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.
So profoundly true. Considering how people on here consider Oklahoma City as high among the most highly unglamourous metros you can possibly move to best avoided like the plague, what explains how St. Louis can possibly be considered glamorous and desirable when it increased in population from 2010 to 2020 by only 1.17%, while the Oklahoma City metro grew by 13.78%?
I'd agree with others about St. Louis having an old-world sophisticated feel in some lingering pockets, but glamorous? No way.
That sophisticated, old-money feel can be found in most any large city.
When I think of glamorous, I think of money that likes to show itself off more than just with a big house. It also involves a social scene with some paparazzi. Hollywood, maybe Manhattan, maybe Miami, stuff like that.
Also, glamour is not as much of a thing as it used to be now that we see the inner workings of celebrity and human nature via social media.
Why is Chicago not glamorous ( dumb term ) over Boston and LA? LA has glam, but alot of working class monotonous as well. I have lived in all three, nothing funny about the ranking.
I tend to think NYC, Miami, and maybe San Francisco are the only cities in the US that are truly sophisticated or glamorous or whatever. LA is definitely there in much of the city, but in much of the rest it is not. Chicago is one of the least glamorous cities on this list, which is part of its appeal, I guess? Maybe? Except for the Loop and a handful of Northside neighborhoods the place is overwhelmingly working class and middle class, like an episode of Roseanne but with wifi. Approachability and affordability are its calling cards, certainly not class, sophistication, glamor, etc. But like I said American culture is so cheap and tawdry anyway that there just isn't much glamor anywhere. It's not just a Chicago thing.
I tend to think NYC, Miami, and maybe San Francisco are the only cities in the US that are truly sophisticated or glamorous or whatever. LA is definitely there in much of the city, but in much of the rest it is not. Chicago is one of the least glamorous cities on this list, which is part of its appeal, I guess? Maybe? Except for the Loop and a handful of Northside neighborhoods the place is overwhelmingly working class and middle class, like an episode of Roseanne but with wifi. Approachability and affordability are its calling cards, certainly not class, sophistication, glamor, etc. But like I said American culture is so cheap and tawdry anyway that there just isn't much glamor anywhere. It's not just a Chicago thing.
Are you talking about the same Chicago as I am?
It’s no more working middle class than NYC. The top affluence in NYC certainly exceeds the top level affluence of Chicago, but median incomes and educational attainment might as well be identical. LA probably has a larger, more intact middle class than either. But nobody would argue NYC or LA aren’t glamorous.
I don’t disagree with the idea that much of Chicagoland is firmly middle America. But Chicago is a major destination city. Big lights, one of the worlds elite skylines… People dress well, drink well, and eat very well. It’s a Michelin star worthy food scene, on a global level. It gets downright boujeeee in Chicago. One of the best shopping cities in North America. Some of the most expensive zip codes in North America, too.
You seem to believe glamorous and sophistication are the same. Glamorous is exciting, provocative. They’re nearly antonyms. Chicago qualifies as glamorous, but would agree that it’s not overtly sophisticated like San Francisco, or Boston, or Seattle.
BTW: I think this has already been noted, but the rankings are indeed just for the cities mentioned.
Both Minneapolis and St. Paul are ranked separately, as are Kansas City, MO, and Kansas City, KS.
That latter Kansas City I refer to as "a little bit of the Rust Belt on the prairie," so I'm not surprised that it ranks low on this "glamorous cities" list and is even in the bottom five in one of the categories (lowest share of million-dollar homes).
It has been explained in the article what is meant by glamorous and their methodology.
I understand the methodology, and the rankings make sense given that methodology, but I still think that the word "class" fits better than "glamour" to describe what they were measuring.
Though given one of the things I do associate with "glamour," I'm surprised Philadelphia ranked in the top 15 for fashion. Top 10 for entertainment doesn't surprise me.
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.
