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.
That is a very....suburban...way too look at dressing. Practical for sure but to some in urbane circles that type of thing is mildly offensively boring, lazy and borderline ‘unprepared’. If we want to go somewhere or do something or you meet someone important or interesting your not ready or you have to go home and change. You’re also making impressions on various circles o people in an inner city or downtown setting-must always put your best foot forward.
I've worked in rural PA and in Cambridge and both of their dress codes were jeans and some sort of collared shirt. most people wear sneakers not shoes etc.
Boston is considered a leader in ‘urban’ fashion actually. Many prominent streetwear brands and sneaker brands are based there. Many rapper types enjoy shopping in Boston at Cambridgeside, DTX and Newbury street. Reebok and New Balance are headquartered in Boston and their sneakers are very popular in urban circles. 47 brand, which makes throwback jerseys and fitted caps as well as sponsors some MLB clubs is in Boston. Expressions an Eblens are some of the largest urban retailers in the country with sponsored AAU teams in Boston. Bodega, Kingdom of Royal and Karmaloop were founded in Boston. Ricardo’s, Edge Newbury and then national chains like True Religion Gucci Louis Vuitton and Neimand all have multiple stores in Boston proper. Downtown Boston also had the first ever Primark in the US. Many in Boston inner city have made Northface a staple amongst Boston youth during the winter. So while old *white* Boston is not considered very fashionable, young, diverse Boston is indeed considered highly fashionable. The shopping for urban schools in Baltimore and DC is lacking compared to Boston-they do much more shopping online or in suburban malls. Especially Baltimore where retailers won’t set up shop.
When people are talking about "Fashionable" cities they aren't talking about sneakers.
Boston being the center of the sneaker industry or baseball caps is probably a point in the direction of not being a center of fashion.
When people say fashionable they mean high fashion.
That is a very....suburban...way too look at dressing. Practical for sure but to some in urbane circles that type of thing is mildly offensively boring, lazy and borderline ‘unprepared’. If we want to go somewhere or do something or you meet someone important or interesting your not ready or you have to go home and change. You’re also making impressions on various circles o people in an inner city or downtown setting-must always put your best foot forward.
What's "suburban" about any of this? Suburbia seems at least as brand-focused and image-focused as inner cities.
"Unprepared" or "Offensively boring"? What does my philosophy offend? I didn't imply underdressing, like wearing sweats to the symphony or jeans to a job interview. People don't need to entertain you by how they dress. Is it that you want to judge books by their covers?
In my experience, the most self-assured people worry less on average about this stuff, though of course that's just a general tendency.
You choose to single out baseball caps and sneakers. That’s fine, I’m guessing you’re not familiar with the price points of a Riccardi’s or a Neimans?
Riccardiboston.com 875$ wingtip dress shoes and $1600 denim?
There is ample high fashion in Boston just not a Fashion week.
Well duh there is high fashion in a metro of 5 million people but it’s certainly not extravagant. Boston isn’t a New York, LA, Washington, Chicago or even Atlanta
My personal opinion having lived in Both DC and Boston is that Boston outstrips Washington fashion wise, in between Washington and Atlanta. Regardless were sitting here talking about it being in The top 10. It’s not the most fashionable yuppified city. It’s not even really top 5. Personally I wear Nike Polo Nautica Northface shop at Macy’s etc nothing extravagant. Although sometimes I live to be a few statement pieces every couple months. I will also thrift and get basics from wal mart- and get short term necessities form a place like Primark.
My personal opinion having lived in Both DC and Boston is that Boston outstrips Washington fashion wise, in between Washington and Atlanta. Regardless were sitting here talking about it being in The top 10. It’s not the most fashionable yuppified city. It’s not even really top 5. Personally I wear Nike Polo Nautica Northface shop at Macy’s etc nothing extravagant. Although sometimes I live to be a few statement pieces every couple months. I will also thrift and get basics from wal mart- and get short term necessities form a place like Primark.
Having lived in Rochester, NY they are dressier than the average Bostonian and it’s not even close.
What's "suburban" about any of this? Suburbia seems at least as brand-focused and image-focused as inner cities.
"Unprepared" or "Offensively boring"? What does my philosophy offend? I didn't imply underdressing, like wearing sweats to the symphony or jeans to a job interview. People don't need to entertain you by how they dress. Is it that you want to judge books by their covers?
In my experience, the most self-assured people worry less on average about this stuff, though of course that's just a general tendency.
Agreed. I actually think it's MORE suburban (and not cosmopolitan) to be brand focused. The cool people I meet in NYC don't seem like they spend a lot of money on clothes.
This thread has gotten pretty silly with what people consider fashion.
The United States as a whole is not very fashionable or well dressed compared to our counterparts throughout the world.
The ONLY fashion focused cities in the US are NYC (specifically Manhattan) and Los Angeles.
You will find fashion districts and well dressed people in any major US city (Chicago is a big one), but I would not classify any of them as fashionable or fashion focused cities. Wearing khakis and polo may be classified as well dressed, but not fashionable, FYI.
And as a whole, the populous of Manhattan and most areas of LA put a lot more effort into their personal and clothing appearances than anywhere else in the US. I regularly saw people in flips flops and sweatpants dining out in Charlotte when I worked there, you would be hard pressed to find that in Manhattan (unless they are an American tourist).
Some of you on here need to take a trip to Milan, Copenhagon or Stockholm to see what a fashionable city looks like.
This thread has gotten pretty silly with what people consider fashion.
The United States as a whole is not very fashionable or well dressed compared to our counterparts throughout the world.
The ONLY fashion focused cities in the US are NYC (specifically Manhattan) and Los Angeles.
You will find fashion districts and well dressed people in any major US city (Chicago is a big one), but I would not classify any of them as fashionable or fashion focused cities. Wearing khakis and polo may be classified as well dressed, but not fashionable, FYI.
And as a whole, the populous of Manhattan and most areas of LA put a lot more effort into their personal and clothing appearances than anywhere else in the US. I regularly saw people in flips flops and sweatpants dining out in Charlotte when I worked there, you would be hard pressed to find that in Manhattan (unless they are an American tourist).
Some of you on here need to take a trip to Milan, Copenhagon or Stockholm to see what a fashionable city looks like.
Pointing out tourists in NYC is the easiest thing ever. They're never dressed well and/or appropriately. Even if we aren't dressed up here, we're still put together well and we know how to look good in a t shirt, jeans, and casual shoes.
"Fashion" in the US is like you said: kahkis and polos. Fine for work. Not considered fashionable, though.
As for the original post, the snobbiest city is SF because they just think the Bay Area is God's gift to mankind and you're wrong if you don't agree. The most fashionable city is NYC because it really is. LA may be considered fashionable also, but NYC embodies fashion of all 4 seasons. LA only embodies summer fashion and nobody there can properly dress for temperatures below 60 without looking like a homeless Michelin tire man. And the most YUPpy city is SF because it's obsessed with itself and it's all bougie rich people eating vegan and gluten free food on their way to yoga.
I would say the Manhattan fashion scene is spreading though. Plenty of Brooklyn, JC, and Hoboken is well-off enough that they can afford upscale fashion, but they're not overly tacky about it like parts of NJ, LI, and SI. Still, I agree, many other cities are far more fashionable than even NYC once you leave the select few neighborhoods. Spending time in Western Europe and Central Europe (especially London, Paris, Madrid, and Italy) makes you realize how ugly Americans dress themselves. I can't stand seeing frat bros in polos, kahki shorts and boat shoes everywhere I go.
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.
