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.
Here is the mention of Brooklyn and Malibu throughout the English Corpus since 1950. Brooklyn remains fairly steady and above Malibu. Malibu has gone from relatively nothing, but still below Brooklyn. In 1990 Malibu reached the relative popularity of Brooklyn, which somewhat makes sense, but since then Malibu has fallen off more where Brooklyn has risen back to it's currently popularity. The arc from the early 1970s seems to correlate with Mattel's release of Malibu Barbie in 1971.
Perhaps to the Northeastern US, but no one abroad, where they have urban areas that thrash Brooklyn look to Brooklyn as iconiic when it comes to being urban. Why would they when Manhattan is the only borough people care about.How laughable to even suggest such a preposterously delusional notion.
Malibu is one of the richest most desirable places in the United States and is glittering with world famous celebrities.
Brooklyn is not.
Seriously?
That's ridiculous to say about Brooklyn.
Besides tearing about New York borough by borough is pointless. Even if what you're saying about Brooklyn vs. Malibu had the slightest bit of truth to it, Brooklyn still is part of New York City.
And just Manhattan is way more cultural and iconic than all of California put together and multiplied by 1000.
Everything that LA has, New York has, add much, much more.
Nope, you already conceded that Brooklyn is better known to hipsters on Berlin, which is 100% correct.
You seem to have a problem with English comprehension and logical reasoning. Your above statement is indeed 100% correct, but does not mean that Brooklyn isn't better known to other groups as well, which is also quite obviously true.
Just because Brooklyn is better known to Berlin hipsters doesn't mean it isn't also better known to Sicilian grandmothers or Taiwanese programmers, but this logical reasoning seems to escape you. If I say "Suzie like Apples" it doesn't mean "Johnny hates apples" but apparently this is too difficult for you to grasp.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
New York is known by most, Brooklyn is far less known because it''s image is largely unintetesting to demographic groups that dominate the attention of media outlets, quite frankly.
This is stupid, and you seem to be unaware that Brooklyn is one of the most iconic parts of NYC. You seem to have some weird obsession with media outlets, BTW; as if "attention of media outlets" determines an area's relative iconic feel, which is an especially odd argument because NYC is the most media centered place on the planet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Malibu's image is far easier for the average person to describe.
Only if Malibu can be described as "I have never heard of it" or "I have heard of the name, and I think it's a crappy American car".
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Yes, they all have distinct, powerful images that are far more relevant to most people than Brooklyn which ismuch less known.
Brooklyn is "much less known" than nowhere on earth. Malibu is much less known than any mid-sized U.S. city. Your typical non American will have heard of Denver, Cleveland and St. Louis long before Malibu.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Brooklyn peaked in importance and noteriety prior to WW2 and then steadily declined in importance for about 50 years, during which Hollywood and Beverly Hills far surpassed Brooklyn and other depressed urban areas as far as international noteriety.
LOL! Did you just awake from cryogenic freezing? Brooklyn was much less known prior to WWII than right now. It has never been as iconic as right this moment. It was a much less known bedroom community prior to WWII.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Ask a stranger abroad to describe Malibu and beaches, celebrities and wealth are very likely top responses.
Ask a stranger abroad to describe Brooklyn and most likely you'll get a blank stare.
This is fantasy. A typical stranger worldwide has never heard of Malibu, and has obviously heard of Brooklyn, which is apparent to all here but you.
Hey let's keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again cause that's really going to change minds-right?.... Yawns.
This is the gist of the matter with respect to the massive denial that pervades this thread: Brooklyn peaked in importance and notoriety prior to WW2 and then steadily declined in importance for about 50 years, during which Hollywood and Beverly Hills far surpassed Brooklyn and other depressed urban areas as far as international notoriety.
The sooner you comprehend this truth^, the better off you'll be.
Perhaps to the Northeastern US, but no one abroad, where they have urban areas that thrash Brooklyn look to Brooklyn as iconiic when it comes to being urban.
Brooklyn isn't iconic because it's urban. Are you some sort of shut-in who just discovered the outside world yesterday?
And your whole premise is stupid. First, Brooklyn is extremely urban and I know of no city on earth with an area equivalent to Brooklyn that "thrashes Brooklyn" in terms of urbanity.
Second, relative iconic feel has little to do with relative urbanity. London isn't particularly dense or urban compared to other major urban centers, yet it's one of the most iconic places on earth. No one would claim that Jakarta is more iconic than London because Jakarta is much denser.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Why would they when Manhattan is the only borough people care about.How laughable to even suggest such a preposterously delusional notion.
And by this statement, we know you're living in opposite-land. Up is down, right is left, and a crappy car brand little known outside the U.S. is apparently more iconic than the most iconic city in the world.
Next up- Tacoma Washington is more iconic than Paris. Reason: Toyota Tacoma.
Hey let's keep repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again cause that's really going to change minds-right?.... Yawns.
This is the gist of the matter with respect to the massive denial that pervades this thread: Brooklyn peaked in importance and notoriety prior to WW2 and then steadily declined in importance for about 50 years, during which Hollywood and Beverly Hills far surpassed Brooklyn and other depressed urban areas as far as international notoriety.
The sooner you comprehend this truth^, the better off you'll be.
But grapico's chart doesn't agree. As to the bolded, you've done exactly that. Some posters have posted evidence, you haven't. You claim everyone know Malibu's image, but what exactly do they know about it?
Brooklyn isn't iconic because it's urban. Are you some sort of shut-in who just discovered the outside world yesterday?
Only to Northeasterners.
To suggest that everyone around the world in far superior and infinitely more desirable and vibrant urban areas somehow look to Brooklyn as the ideal and icon of the concept of being 'urban'----hahahahahahahaha, well it's foolish, small-minded, warped and totally unrealistic.
Anything else you need help with?
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.
