Why do some cities around the world have so much culture like NYC, Paris, BA, while others don't? (homes, buying)
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.
PS: I am still learning; I am only asking out of curiosity and not to cause controversy nor to offend others.
I have noticed that there are four types of cities throughout the world when it comes to "Culture." I'll take culture to mean paintings, cinema, music, and fashion.
City Type 1: This can be small towns, small cities, to mid-sized cities. Say a city in the Midwest or West Coast of the United States or other cities in Latin America, but I bet you can find them worldwide. Here you can find people who live "Acultural and ahistorical lives." There is nothing necessarily wrong with this. Somewhat it is simply different. For instance, the parents of a close friend. They dress in jeans and a t-shirt, they are more concerned with buying food for their barbecue than with the history of their city. They have good jobs or small businesses, but it seems that they have no literary interest. The only culture they might be exposed to would be a big Hollywood movie to go to once a month.
City Type 2: To be brief, we have cities like Cancun. So you guys see I'm not exclusively focused on America. It seems certain that these cities are "resort towns." While you might find travelers from different areas worldwide, it seems, by and large, the experience is very "transient." For instance, most people live there for a few months and then leave. Also, it seems that large corporations run these cities. Where you can have a coffee shop one day, and then they replace it a few months later. Hence, there's no "history" behind the many areas of this city.
City Type 3 This type of city is like LA and Atlanta; as I said before, I don't believe this type of city is unique to America. I think that other industries around the world have these types of cities. For instance, I heard of Bollywood. While there is a culture there, it seems that the priority for arts or cultural production is to entertain and for financial gain. I am not saying these are not good purposes. However, it seems that productions like reality television are meant to appeal to mass audiences to give the audiences a "feel good" experience to make the studios money.
City Type 4: I will focus on New York City so people can see that American people can be highly culture. I believe other cities like Paris or Buenos Aires follow a similar pattern. For instance, people in here dress nicer are more "fashion conscious." You also meet many very educated people you can have "philosophical or political discussions" with them. Also, people are producing "art" not simply to make money or entertain but rather for political purposes. For instance, I have seen in smaller cities around the world, maybe Europe, where people will have their "national poets" and everyone in the city knows them, and they have a say in shaping the course that their nation is going through. There are certain countries where the government will fund the "creative class," and many don't need to appeal to mass audiences.
Conclusion: This topic is complex, but I feel that it will help bring out many ideas out in the open.
The USA is well represented by all four types. Vast majority of places are probably type 1. Usually you'd associate the "acultural" living with income - i.e. families just want to get by and raise their children and can't be too bothered with activities that can only be afforded by disposable incomes and leisure time - but the surprising thing is in wealthy North America there are plenty of cities with families that are actually quite affluent but are mostly interested in large homes, cottage life, 90" TVs, RVs, boats, NFL, NHL etc. Think upper "middle class fancy" or "premium mediocre". In Asia (China) it is mostly the same, just dressed differently - for the most part more brand name clothing, more ostentatious display of wealth through cars and luxury items, buying expensive wines and $900 dinners etc. But again, can be limited culture, or culture solely for the sake of impressing others.
Not sure what that culture is like in Europe, or what an example of a Type 1 city would be.
Is there any other American city that is a clear Type 4 in the US?
In Canada there probably isn't a Type 2 at all and every city not named Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver is a Type 1. Safe, clean and good QOL and good places to raise families. Vancouver and Toronto are Type 3s and maybe Montreal fits the Type 4.
PS: I am still learning; I am only asking out of curiosity and not to cause controversy nor to offend others.
I have noticed that there are four types of cities throughout the world when it comes to "Culture." I'll take culture to mean paintings, cinema, music, and fashion.
City Type 1: This can be small towns, small cities, to mid-sized cities. Say a city in the Midwest or West Coast of the United States or other cities in Latin America, but I bet you can find them worldwide. Here you can find people who live "Acultural and ahistorical lives." There is nothing necessarily wrong with this. Somewhat it is simply different. For instance, the parents of a close friend. They dress in jeans and a t-shirt, they are more concerned with buying food for their barbecue than with the history of their city. They have good jobs or small businesses, but it seems that they have no literary interest. The only culture they might be exposed to would be a big Hollywood movie to go to once a month.
City Type 2: To be brief, we have cities like Cancun. So you guys see I'm not exclusively focused on America. It seems certain that these cities are "resort towns." While you might find travelers from different areas worldwide, it seems, by and large, the experience is very "transient." For instance, most people live there for a few months and then leave. Also, it seems that large corporations run these cities. Where you can have a coffee shop one day, and then they replace it a few months later. Hence, there's no "history" behind the many areas of this city.
City Type 3 This type of city is like LA and Atlanta; as I said before, I don't believe this type of city is unique to America. I think that other industries around the world have these types of cities. For instance, I heard of Bollywood. While there is a culture there, it seems that the priority for arts or cultural production is to entertain and for financial gain. I am not saying these are not good purposes. However, it seems that productions like reality television are meant to appeal to mass audiences to give the audiences a "feel good" experience to make the studios money.
City Type 4: I will focus on New York City so people can see that American people can be highly culture. I believe other cities like Paris or Buenos Aires follow a similar pattern. For instance, people in here dress nicer are more "fashion conscious." You also meet many very educated people you can have "philosophical or political discussions" with them. Also, people are producing "art" not simply to make money or entertain but rather for political purposes. For instance, I have seen in smaller cities around the world, maybe Europe, where people will have their "national poets" and everyone in the city knows them, and they have a say in shaping the course that their nation is going through. There are certain countries where the government will fund the "creative class," and many don't need to appeal to mass audiences.
Conclusion: This topic is complex, but I feel that it will help bring out many ideas out in the open.
I think the reason for this is that people are different. People who are attracted to high culture gravitate towards the New Yorks, Londons and Parises of the world. They do whatever it takes to make it there. People who are not so interested in the "pinnacle" of culture, but prefer to be involved in things like raising a family, playing sports, going hunting or relaxing at the beach will look elsewhere to live.
The people make the place. At least, that is my theory.
The USA is well represented by all four types. Vast majority of places are probably type 1. Usually you'd associate the "acultural" living with income - i.e. families just want to get by and raise their children and can't be too bothered with activities that can only be afforded by disposable incomes and leisure time - but the surprising thing is in wealthy North America there are plenty of cities with families that are actually quite affluent but are mostly interested in large homes, cottage life, 90" TVs, RVs, boats, NFL, NHL etc. Think upper "middle class fancy" or "premium mediocre". In Asia (China) it is mostly the same, just dressed differently - for the most part more brand name clothing, more ostentatious display of wealth through cars and luxury items, buying expensive wines and $900 dinners etc. But again, can be limited culture, or culture solely for the sake of impressing others.
Not sure what that culture is like in Europe, or what an example of a Type 1 city would be.
Is there any other American city that is a clear Type 4 in the US?
In Canada there probably isn't a Type 2 at all and every city not named Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver is a Type 1. Safe, clean and good QOL and good places to raise families. Vancouver and Toronto are Type 3s and maybe Montreal fits the Type 4.
Excellent comment. I agree with the China comparisons as well. Maybe, it has something to do with the "Live to work culture.". Maybe in societies that are "live to work," people will want materialistic consumption. For instance, I know people who spend a year working all to buy a luxury car.
Another observation that merits discussion is that it seems that in Latin America(I had a chance to study this region), the higher you go the class ladder, the more "sophisticated" people become. Who has an interest in "experimental consumption" of traveling or eating at fancy restaurants in Europe. Since their status is determined by other factors like education and social connections. These societies seem like much more "technocratic societies." Meanwhile, in the USA, it appears that "wealth" is the only status symbol.
Culture frequently equals history. Older places where a lot of important stuff has happened over the centuries tend to accummulate more culture, and have more people, things, buildings and institutions that live in continuity with long, complex traditions.
Some older places decay dramatically with time, but those that manage to to preserve cultural traditions tend to be interesting and attractive places for living, therefore being more likely to also launch new cultural trends.
This does not hold only for large cosmopolitan cities, but even for smaller ones (like Santa Fe, NM in the US, or Bruges in Belgium).
Not so sure I agree with the OP's assessment. I live near what would be a "type 1", and have meet plenty of folks from "type 3 & 4"
People really aren't all that different- plenty of people from NYC more interested in what to throw on the barbie, and no shortage of folks in small towns to discuss philosophy or politics with.
I think a lot of the difference is cultural. In my experience, for instance, people I know of German background are very interested in Opera, theatre, fine arts and enjoy museums, having been educated in all these since childhood.
Surely there is a financial component. It is very expensive to attend performances of classical music, ballet and live shows here and I assume most places.
Status:
"“If a thing loves, it is infinite.”"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Great Britain
27,187 posts, read 13,477,157 times
Reputation: 19518
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarisaMay
I think a lot of the difference is cultural. In my experience, for instance, people I know of German background are very interested in Opera, theatre, fine arts and enjoy museums, having been educated in all these since childhood.
Surely there is a financial component. It is very expensive to attend performances of classical music, ballet and live shows here and I assume most places.
I think a lot of European arts are subsidised by the Government, whilst in the US some arts receive a greater percentage of money from private benefactors.
There are usually ways to get cheaper opera, ballet, theatre, classical music etc tickets, and museums are either free or only request that you make a donation of your choice in many countries.
I think a lot of the difference is cultural. In my experience, for instance, people I know of German background are very interested in Opera, theatre, fine arts and enjoy museums, having been educated in all these since childhood.
Surely there is a financial component. It is very expensive to attend performances of classical music, ballet and live shows here and I assume most places.
The question is - What motivates some people to pursue these “finer” things in life in spite of the costs?
While other people could care less about them even if they are available for free at a local library?
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.
