Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Saying DC is less powerful than LA is like saying Nyc is less powerful than Albany. La is a powerhouse in more fields than just Hollywood. A city like LA is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL in a country the size of the US because it brings power to the west coast. The united states needs a huge city like LA to balance power between east-midwest-and west. DC is not powerful, the politics in dc is powerful. That could easily move to Boston or Philly. LA brings hundreds upon hundreds of billions to the US economy that alone makes it more precious. Plus its the biggest city in this nations biggest state
I respect the founding fathers for creating a neutral district that would control federal power...but as an actual city DC doesn't measure up
You can't remove the politics from the city and say it doesn't count. Why don't we take Hollywood or the port or LAX out of LA? What happens to LA's all powerful economy then? Politics make DC, so what? It's a different kind of power. It's still power.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by missRoxyhart
They're not just museums and monuments, it literally is the world's largest collection of art, science, and history, records and monuments to so many of our achievements, that is culture. I really don't think that's anything like saying LA has beaches and mountains.
I think the way you view culture and the way I do is different.
cul·ture [kuhl-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun
1.
the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.
2.
that which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc.
3.
a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture.
4.
development or improvement of the mind by education or training.
5.
the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.
6.
Anthropology . the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.
7.
Biology .
a.
the cultivation of microorganisms, as bacteria, or of tissues, for scientific study, medicinal use, etc.
b.
the product or growth resulting from such cultivation.
8.
the act or practice of cultivating the soil; tillage.
9.
the raising of plants or animals, esp. with a view to their improvement.
10.
the product or growth resulting from such cultivation.
None of those scream at architecture being classified as cultural things. But that's just my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by missRoxyhart
Maybe we see culture differently cause of our backgrounds. In Europe, we consider architecture and monuments culture. Is the Colosseum not culture? Big Ben, the Eiffel Tower, the Kremlin, Wieliczka Salt Mine, St. Peters Basilica, the Reichstag, Brandenburg Gate, Roman aqueducts, Stonehenge, or what about the Pyramids and the Great Wall of China, and on and on and on. What makes American monuments and architecture less important? Less representative of culture? People all over the world recognize the National Mall and it's monuments too. I don't understand how you can argue that museums, the greatest ones in the world at that, monuments, and architecture, are not culture. Culture is a strong point for me too, and I think DC is unparalleled in America.
That is the same as saying the Aztech's and Inca's and their connection with Mantazuma's castle. The cultural way of their architecture derived from their lifestyle. No? But what would make Washington DC more real than that? Nothing, both were created by human hands. Architecture is subjective and goes with how you view it. One can view the former World Trade Center as culture and American ingenuity.
I think architecture is plainly subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by missRoxyhart
"Washington, D.C., the capital of the United States and the seat of its three branches of government, has a collection of free, public museums unparalleled in size and scope throughout the history of mankind, and the lion's share of the nation's most treasured monuments and memorials. The vistas on the National Mall between the Capitol, Washington Monument, White House, and Lincoln Memorial are famous throughout the world as icons of the world's wealthiest and most powerful nation." Washington, D.C. - Wikitravel
We have established that it is the capital of our country I think a billion times, just like we have established that they lag behind Los Angeles economically.
Quote:
Originally Posted by missRoxyhart
Why is LA always farther ahead of DC on lists, because they're based mostly or completely on economics. Try a list based on cultural institutions or political power. Why is LAX way ahead for travel, why is LA the place for immigrants? It's all economy, economy, economy. Economy that grew the city and brought the cultural diversity to it that found opportunity there, and that continues to bring business and more diversity. More diverse people come for opportunities, to join their enclaves, for both. LA destroys DC in economy and in demographics, that still doesn't make it the more important city.
You're proving my point the fact is that even you said it yourself, Los Angeles does get more international travelers, does it not?
Whether it is economically or not, does not make a difference. I set the criteria for overall importance, and more people visiting it does prove just that. Even if one more person wen there over Washington DC, that would make Los Angeles more important by one persons perspective.
And why are we talking about culture? Because it is not a one way street, you cannot just keep saying "it's the nations capital" for it, a city has to be represented by a cosmopolitan crowd for it to feel more worldly. And Los Angeles excels at that, more worldly/cosmopolitan = more important.
Los Angeles being a haven for immigrants does show it's importance in something that is a global contributor.
You should look to my last post and see the statistics of how it is the largest community for so many different types of people. It is one of the largest cities in the Spanish speaking world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by missRoxyhart
If you're asking how the city is perceived around the world, you say DC isn't on the average Asian's radar, well I'd say DC is on the average European's. But forget that for a second, neither one of us can say what the majority of people in one part of the world or another think, but what city does Moscow look to, Beijing, London, Berlin, it's not LA, it's DC.
LA threatens Arizona with a boycott, DC threatens Moscow with a nuclear holocaust. LA could damage Arizona's economy, DC could destroy the world.
Then you can explain to me why maybe what Manila can do when trade and regulations stop if Los Angeles were to drop off the map.
Maybe what happened to all their immigrants in Los Angeles? They just somehow disappeared, affected families. That is a connection, what one person has with another based off location. Washington DC does not have enough of that.
How about trade with the Pacific Realm? How about the depiction of American life through media, you know the same media that channels politics from Washington DC.
Or maybe how one of the largest mega cities in the world just somehow fell off the map and all of it's relevance is okay to be replaced?
You people do not understand this, if Washington DC disappeared yes, for us that would be chaotic and tragic. But why would the world care?
Did the world stop when Pakistani political leaders were killed? No it did not. And don't even give me that, "we are more important as a country thing" because would people in Romania care if something happened directly to Washington DC? How about Los Angeles? The answer is no for both.
They would have some sorrow for their large loss in community in those cities (mainly Los Angeles since that's what they excel at large populations).
But their lives would go on.
So basically what we have covered here is that yes, Los Angeles gets more international visitors despite Washington DC also getting quite a lot as well. But that doesn't change anything, more visitors = more people perceive it as important in a way.
The idea isn't even the fact that Los Angeles is more important, but how many of you will even admit that it is on par with Washington DC in importance.
And once again, would cities like Shanghai, Frankfurt, Rio De Janeiro, Milan, Mumbai, Singapore have more in common with Washington DC or Los Angeles? Those cities are not capitals to their nation (besides Singapore), and they are also economic hubs, and entertainment hubs.
It's not all just political relevance, there is more to being interconnected in the world than just that.
Maybe one of you can actually explain to me why this happens to be the case on global importance:
And I am keeping that picture there in every post until someone takes the initiative to prove how that picture with those stats should be entirely irrelevant to me to perceive Los Angeles are the slightly more important global city.
And yes, once again, I made this thread, I never said "hey establish Washington DC's political reign over the world and end it" this is about everything, culture, politics, trade, economy, everything. So no writing anything off.
But I'm not arrogant and debate obsessed enough to admit I was wrong. I will give you your props, nice call on the "we may view culture differently from our backgrounds" that might essentially be the reason why we're actually on the opposing side right now. And you're right, we do view it differently, entirely. The world is different, Europeans and Asians have differences. You guys seek political stability, Asians seek economic stability. I am Asian!!!
So I am Team Los Angeles!
Anyways, I am bulking up on Part II of my post right now. A little bored so I am out for a few hours (maybe- my hands hurt with all the typing), but we'll have to see about it.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
People keep bringing up size or population as the reason why the city is more powerful LA's MSA is like 3 times larger than DC's and the CSA is still twice as large as Washington. If DC isn't so powerful than how come the GDP s as high it is? It should be more comparable to metro's of it's size like Houston Dallas ATL Philly etc, but yet it passes all of them and only trails NY LA & Chicago, Why do you think this is so?? LA will always have a larger economy its almost 20 million people there. Yes there are more immigrants there, but this does not change the happenings in the city and purpose that these cities serve.
I hate to sound like a LA basher but the reason why people perceive LA as a "big suburb" is because in comparison to cities like Washington DC, whats the percentage of that 17-20 million people in Southern Cal that hold truly high level positions that have more relevance and importance than as those 5.5- 8.5 million in DC's metro? Percentage wise DC is above and beyond what LA's locals produce in relation to whats most immediately important to this country. Not saying that people working in LA are doing it for nothing, i understand there are important positions white and blue collar jobs as well as entertainment, but the percentages of those doing as many relevant things to the importance of the country are higher in the DC area.
You can't remove the politics from the city and say it doesn't count. Why don't we take Hollywood or the port or LAX out of LA? What happens to LA's all powerful economy then? Politics make DC, so what? It's a different kind of power. It's still power.
NYC would have hollywood right now if it was that easy. Hollywood exist in LA due to its unique climate and scenery so Hollywood is uniquely LA. The city of LA built LAX to what it is and a port is a physical location so i don't know how those apply. And even without those LA's GDP would still be bigger than DC's
Politics can easily move. History has shown that. Ny and philly were once capitols before.
NYC would have hollywood right now if it was that easy. Hollywood exist in LA due to its unique climate and scenery so Hollywood is uniquely LA. The city of LA built LAX to what it is and a port is a physical location so i don't know how those apply. And even without those LA's GDP would still be bigger than DC's
Politics can easily move. History has shown that. Ny and philly were once capitols before.
I think the way you view culture and the way I do is different.
~cul·ture [kuhl-cher] Show IPA noun, verb, -tured, -tur·ing.
–noun
1.
the quality in a person or society that arises from a concern for what is regarded as excellent in arts, letters, manners, scholarly pursuits, etc.
2. that which is excellent in the arts, manners, etc.
3.
a particular form or stage of civilization, as that of a certain nation or period: Greek culture.
4.
development or improvement of the mind by education or training.
5.
the behaviors and beliefs characteristic of a particular social, ethnic, or age group: the youth culture; the drug culture.
6.
Anthropology . the sum total of ways of living built up by a group of human beings and transmitted from one generation to another.
7.
Biology .
a.
the cultivation of microorganisms, as bacteria, or of tissues, for scientific study, medicinal use, etc.
b.
the product or growth resulting from such cultivation.
8.
the act or practice of cultivating the soil; tillage.
9.
the raising of plants or animals, esp. with a view to their improvement.
10.
the product or growth resulting from such cultivation.
None of those scream at architecture being classified as cultural things. But that's just my opinion.
That is the same as saying the Aztech's and Inca's and their connection with Mantazuma's castle. The cultural way of their architecture derived from their lifestyle. No? But what would make Washington DC more real than that? Nothing, both were created by human hands. Architecture is subjective and goes with how you view it. One can view the former World Trade Center as culture and American ingenuity.
I think architecture is plainly subjective.
~We have established that it is the capital of our country I think a billion times, just like we have established that they lag behind Los Angeles economically.
~You're proving my point the fact is that even you said it yourself, Los Angeles does get more international travelers, does it not?
Whether it is economically or not, does not make a difference. I set the criteria for overall importance, and more people visiting it does prove just that. Even if one more person wen there over Washington DC, that would make Los Angeles more important by one persons perspective.
And why are we talking about culture? Because it is not a one way street, you cannot just keep saying "it's the nations capital" for it, a city has to be represented by a cosmopolitan crowd for it to feel more worldly. And Los Angeles excels at that, more worldly/cosmopolitan = more important.
Los Angeles being a haven for immigrants does show it's importance in something that is a global contributor.
You should look to my last post and see the statistics of how it is the largest community for so many different types of people. It is one of the largest cities in the Spanish speaking world.
~Then you can explain to me why maybe what Manila can do when trade and regulations stop if Los Angeles were to drop off the map.
Maybe what happened to all their immigrants in Los Angeles? They just somehow disappeared, affected families. That is a connection, what one person has with another based off location. Washington DC does not have enough of that.
How about trade with the Pacific Realm? How about the depiction of American life through media, you know the same media that channels politics from Washington DC.
Or maybe how one of the largest mega cities in the world just somehow fell off the map and all of it's relevance is okay to be replaced?
You people do not understand this, if Washington DC disappeared yes, for us that would be chaotic and tragic. But why would the world care?
Did the world stop when Pakistani political leaders were killed? No it did not. And don't even give me that, "we are more important as a country thing" because would people in Romania care if something happened directly to Washington DC? How about Los Angeles? The answer is no for both.
They would have some sorrow for their large loss in community in those cities (mainly Los Angeles since that's what they excel at large populations).
But their lives would go on.
So basically what we have covered here is that yes, Los Angeles gets more international visitors despite Washington DC also getting quite a lot as well. But that doesn't change anything, more visitors = more people perceive it as important in a way.
The idea isn't even the fact that Los Angeles is more important, but how many of you will even admit that it is on par with Washington DC in importance.
And once again, would cities like Shanghai, Frankfurt, Rio De Janeiro, Milan, Mumbai, Singapore have more in common with Washington DC or Los Angeles? Those cities are not capitals to their nation (besides Singapore), and they are also economic hubs, and entertainment hubs.
It's not all just political relevance, there is more to being interconnected in the world than just that.
Maybe one of you can actually explain to me why this happens to be the case on global importance:
And I am keeping that picture there in every post until someone takes the initiative to prove how that picture with those stats should be entirely irrelevant to me to perceive Los Angeles are the slightly more important global city.
And yes, once again, I made this thread, I never said "hey establish Washington DC's political reign over the world and end it" this is about everything, culture, politics, trade, economy, everything. So no writing anything off.
But I'm not arrogant and debate obsessed enough to admit I was wrong. I will give you your props, nice call on the "we may view culture differently from our backgrounds" that might essentially be the reason why we're actually on the opposing side right now. And you're right, we do view it differently, entirely. The world is different, Europeans and Asians have differences. You guys seek political stability, Asians seek economic stability. I am Asian!!!
So I am Team Los Angeles!
Anyways, I am bulking up on Part II of my post right now. A little bored so I am out for a few hours (maybe- my hands hurt with all the typing), but we'll have to see about it.
~I think that definition of culture backs up my using the museums as representative of it for DC, which I thought you said weren't, but maybe you just meant architecture. But isn't architecture art? And isn't it an extension of culture? If it wasn't wouldn't the Chinese have built villas or step pyramids, or the English have built Japanese style castles? Even if architecture isn't art, that's subjective, it's most definitely an extension of culture. And outside of architecture, monuments (like the Washington monument or the Vietnam memorial) to me, are the symbolic and real manifestations of a society's beliefs and values and shared memories, their culture.
~That quote was just to show that DC is recognized around the world, and it backed up me saying that it had the greatest collection of museums in the world, and even history, so I was just backing up my culture argument too.
~"Even if one more person went there over Washington DC, that would make Los Angeles more important by one persons perspective." I think that's another problem here. For me, more people visit it/know it, does not equal, it's more important. It is the economy that built LA and made/makes it the destination it is. DC can't match LA in economics or tourism, it's strengths lie elsewhere, mainly politics. If you wanna talk about culture, well we can split it, LA dominates in "people culture", demographics and the people and their traditions it contains, but DC dominates in "artistic/historic/scientific, and monument" culture. And while DC isn't as cosmopolitan as LA, it still is very cosmopolitan.
~Yeah, Manila might economically die, or 15 million people may disappear and that would effect people and the world, but the world would still go on, just like if DC disappeared. What would happen to the world if it's economic powerhouses were suddenly crippled, would they just be replaced? Yeah, I think they would actually. WWI destroyed the economies and in fact whole nations that were the the rulers of the world at the time, the Russian Empire, the German Empire, the Ottoman Empire, all wiped from the world stage and even off the map. The French Empire and British Empires were almost completely bankrupt. countries like the US and Japan simply rose higher to fill the space. Then the Great Depression happened, and after WWII which devastated the world even more, it simply changed and rearranged again. Even today, to some people it looks like the US could go down and China, Russia, Brazil, and India would step into the power vacuum, don't bother commenting on that one I'm just making a point lol. All I'm saying here is, could the world go on if DC were suddenly gone, yes. But it also could if LA was suddenly gone too, it's gone on after much bigger losses.
If you just wanted certain people to admit LA was even on par with DC, I don't think you'll get that from whoever you wanted cause some people are just stubborn, or dumb, or ignorant, or both. I don't need to admit anything, I know LA is on DC's level and higher in many fields, but DC has it's own winning strengths too.
I was actually thinking about that pic when I made my point about economy. Most lists including the ones that that list itself is based on, are about economic power. GaWC includes politics and culture to an extent, but it still counts things like gdp and number of corporations higher. LA will always win in a battle of economics, DC can't match it and so LA is way more important in that respect, just like DC is way more important in politics.
~~"And Los Angeles excels at that, more worldly/cosmopolitan = more important...Los Angeles gets more international visitors despite Washington DC also getting quite a lot as well. But that doesn't change anything, more visitors = more people perceive it as important in a way." That seemed to be the core of your argument to me, like the main point. You're asking what city is more well known to the people of the world in a way. Well we can stop arguing right here then, cause I agree with you. If that's how we're defining the more important city here, then by that criteria, LA wins. LA is more well known around the world, and it has more of a cultural impact on people's lives. But for myself, DC is the more important city. It derives it's power from what it is, even if people don't know a thing about DC, or if it can be replaced in a heartbeat, as the capital of the most powerful country on Earth it still has a huge impact on people's lives around the world whether they know it or not, and it can destroy that world too. That's part of what makes it personally more important to me.
Who's really more important, the man who constantly assures you you're safe and protected and you love him for it, or the unseen man working behind the scenes to protect you. It's not a perfect analogy, I had a hard time trying to work one out, but it kinda explains my point of view a lil bit. LA is in everyone's face and recognizable, it's influence on your life is easy to see, Washington sits back and few people ever really see the power and influence it has on their lives.
Last edited by missRoxyhart; 07-20-2010 at 10:45 PM..
NYC would have hollywood right now if it was that easy. Hollywood exist in LA due to its unique climate and scenery so Hollywood is uniquely LA. The city of LA built LAX to what it is and a port is a physical location so i don't know how those apply. And even without those LA's GDP would still be bigger than DC's
Politics can easily move. History has shown that. Ny and philly were once capitols before.
That's not the point, politics is as much a part of DC as those are a part of LA. So politics could move, the point is they're still there now. LA could be replaced too. If LA had never risen, another city would've taken it's place, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, some unknown. If LA fell, another city would rise to take it's place.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by missRoxyhart
That's not the point, politics is as much a part of DC as those are a part of LA. So politics could move, the point is they're still there now. LA could be replaced too. If LA had never risen, another city would've taken it's place, San Diego, San Francisco, Seattle, some unknown. If LA fell, another city would rise to take it's place.
KONY had my back, I got his on this. Hypothetically anything can happen. Washington DC can be replaced, Los Angeles can be replaced.
But is there an example of any city that has been replaced outside of a national capital. Detroit has not, maybe in population ranks, but no other city ever took it's epic center of a industry, the automobile industry.
The point may be the fact that we have seen it happen to our national capital before, but so many industries of Los Angeles, we have not seen that happen dramatically with any other type of American city, besides capital cities.
Now I will start responding to the post between you and me. Lol. Give it about 20 minutes or so.
But is there an example of any city that has been replaced outside of a national capital.
In a way - Boston used to be the largest city and epicenter of trade during colonial times before NYC rose to prominence and took over that role.
Anyway, I'm enjoying reading all these details about DC and LA. Most reasonable people will agree that both of these are very prominent American cities. Which one is more important in the grand scheme of things may ultimately be a matter of what you personally value and prefer. Washington politics, or Hollywood movies? :-)
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 07-20-2010 at 11:09 PM..
KONY had my back, I got his on this. Hypothetically anything can happen. Washington DC can be replaced, Los Angeles can be replaced.
But is there an example of any city that has been replaced outside of a national capital. Detroit has not, maybe in population ranks, but no other city ever took it's epic center of a industry, the automobile industry.
The point may be the fact that we have seen it happen to our national capital before, but so many industries of Los Angeles, we have not seen that happen dramatically with any other type of American city, besides capital cities.
Now I will start responding to the post between you and me. Lol. Give it about 20 minutes or so.
I still back my point, you can't just remove the politics from DC. They could be removed, but they are there now. Anyone arguing it doesn't count needs to deal with that. There are examples of cities (even countries) rising to take others places like that throughout history, but without digging too deep, take the fall of Athens and the rise of Rome as the center of the Western world. That's more broad, but the point is it happened. History has plenty examples of say huge port cities being destroyed and losing their prominence only for a neighbor or competitor to take their place.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And you're right, we do view it differently, entirely. The world is different, Europeans and Asians have differences. You guys seek political stability, Asians seek economic stability. I am Asian!!! 
