jewish, which also makes it a complete outlier when it comes to NHW populations.

The Delaware Valley is shockingly white (60% or so); DC/Baltimore less so, but still about 48-49% or so. I didn’t know.

The “wrinkle” with the latter though is that it’s also more than 25% black, more than 10 percentage points higher than the national average.

I’m using Statistical Atlas, which was last updated in September 2018. This is the racial breakdown of the Chicago MSA:

53.7% white
21.3% Hispanic
16.9% black
6.2 % Asian
1.6% mixed
0.3% other (indigenous)

Here’s the breakdown for the country:

62% white
16.9% Hispanic
12.6% black
5.2% Asian
2.3% mixed
1% other

The Latino population is growing faster at the national level than in Chicagoland. With continued black flight, the metro demographics will more closely resemble the country by the next decennial census. But Chicago’s demographics seem relatively stable compared to the big metros in California and Texas. Chicago city and Cook County are still pretty evenly black and Hispanic, and it’s been that way for a long time.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't really think it's worth debating the first two slots. I think the more interesting debate is the third most relevant cultural city. I think the ordering of culturally relevant will naturally change over time, but I'd say 3 cities have had a legitimate claim since the start of the 20th century:

• Chicago- Easily the second most culturally relevant city prior to the 1970s, and third most relevant until at least the 1990s, if not still today.
• Detroit- I'd argue was the third most relevant from the 1920s until the 1960s or 1970s when L.A. really established itself as America's second city.
• Philadelphia- I'd argue it was easily the 3rd most relevant in the early 20th century until the 1920s.

I certainly think LA was more relevant much earlier. 60s had the Beach Boys, Watts Riots, Lakers, Dodgers, mid-century modern homes; 70s had Richard Nixon, Eagles, the Brady Bunch, Three’s Company, Chinatown, Rams; 80s are what sealed it for LA. I don’t think I need to elaborate on that. LA was very much at the forefront of the zeitgeist than you’re giving credit for, arguably more so back then than today.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by JManc

Even Motown moved to LA.

To get into movies. The move to L.A. was also the beginning of the end of Motown.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Quixote

the metro demographics will more closely resemble the country by the next decennial census.

I very highly doubt that.

At the metro level, the biggest demographic needle mover for Chicagoland is the overall decrease in NHW people. Unlike the nation at large, white people aren't just decreasing in Chicagoland because of deaths over births, but also because shit tons of them move down to Arizona, Texas, Florida, etc. every year to run out the clock.

Which causes the proportional share of all the other macro-demo groups to increase, even if their numerical growth rates lag national ones. It's addition by subtraction because white people don't wanna live in Chicago any more.

Therefore, unless something radical changes, Chicagoland's macro-demo percentages will be even more our of line with national averages by the next census as the NHW percentage will be proportionally lower than the national share than it is now.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I certainly think LA was more relevant much earlier. 60s had the Beach Boys, Watts Riots, Lakers, Dodgers, mid-century modern homes; 70s had Richard Nixon, Eagles, the Brady Bunch, Three’s Company, Chinatown, Rams; 80s are what sealed it for LA. I don’t think I need to elaborate on that. LA was very much at the forefront of the zeitgeist than you’re giving credit for, arguably more so back then than today.

In terms of pop culture and media influence, LA goes even further back than that, back to at least the silent film era.

Fans swooned over Rudolph Valentino, who obviously did not have WASPy looks. Had he been born and immigrated to the US 20 or 30 years earlier, would he have just been another Italian immigrant trying to make a living in the US?

historylink.org

Then of course women and teen girls throughout the whole country supposedly wanted a copy of the dress Joan Crawford wore in the 1932 film "Letty Lynton," which was designed by Adrian, a film costume designer, NOT an haute couture designer.

antiquetrader.com

Men used to commonly wear undershirts prior to 1934, but when people that year saw Clark Gable take his shirt off to expose his bare torso in the movie "It Happened One Night," supposedly, sales of undershirts plummeted.

immortalephemera.com

All because of the Hollywood film industry.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

This is starting to sound absurd lol. There pretty much is no other notable fashion week in the United States besides New York's.

Nobody’s disputing that, nor is it to say that NYFW will die. It’s just to say that although NYC is one of the “big four” fashion capitals of the world, it really doesn’t produce or have an association with “high fashion” (haute couture) like Paris and Milan do. As a result, NYFW is more for industry folks and social gathering than people eager to see the latest collections from names they care about (there are a few exceptions).

The two labels most readily associated with NYC are Calvin Klein and Donna Karan, whose heydays were both in the 90s. Today, there’s not one flagship Calvin Klein or Donna Karan boutique, not even in Manhattan. Marc Jacobs, Tom Ford, Vera Wang, and maybe Oscar de la Renta are the only true high-end labels (IMO) out of NYC with widespread name recognition. But Marc Jacobs lives/shows in Paris, Tom Ford happily resides in LA (and his recent collections reflect that), and Vera Wang is largely known for bridal gowns.

The Met Gala is arguably a bigger deal than NYFW because it’s more about who’s been invited and shock value. In a sense, the awards season circuit in LA is less a spectacle and more about actual “high fashion,” who looked best and who should’ve done xyz differently and why, etc. It’s more than a bit ironic.