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.
Can you think of any cities that are trying a little too hard to become "cool," urban, etc, but just can't seem to pull it off? Places trying to imitate the successes of others, but end up going nowhere? Or do you believe just about any city can become the next Paris if they really want to?
No offense to Birmingham, but B'ham is failing miserably at trying to keep up with its southern peers. B'ham is actually building a 57,500 seat domed stadium for nearly $630 million . The funny thing is, this city doesn't have a pro-team.
At only 57,500 seats, B'ham can forget about the NFL. The NBA and NHL doesn't want a stadium/arena with that many seats. MLB? Well, you get my point. Here is the story.
I'd say B'ham is suffering from Atlanta-envy way more than (wannabe Atlanta) Charlotte. In Charlotte's defense, it is actually succeeding at staying within 30 years of Atlanta.
This thread is about cities failing at becoming the object of their envy. With that said, B'ham gets my vote. I almost picked Charlotte, but after reading the OP's "trying to imitate the successes of others, but just can't seem to pull it off?" quote, I decided to go with B'ham instead.
In my estimation, out of all the cities I've visited I'd have to say that Kansas City acts a bit too big for its britches.
The people and place suffer from an inferiority complex thanks to living in the shadow of St. Louis. They are spending billions of taxpayers dollars on new entertainment, shopping and sports venues but that still can't cover up the fact it is an oversized cow town. Racial issues are still a real problem here too. Most of the residents that are not from the KC metro grew up in small farm towns in the region.
I've actually talked to local people that believe KC is on the brink of becoming a world class city! No kidding. The clincher was when I heard Len Dawson (former KC Chiefs Hall Of Fame QB) mention during one of his sportscasts on KMBC TV 9 that Kansas City was becoming a world class city. I knew then that these people have a much higher opinion of themselves and this place than does the rest of the country and the world.
Granted KC is a bit more lively and very slightly more sophisticated than a decade ago but I'd hardly classify it as a world class city. Visit a dozen different countries in various parts of the globe and take a grassroots poll among its citizens to find out which American cities they've heard of. I'd bet they'd mention NY, LA, DC, SF, Chicago, probably Bawston and possibly Miami and Atlanta. Most have not likely even heard about Kansas City. Maybe someday KC will become a world class city but certainly not in the next decade it won't.
I've never felt like KC was in the shadow of STL, having lived in KC, been to STL, and been many places all over the world, i'd say KC is quite a bit better. But to the average person they won't notice the difference between the 2 cities except STL has a big arch, and our downtown is more lively and much bigger, plus the plaza. But I can see where many people would think KC might have that complex... me personally I have more a problem with KS (the fact that so many people think KC is in KS)
That said what makes a world class city?
Based on these charactoristics (and i'm not sure how many people would follow this)
KC meets maybe 2-3 of those. Not many cities in the US will meet those outside of NYC, LA, Chicago, DC, maybe Miami... I dunno.
So... world class? I suppose not based on those standards...
But it's got a great cost of living, great entertainment, not a far trip to a lot of great nature with the Ozarks, unique places and history, etc... I'd say it's highly underrated.
But yeah most people won't know it internationally.... from my experience most people internationally know of NYC and LA, and that's it... many people I met hadn't even heard of Chicago.
Think about it... think about how well you know other international cities? I can ask most people I know to name the top 5 cities in the England and they would say: London... and uh... Britain? (LOL sacrasm there of course) They don't have a clue about Birmingham or Liverpool.... it'd be easier if I said the UK and they could at least guess Glasgow... maybe Belfast (but doubtful), Edinburgh, Manchester... I dunno. I just doubt it. My favorite city in Europe most people I tell of have no clue where it is (Helsinki)...
Really? Since when??? Because if we are, than we sure ain't doing a good job at it.
Go on the Houston forum (oh wait, you're already there) and you'll find a bunch of people saying Houston's not trying hard enough.
I don't think Houston is trying to be LA, LANative. Maybe there are people from LA who have moved here, and they are trying to make Houston like LA. Big difference.
Philadelphia: A trailer park
NY: Babylon
SF: Never-Never land
Las Vegas: Hades
Chicago: The Untouchables
Boston: NY
LA: forever young
Miami: fun
Atlanta: New Jack City
New Orleans: Paris
Detriot: Pripyat, Ukraine
DC: Moscow
Can you think of any cities that are trying a little too hard to become "cool," urban, etc, but just can't seem to pull it off? Places trying to imitate the successes of others, but end up going nowhere? Or do you believe just about any city can become the next Paris if they really want to?
I think Boston may be the anti-Manhattanization capital...the very mention of a skyscraper in this city brings out NIMBYs like crazy. The reasons for not building skyscrapers range from wind tunnels to solar glare (whatever the hell that means). The city has even imposed an ordinance that bans new buildings to cast shadows on parks.
Lessons from this thread: If there are two cities that are remotely alike, the smaller of the two is AUTOMATICALLY trying extremely hard to be exactly like the larger one IE Portland -> Seattle, San Diego -> L.A. Milwaukee -> Chicago.
I think Boston may be the anti-Manhattanization capital...the very mention of a skyscraper in this city brings out NIMBYs like crazy. The reasons for not building skyscrapers range from wind tunnels to solar glare (whatever the hell that means). The city has even imposed an ordinance that bans new buildings to cast shadows on parks.
SF has had a ban on shadows on parks ordinance since 1989.
The Transamerica pyramid was supposed to be 1,150 ft before NIMBYs chopped off 300 feet from it.
Let's just say it's pretty bad in both cities, because I've seen Boston's skyline and development issues and admit that we share the same problems.
they won't notice the difference between the 2 cities except STL has a big arch
Its The Gateway Arch or The St. Louis Arch or simply The Arch. Stop making light of a great monument. No one says a golden bridge or a liberty statue or a washington obelisk. They say The Golden Gate Bridge The Statue of Liberty and The Washington Monument so why can't The Arch be called by its name? People like to take jabs at St. Louis and too often its The Arch they disrespect. Please cut it out. The Arch is one of the great monuments in this country and should be treated with a little respect. Thank you.
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.
. The funny thing is, this city doesn't have a pro-team.
