What American cities actually are truly world class?

[Fastphilly]

Originally Posted by Chicagoist123

Right, all I am saying is that a landmark does not make a city more world class. It just makes it more famous. Class does not always equal famous.

A city like Sao Paulo has no landmark, and very unknown to most, but it is very world class. It has great museums, food, diversity, activity, etc.

Now if the question is what city is more globally iconic or famous? Yeah than landmarks matter a lot more and Chicago would lose out to SF. But the question is world class, not most famous or iconic. There is a difference in those definitions.

Sure but San Francisco does meet the criteria that merits the city as a world class destination. It's the largest financial center on the West Coast home to many top tier companies, the dining scene is on a high level, the ethnic diversity is present, The Cable Cars are the only moving National Monument! I still stand by my Iconic structures/landmark statement. People travel to a city to take advantage of the criteria you mentioned but also to get a first hand glimpse of those iconic landmarks which is a huge part of the draw from visitors abroad. So there is some merit as to what I've been saying.

[JaySwelly]

Atlanta is #7 in the US?! I was not expecting that. Also, I did not what Victoria's Peak was until I read this thread. The thing that is iconic about Hong Kong is the number of high rises compared to other cities.

[tollfree]

NY/LA.

That's it.

Miami & Las Vegas in terms of places people across the world want to say they went to.

[PCH_CDM]

Originally Posted by BigLake

^^^ This is good.

I'm confused with all this "Chicago does not have an identifiable landmark" nonsense. What a bunch of malarky. If anything, Chicago has too many-- each of which is at least well-known in the US, if not globally ( at least when compared to other US cities.) Where do I start... the el? check. Wrigley Field-- most famous ballpark in baseball? check. Buckingham Fountain, John Hancock Center, Navy Pier, Millenium Park, the Art Institute, Field Museum, The Chicago River? Check. Every single one of these is known by most capable/educated adults in the US. Name a US city besides NYC (and DC, nation's capitol of course) that have more.

I think people are talking global landmarks.

And I think you're exaggerating, even for recognition within the U.S. Wrigley isn't more famous than Yankee Stadium or Fenway. Most Americans have never heard of Buckingham Fountain, or the Navy Pier, or the John Hancock Center. The Chicago River isn't a particularly famous river. And every major city has a famous museum, a famous park, etc. We're talking something like the Eifel Tower or the Great Wall. Global icons, not Navy Pier.

But I do agree a city can be world class even if it doesn't have a globally recognized landmark.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by PCH_CDM

I think people are talking global landmarks.

And I think you're exaggerating, even for recognition within the U.S. Wrigley isn't more famous than Yankee Stadium or Fenway. Most Americans have never heard of Buckingham Fountain, or the Navy Pier, or the John Hancock Center. The Chicago River isn't a particularly famous river. And every major city has a famous museum, a famous park, etc. We're talking something like the Eifel Tower or the Great Wall. Global icons, not Navy Pier.

But I do agree a city can be world class even if it doesn't have a globally recognized landmark.

I agree with you that most of those are more regional / national attractions than worldwide. I would say that Wrigley Field is quite famous. Same with the Sears Tower.

Overall I think Los Angeles easily has more worldwide recognized landmarks than Chicago.

[JMT]

There have been no fewer than 15 other threads discussing this very same topic including one in the General U.S. forum whose most recent post was made just a few weeks ago. This topic has been done to death on here, and there's no reason to start a new thread. This one is now closed.