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

[edale]

Originally Posted by Bailey

Seriously?

More US cities sprawl with endless suburbia as compared to the Legacy cities with their compact urban footprint with mass transit and grand public spaces with no desire of being a quality "city".

That is is why the Legacy Cities ARE outliers.

For 1 New York City, there are a dozen Oklahoma City type of cities.

The 10, or so, Legacy cities are the definition of outliers.

The United States is just anti-city.
They have been for a long time.

Ok, but it takes 12 Oklahoma Cities to reach the size of NYC. The 'Legacy Cities' are somewhat unique, due to their size and form, but they're just as much part of America as some shitty sprawlburg. Not sure why one would be more representative than the other.

Los Angeles County has 10 million people, which makes it bigger than 40 states! Now, not all of those 10 million are living in hyper urban environments, but the vast majority are living in denser and more urban communities than much of the US. It's hard to say that big cities are outliers in the US, when so many people live in and near them, imo.

[Bailey]

Originally Posted by edale

Ok, but it takes 12 Oklahoma Cities to reach the size of NYC. The 'Legacy Cities' are somewhat unique, due to their size and form, but they're just as much part of America as some shitty sprawlburg. Not sure why one would be more representative than the other.

Los Angeles County has 10 million people, which makes it bigger than 40 states! Now, not all of those 10 million are living in hyper urban environments, but the vast majority are living in denser and more urban communities than much of the US. It's hard to say that big cities are outliers in the US, when so many people live in and near them, imo.

...not BIG cities. Legacy "type" big cities with characteristics found in World Class cities, from an urban design standpoint.

Dallas/ Ft. Worth and Houston are the #4 and #5 largest metros IN the United States.
I'd say both have minimal elements, form an urban standpoint, that resembles World Cities.
Only a few legacy US cities are in that league yet our larger cities SHOULD be there but they weren't designed. developed that way.

Los Angeles and Chicago are also in that top 5 Metro group but even those two look up to New York City, in that regard.

That's why New York City is a huge outlier and newer US cities model themselves after a Houston..an Atlanta.. even LA and NOT a New York City.

That's why I'm arguing New York City does NOT have the elements of a typical US city.

Is it our best, most urban, most important city- YES! but it is not representative of the culture of the United States....it's an outlier.

the typical city is more like a large sunbelt city...even new parts of rust belt/ midwest cities are following those cities.

[Steely Dan]

^ Yes, NYC is definitely an outlier within the US on just about every urban metric I can think of.

It stands alone.

But it's the only one.


As for the topic of this thread, I strongly maintain that the role of "cultural capital" of america is a tag team effort between NYC and LA.

You seem to be getting more at "what is the most representative big city in the US", and in that regard Chicago might be best because it has a little bit (or rather a lottle bit) of everything urban America, from the big classic centralized skyscraper-laden downtown to some of the most god-awful sprawl-burban hellscapes out on the prairie, and 50 million shades of gray in between.

With the exception of some NYC outlier-ish stuff, just about every type of urban American lifestyle is well-represented in chicagoland.

[Bailey]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ Yes, NYC is definitely an outlier within the US on just about every urban metric I can think of.

It stands alone.

But it's the only one.


As for the topic of this thread, I strongly maintain that the role of "cultural capital" of america is a tag team effort between NYC and LA.

You seem to be getting more at "what is the most representative big city in the US", and in that regard Chicago might be best because it has a little bit (or rather a lottle bit) of everything urban America, from the big classic centralized skyscraper-laden downtown to some of the most god-awful sprawl-burban hellscapes out on the prairie, and 50 million shades of gray in between.

With the exception of some NYC outlier-ish stuff, just about every type of urban American lifestyle is well-represented in chicagoland.

New York is definitely THE alpha, world class city of the United States...but cultural capital OF THE United States?

That's my argument, only a handful of Americans live in a city that resembles New York City culture AT ALL.
Americans just don't live like New Yorkers and I know NYC very very very well.

A far better city to represent the CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA would be one of the large Sunbelt cities- take your pick (Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, etc.)- they are all interchangeable.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Wasn't silicon easily mined from the Santa Clara Valley, or was that just an urban legend?

You have asked this before. The answer is still 'no.'

Silicon Valley's nickname comes from the transistors used in microprocessors, and was bestowed on the loosely-defined area when its signature industry was more focused on computing hardware. There was never any silicon mining in the area.

[edale]

Everyone is so bitchy on the forum these days lol.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by ocman

London and Paris have certain advantages being the capitals of their countries, and therefore a lot of resources and tax dollars from the rest of their respective countries subsidize the cultural institutions of their cities. But that just makes cities like LA and NYC especially impressive (although NYC once enjoyed being the capital of the US for a short time) because they’re not even capitals of their own state. They were are able to will themselves as cultural capitals without much help from the state or nation but almost exclusively thanks to their own residents purely out of ambition.

NYC is the de facto capital of the U.S., having secured its legacy as the country's largest and most urban center once the 20th century arrived. It's been reaping the benefits of that ever since. Even when the city reached its lowest point in the 1970s, it still held the distinction of being the world's foremost city — the undisputed financial, corporate, media, and cultural epicenter of the richest and most powerful country on Earth.

LA's much more of an "accident" (good and bad), a place where there are few rules and prestige/excellence doesn't come "by default."

NY is a cultural outlier among American cities, and yet it manages to feel far more "American" than LA IMO.

[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'.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Bailey

New York is definitely THE alpha, world class city of the United States...but cultural capital OF THE United States?

Yes.

Together with LA.

Originally Posted by Bailey

That's my argument, only a handful of Americans live in a city that resembles New York City culture AT ALL.
Americans just don't live like New Yorkers and I know NYC very very very well.

And most French people don't live a "Parisian" lifestyle.

Doesn't stop Paris from being the cultural capital of France.

Originally Posted by Bailey

A far better city to represent the CULTURE OF THE UNITED STATES of AMERICA would be one of the large Sunbelt cities- take your pick (Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, etc.)- they are all interchangeable.

I disagree.

A place like Chicago, which expresses the full gamut of the urbanism of a big American metropolis, from the loop all the way out to Schaumburg, and everything in between (with copious amounts of both the good and the bad), would be a better overall representative of an American big city than a more one-dimensional Sunbelt sprawler, IMO.

But even though Chicago might be a good candidate for a very culturally representative large America city, that still doesn't make Chicago the cultural capital of America. Those are two different things in my mind.

[Crawford]

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'.

Tech, I'd agree, but the rest, no way.

There's no way in hell progressive politics or health/outdoors culture are primary American exports, or overarching domestic themes.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by craigs

You have asked this before. The answer is still 'no.'

Silicon Valley's nickname comes from the transistors used in microprocessors, and was bestowed on the loosely-defined area when its signature industry was more focused on computing hardware. There was never any silicon mining in the area.

You have such a toxic style of communication. If you said it before then I probably ignored it because it is insufferable to pay attention to you.

Originally Posted by edale

Everyone is so bitchy on the forum these days lol.

He bitches about everything .

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Crawford

That's the gas station/fast food capital of the PA turnpike. It's where you stop between DC and points west.

Yes, a liminal space between highway onramps, where "real American culture" resides.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

A place like Chicago, which expresses the full gamut of the urbanism of a big American metropolis, from the loop all the way out to Schaumburg, and everything in between (with copious amounts of both the good and the bad), would be a better overall representative of an American big city than a more one-dimensional Sunbelt sprawler, IMO.

But even though Chicago might be a good candidate for a very culturally representative large America city, that still doesn't make Chicago the cultural capital of America. Those are two different things in my mind.

Yeah, culturally representative is not the same as the cultural capital.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Quixote

NY is a cultural outlier among American cities, and yet it manages to feel far more "American" than LA IMO.

To me, NYC, compared with LA, has the overall looks, weather, terrain & feel I associate with most older US cities of the east coast & midwest. By contrast, LA has bits of the quality of Florida & TX, or what has been known as the sun belt. But it also has bits of the nature of southern europe, the Mediterranean. In general, however, for both good & bad, LA is sui generis.

When I see how many historically, architecturally & culturally significant cities make up the land mass of western europe, much less europe in general, I think America is kind of urban poor or urban weak. Even worse, a lot of cities in the US right now are also going through a downturn. But a variety of these trends....both good & bad, between the US & europe, etc....have been true for over 100 yrs.

When ppl were fleeing from europe in the late 1800s, they were abandoning long established areas to relocate to the wild & wooly areas of America, inc NYC. In turn, I read someone yrs ago say that Europe sees America in a way that's analogous to how ppl on the East Coast see ppl in the midwest, south or on the West coast.

[Quixote]

^ Yep. NYC's definitely the most European-influenced city (no, it's not SF), although its big boxy skyscrapers, wide avenues, and dilapidated transit infrastructure are unequivocally symbols of an American city. Even it isn't immune to car-friendly urban design elements like orthogonal grid patterns and expressways that cut through neighborhoods or encircle borough perimeters.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by edale

Girl. Are you serious??

LA didn't have help from the state or feds?? Nevermind the fact that almost all of our water comes from other parts of the state. Or the massive investment the feds made in the defense industry in Southern California in the WWII era. Or the huge amount of federal funding used to build the most extensive freeway network in the country. I could go on and on.

Defense and water are not cultural capital. The resources needed for the daily function of a city are not cultural capital. Neither are freeways. You're just naming city infrastructure. Or you didn't read what I wrote which is that LA's cultural institutions that make it a cultural capital were private endeavors, rather than state properties. (LA's 3 great art institutions Getty, Simon, Huntington museums were all private endeavors).

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Quixote

NYC's definitely the most European-influenced city (no, it's not SF), although its big boxy skyscrapers, wide avenues, and dilapidated transit infrastructure are unequivocally symbols of an American city.

Its history & location are very much tied to that of europe's, but something about NYC nowadays seems far removed from what I associate with capital cities like London or paris. The cultural, financial capital of the UK blows me away. It runs circles around the cities of America, inc NYC.....

• Video Link

NYC is the only city in the US with as much pedestrian activity as London has, & NYC's cultural resources are just a few notches below those of the UK's capital....after all, NYC isn't as old as London is. Although Britain's main city doesn't have super talls, who cares? Its way more picturesque, way more attractive than anything found in the US. But looks can be deceiving...or, okay, beauty is skin deep. So I won't say it's all sunshine & rainbows east of the pond compared with this side of it.

Still, if I had to relocate to a capital city, I'd choose London over NYC. I know that other cultural, financial capitals like paris or Tokyo are impressive in their own ways too, but the language barrier would make me still have to favor a London over them.

However, what's true of America's cultural capital versus cities in Europe has been the case for generations. Yet NYC....the US overall....in spite of that has managed to thrive, evolve & mature. But I admit that seeing the world more closely nowadays makes 'America' less appealing to me than it did in the past.

[Quixote]

I visited London (first time since 2007) and Paris (first time ever) in February, and booked a week-long trip to NYC that begins next week (hopefully the air is at least as breathable as LA's) partly because I wanted to see how it holds up against Europe's big two.

I was blown away by London... the diversity, cosmopolitanism, architecture (old and new), the ease with which to get around, etc. Central London basically could fit inside Midtown Manhattan. The narrower streets, lack of big-footprint skyscrapers, and smaller storefronts mean that there's more to see and do within a geographically smaller area. Lots of well-dressed people as well.

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.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by citywatch

Although Britain's main city doesn't have super talls, who cares?

I certainly don't.

[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.