Quote:
Originally Posted by tpk-nyc
I meant unusual or distinctive. For example, to an international tourist I don't think there's a lot to differentiate Minneapolis, Denver, Atlanta and Dallas.
My point is if you're interested in cities, as tourist destinations and places to explore, the US probably not your first choice.
|
The United States falls into two camps for just about everything, in my personal opinion:
1. Good place to visit
2. Good place to live
1. Good place to be either on top of the world or be at the bottom of the barrel
2. A haven for middle class refugees
1. A city so iconic and culturally distinct that it just speaks for itself, often times it's the main draw of the region
2. A city that many overlook because the identity is more important for America than leisure
1. A city that doesn't have to be important, powerful, or large but has to be unique, distinctive, and a thrill (some cities in this camp like New York are both powerful and a thrill)
2. A city that is relevant for standard of living, has the basic of amenities, has everything you need but enjoying them as a globally professed leisure can be as difficult as finding a needle in a haystack. This city is embraced by locals, while misunderstood by outsiders.
The city under "1" will be a trendsetter (modern day, not the past) and will most often be where global brands and fashion designers die to be, where films and movies are depicted that showcase that they're a lifestyle city, where lobbyists and politicians spend billions fund-raising, where people have a shining star in their eyes when someone says "want to visit?", where excellence is the gold standard and striving to be on that level to get the world to see what makes it great is more worthwhile.
The city under "2" is a more stable place to live for people across the spectrum, whether you're rich, middle, or poor. It's a place that strives to be a more child friendly atmosphere where you can raise kids in a large family and have all the basic assets you need in life 5 miles near you, where an aggregate number of people fuel the importance of a place, and ideally where the middle class still thrives.
Cities I think of as "1" are the exact same cities Fitzrovian mentioned and I may be on the fence to where Honolulu would go but I think leans more toward the first for whatever reason.
Cities I think of as "2" are the ones you mentioned along with some others like Seattle, Houston, Philadelphia, Tampa, Cleveland, Phoenix, so on.
Either way, no one is saying anywhere is bad but cities in the United States serve two very different functions altogether and a combination of both classes is what makes America great. Selectively, Germany is another country much of the same way and increasingly Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, Japan, China too. Philadelphia can be a stellar place but the thing is, I wouldn't exactly call it the most leisure friendly city in America, the living standard is much more realistically graspable. For example it's tough to match (for cities in the United States) or exceed Hollywood, Manhattan, South Beach, Las Vegas Strip, French Quarter, the Loop, National Mall, Fisherman's Wharf, as leisure destinations.
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.
