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.
Exactly, so those things can't be main requirements of being cosmopolitan. If every big city has them then size would be the determining factor of places being cosmopolitan or not.
It's just like the urban qualifier that everyone tries to make Cosmopolitan out to be.
It's the worldliness of a city that makes it cosmopolitan not its urban form or presence of museums. If a cosmopolitan city has museums and Universities more power to it, but lacking those is not a disqualifyer. Miami and DFW are two of the biggest metros lacking Tier 1 universities but I think both are very cosmopolitan.
Again, size is what makes cities have the universities plus renowned opera, museums etc. Any of those criteria by themselves is useless as small cities usually have 1 or 2 of those things but big cities have all of em and I bet we can agree on not all big cities are cosmopolitan. We'll, almost all big cities have all of em. Phoenix is another biggie that lacks a tier 1 university, but it's Lillie sibling Tucson has one
Tier one universities (AAU qualifying) in the south can be found in Houston, ATL, New Orleans, Austin, College Station, Nashville, Durham, Charlottesville VA, Gainesville FL, Chapel Hill. No Miami and Dallas but lots of tiny cities and college towns that no one has on their cosmopolitan lists. Miami and Dallas worldliness makes them cosmopolitan.
Universities add to the cosmopolitan nature of a place, especially if it attracts students from all over, but that just brings us back to worldliness as being key and a place can be worldly in aspects other than education.
Not very. But it's changing.
I previously disliked Austin because it was not cosmopolitan at all. Everyone kept saying you should go to school in Austin, it's THE place for LGBT individuals in Texas... but on visits there showed that the city was heavily American and heavily one demographic of American. Even the Flagship University demographic wasn't all that represntative.
That was in the 90s.
Now it is much better, but still not very cosmopolitan. It has gone from a Texan city to an American city. It is on its way to being a city of the world but right now it is still not very cosmopolitan.
In comparison to other Houston's schools, Rice University is still seen as a very white school. But a ranking of the most diverse top 100 schools has Rice at #5 and UT- Austin at 31. https://priceonomics.com/ranking-the...e-colleges-in/
Agreed - which is why I think the word is a bit overused.
It means more than just a "diverse" city with lots of stuff to do, lots of upscale shopping, where people like to eat at trendy restaurants, sip wine and listen to music they don't hear much in the hinterlands - because this describes almost all the major American cities.
Traditionally, I think the term generally referred to societal elites whose wealth or position allowed them a kind of "global upbringing" that allowed them to form an identity that wasn't particular to any country or group other than other such global elites.
Thus, a cosmopolitan city would be one where there was a critical mass of such "citizens of the world" such that they exert a strong influence on the city's culture.
I think the only U.S. city that really fits the bill is NYC.
Under this definition I'd put NYC< SF, DC, LA, Chicago and Boston
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt
Also known as "talking the talk". As in, "Let's all go do a Mexican Hat Dance". I chose that example b/c I read some Seattleite bragging about their Hispanic festival.
Walking the walk, that is, being respectful of Hispanic-Mexican culture is different, and many of the above don't even know how to go about doing that because they don't really know anything about it.
Haven't seen Katarina around, but I see the disdain for Seattle has been around for a while.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tvdxer
When I created this post, my idea of a "cosmopolitan city" was kind of like this: a city with an unusually high population of people who...
* Speak another language, even though they are not necessarily immigrants
* Listen to "foreign" music that might not be on the U.S. pop charts. And I don't just mean the "artistic" or yuppie-looking stuff you see at Barnes and Noble, but stuff like what's on the Dutch or Italian pop charts.
* Eat and are knowledgeable about a wide variety of different cuisines...know what "hummus", "naan", and "pad thai" are.
* Are well-travelled; know about cities in other countries
* Are generally interested in other cultures and places.
* Etc.
You basically described Irvine. Everyone plays Kpop here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthCali4LifeSD
sorry to disappoint everyone, but there are truly only 2 cosmopolitan areas in the united states...
manhattan and the city of san francisco. chicago is EXTREMELY borderline cosmopolitan, but only the downtown region.
you can all keep making arguments about diversity, which is important, but lets face it, manhattan and the city of san francisco are global hotspots ACROSS the board and are the only 2 american cities/areas with the big city vibe and high class and cultural mentality.
cities such as los angeles, d.c., boston, miami, houston, seattle, atlanta, etc. are merely international cities with global importance because each of these cities have financial multinational firms that are headquartered in each city which brings many foreigners and some culture into each of these areas.
los angeles is also a somewhat borderline cosmopolitan city but it is missing the big city vibe in a large enough area; it's just consistently dense throughout, but the fact that it's the entertainment hub of the world, all eyes are on LA for pleasure, which gives many parts of the city a glitz and glamour vibe.
cities that are quickly coming up though are dallas, san diego, minneapolis, las vegas, and a few others i don't care to mention.
many once important cities, especially ones surrounding the great lakes, are rusty and shells of their former selves. all power is moving to the south and to the west, because the north east is already established.
I gave my big 6.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk
Once again: being cosmopolitan has nothing to do with a traditional "city" environment.
God, people are dense.
I think density should be a criteria for cosmopolitan cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetclimber
Well let's do it in tiers then
Tier 1 NYC SF LA and Chicago
Tier 2 Houston Wash DC Boston Philly Dallas Seattle Atlanta
Tier 3 Miami Denver Mineapolis Cleveland Baltimore Pittsburgh Detroit
Tier 4 Portland Ore Austin San Antonio Cincinnati Columbus Indianapolis Rochester NY Buffalo NY New Orleans
Tier 5 Phoenix San Diego Orlando Vegas Wichita Omaha Birmingham Raleigh Charlotte etc.
This is kind of like the wold cities formation list that people have mentioned NYC had 12 pts, Chicago and LA had 10, SF had 9, Houston, Dallas, DC and Boston had 6, Atl, Miami, Minneapolis had 4 some cities had NO pts (Vegas, SD, Orlando)
Yes, though i would move DC into tier 1. Boston too
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
Have you actually to been the real Vegas, not The Strip and tourist areas? There is no way it is cosmopolitan. The residents are fat rednecks that can't even fit in Chevy Suburbans. They all wear cowboy boots and have those moustaches. They wear cowboy hats.
Now I'm sure upscale areas are different, but the middle class and lower class areas are filled with people like that.
San Diego should definitely be given more credit.
I'm sure we can all agree NYC is number one, but I have to disagree about SF being the only other top tier city. LA and SF tie for second tier, with SF being just slightly higher, but not at the NYC level. Everything is not nearly comparable. Yes, Chicago, Miami, Houston, Boston, etc. are world class cities, but I just don't consider them on the same level as NYC, SF, and LA.
I was just in Austin this weekend. North Loop and Downtown area. Austin is cute, but it’s pretty white (to me), and A LOT of young people who walk in droves.
I wouldn’t call Austin worldly but it’s NOT not cosmopolitan either. It’s not some backward insular small town but in certain way it almost reminds me/us of Denver, the nice Cherry Creek area: rich, clean, seemingly educated, but most people you see are white. (Nothing is wrong with that but it does seem a bit vanilla.)It’s also not worldly in scale. It has that gentrified clean-cut California youthful energy to it (esp seeing cars trying to climb on the hills, lol.-totally L.A déjà vu.) and upscale chain stores with a touch of hippie-dippy New Age-ness. I like it just fine but it’s not the city you go in and immediately go “wow”. There’s a lot of wealth flowing around though and I saw so many plates from NY, Massachusetts and CA, so it’ll change (for better or for worse, depends on your interests.) (it’s already becoming more and more “corporate” with hotels like Austin Proper-which I love-and many fancy outposts.)
I don’t think Houston is just oil barons and rodeos though. Lol. (Trust me, you cannot pay me to redoes!)
Let’s say any city (save for perhaps Sarasota FL which is very small but wealthy.) with decent, reputable opera, orchestra and ballet has to be at least international and sophisticated. The truth is, (forget about museums since many museums are free.) operas, ballet and orchestras are still mostly frequented by “rich people” (or people with disposable income.) and the big patrons usually are tied to the city’s so-called “upper class” with the fundraising/charity/annual committee. It’s usually at least $400 when we (a family of three) went to ballet performances, dinner/apéros-drinks and appetizers before dinner time with family/parking….not included. These cultural institutes, the ones with the ranking nationally or globally, usually attract many talents from world-wide. The talents aren’t there to work in the restaurants or constructions, for classical music/opera/ballet professionals (and to be good enough to do it professionally and in the big league.), their education cost isn’t for the faint of the heart.
There are also patrons, the high net income type, would travel to the next city globally or domestically, just to enjoy the high caliber performances esp if there are “super star” artists/musicians in the house.
Ballet, opera and classical symphonies, they ARE sophisticated and expensive as patrons and institutes. They are not piano bars in some remote airports.
Cosmopolitan implies sophistication and internationally. Queen NY is very ethnically diverse but I don’t think most people would associate it with worldly and cosmopolitan.
As “pretentious” as some may think, Euro-centric cultural institutes are still a barometer to judge if a city is “cosmopolitan”. Not higher educations (although in the U.S high education has become a sign of wealth and sophistication.) per se, not necessarily the wealth of the city.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,409 posts, read 6,545,347 times
Reputation: 6682
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetclimber View Post
Well let's do it in tiers then
Tier 1 NYC SF LA and Chicago
Tier 2 Houston Wash DC Boston Philly Dallas Seattle Atlanta
Tier 3 Miami Denver Mineapolis Cleveland Baltimore Pittsburgh Detroit
Tier 4 Portland Ore Austin San Antonio Cincinnati Columbus Indianapolis Rochester NY Buffalo NY New Orleans
Tier 5 Phoenix San Diego Orlando Vegas Wichita Omaha Birmingham Raleigh Charlotte etc.
This is kind of like the wold cities formation list that people have mentioned NYC had 12 pts, Chicago and LA had 10, SF had 9, Houston, Dallas, DC and Boston had 6, Atl, Miami, Minneapolis had 4 some cities had NO pts (Vegas, SD, Orlando)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gaylord_Focker
Yes, though i would move DC into tier 1. Boston too
.....kudos for finding and referencing a quote from 2008 by Sweetclimber.....besides your suggested edits Miami would (or should) be in his Tier 2 now (on par with Atlanta, Seattle, Dallas, maybe more, and definitely a tier above Denver, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Detroit). Move up Portland and Austin into his Tier 3.
Last edited by elchevere; 05-22-2023 at 01:23 PM..
Quote:
Originally Posted by sweetclimber View Post
Well let's do it in tiers then
Tier 1 NYC SF LA and Chicago
Tier 2 Houston Wash DC Boston Philly Dallas Seattle Atlanta
Tier 3 Miami Denver Mineapolis Cleveland Baltimore Pittsburgh Detroit
Tier 4 Portland Ore Austin San Antonio Cincinnati Columbus Indianapolis Rochester NY Buffalo NY New Orleans
Tier 5 Phoenix San Diego Orlando Vegas Wichita Omaha Birmingham Raleigh Charlotte etc.
This is kind of like the wold cities formation list that people have mentioned NYC had 12 pts, Chicago and LA had 10, SF had 9, Houston, Dallas, DC and Boston had 6, Atl, Miami, Minneapolis had 4 some cities had NO pts (Vegas, SD, Orlando)
.....kudos for finding and referencing a quote from 2008 by Sweetclimber.....besides your suggested edits Miami would (or should) be in his Tier 2 now (on par with Atlanta, Seattle, Dallas, maybe more, and definitely a tier above Denver, Minneapolis, Cleveland, Baltimore, Pittsburgh and Detroit). Move up Portland and Austin into his Tier 3.
Not very. But it's changing.
I previously disliked Austin because it was not cosmopolitan at all. Everyone kept saying you should go to school in Austin, it's THE place for LGBT individuals in Texas... but on visits there showed that the city was heavily American and heavily one demographic of American. Even the Flagship University demographic wasn't all that represntative.
That was in the 90s.
Now it is much better, but still not very cosmopolitan. It has gone from a Texan city to an American city. It is on its way to being a city of the world but right now it is still not very cosmopolitan.
In comparison to other Houston's schools, Rice University is still seen as a very white school. But a ranking of the most diverse top 100 schools has Rice at #5 and UT- Austin at 31. https://priceonomics.com/ranking-the...e-colleges-in/
There are a ton of different ethnicities within Austin believe it or not. Also, really hard to compare UT to Rice. UT is 8 times it's size. UT is pretty diverse for a public southern. Pretty sure it has the highest percent of Asians in the south, among publics.
What, in your opinion, are the U.S.'s most cosmopolitan cities? By cosmopolitan cities I do not necessarily mean those with a high immigrant population (though that could help), but those where the average, local resident has "cosmopolitan" or "global" tastes in food, music, etc. For example, a place where it wouldn't be unusual for a local-born person to listen to Italian rock or Arabic dance, or where your average person would have broad food tastes, with Ethiopian, Indian, etc. food not seen as unusual at all.
I'd take this to mean cities where there is a high share of immigrants AND where a very high share of its populace has cosmopolitan tastes and outlooks.
I agree cosmopolitan does imply sophistication. There's more to it than just diversity.
A lot depends on how someone answers the question 'is the character Mo in the Netflix series Mo cosmopolitan". On the one hand he speaks Spanish and has friends that are Hispanic, Asian and AA, but on the other hand these are easily found in the neighborhood where he grew up. The kind of cosmopolitanism some are thinking of would involve someone curious enough to seek out the unfamiliar, fall in love and incorporate into their lives.
The kind of cosmopolitan that the OP and the poster you're responding to is about a personality type can be found anywhere. But people with those traits tend to be highly educated and have jobs and tastes that require them to live in or close to the alpha cities, so you are more likely to find a lot of them in the alpha cities. They are however far from representative of the metro's population. The locals of these cosmopolitan places are often as provincial as can be. Having a high foreign born percentage also works against these cities in a way by allowing some of the ethnic enclaves to become so large so that many of the immigrants, even second generation ones, branch out less.
In some way I would expect the likes of Austin to be more cosmopolitan than Houston, in the sense that I would expect to see more AA and Hispanic people to show up at Ayurvedic cooking classes there than in Houston.
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.
