Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Which city ranks 2nd in the U.S. for cultural amenities behind NYC?
DC 22 9.05%
Chicago 77 31.69%
San Francisco 22 9.05%
Boston 14 5.76%
Philadelphia 15 6.17%
Los Angeles 81 33.33%
other 12 4.94%
Voters: 243. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-16-2012, 08:48 AM
 
Location: Washington D.C.
13,727 posts, read 15,741,344 times
Reputation: 4081

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by buck wilder View Post
I agree on the issue of quality, it's too subjective. That does not stop it from being used as an argument but I understand what you mean, it just doesn't fly in formal debate. Since I'm in marketing, being told that quality cannot be argued seems crazy since marketers do it all the time.
Yes, Marketers do use the "quality" notion in their work however, they are targeting people who relate to what they are selling. They are not targeting detractors who are the ones that would disagree with them. "Quality" will always be in the eye of the beholder. It's measurability is defined by the preference of the host in question. The question of quality can only be certain on items or topics that have an absolute. For instance, a sheet by general rule has higher quality determined by the tread count. The higher the thread count, the higher the quality. This can be proved by a measurable quantifiable value. Only these type of "quality" arguments can be validated. All other quality arguments are defined by personal bias and subjective.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-16-2012, 12:28 PM
 
300 posts, read 524,395 times
Reputation: 92
I would say LA. One of two megacities, and the second most important city culturally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-17-2012, 12:38 AM
 
2,419 posts, read 4,721,264 times
Reputation: 1318
culture is the product of history. It would be between Boston and Philly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-21-2012, 10:38 PM
 
6 posts, read 4,765 times
Reputation: 10
As culture would be the product of history, would also need to add SFO to that. New York is THE center of American Culture, and our premier city. That is why our enemies hate New York. San Fran, besides just being plain beautiful, is the classical cultural center of the West Coast.
I cannot bestow that on LA in good conscience.
I enjoy LA, I really do. Lots to see and do...the La Brea Tar Pits, Universal, Disneyland, Santa Monica Pier, the Chinese Restaurants, the beaches, etc. The Rockford Files, Columbo, and Simon & Simon bring pleasant memories of dreams of living there.
On average, Angelinos are really nice people. Nice to look at, too. People complain about the smog but sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. I lived in coastal California a significant part of my life, and loved it, but like anyplace else, it has its highs and lows.
LA has the best weather anywhere, but that is a gift from God more than anything else. Unless El Nino comes along, then it is mudslides and floods.
There is a lot of power and money in LA, so that would tend to rank it higher than Houston which is a major world business center, but not quite the tourist haven or famous name. Houston is 50 years younger than LA (1836 vice 1781) and languished in nowhere-land of refineries for a long time, even after Spindletop. Back in the '60's Houston was the 6th largest city, and LA was the 3rd. LA has been at it longer, like Chicago, especially with movies and aircraft. However, visionaries in the last 40 or so years really caused Houston to take off like a bat outta hell.
LA does some things a lot better than most. Tourism is one that put LA on the tourist map, no doubt starting with the Beverly Hills tours that started way back in what the 1930's? However, LA does not necessarily do everything better than anyone else.
LA's art museums in Anaheim and elsewhere are wonderful, but they do not quite have the facilities offered by the High Museum of Art in Atlanta, nor the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, or the Shedd Aquarium, all which blew me away.
The nation’s largest tonnage ports are New York, Houston and New Orleans. Even Mobile has higher tonnage than LA, but LA handles gazillions of containers. Containers are lots busier than grain and sulphur.
Some of LA's venues are surprisingly disappointing for a city that size. One case is is the airport, which I had to walk a half mile outside to meet a flight to Kuala Lumpur a few years ago, and the international terminal, named after was full of plywood and sheetrock. And it carried the name of one of this nation's great and beloved mayors, Tom Bradley. Another is the classical performing arts scene which I have followed the last few decades and yet don't recall hearing too much about a major ballet or opera company in LA. Yet, west of the Rockies we have San Francisco's ballet and opera, Seattle's Pacific Northwest Ballet, and Salt Lake's Ballet West. East of the Rockies, I read what someone wrote about how big the new performing arts center is in Denver, and of course we have the Joffrey Ballet in Chicago, The Kansas City Ballet, Texas Ballet in Fort Worth, Houston Ballet and Houston Grand Opera, Boston Ballet, National Ballet in Washington, New York's mega companies, Pennsylvania, Pittsburg, and Miami Ballet. Houston Ballet is considered the fourth largest-the other three are in Chicago and New York. Houston just built a phenomenal Center For Dance in 2011 for $53 million. Most of that money was donated by individual Houstonians, mostly average people putting in a few hundred dollars, including people not living there, and in the middle of a huge recession.. Individual Houstonians also funded the Wortham Theater Center during another very bad recession, the 1980's oil bust. Foreclosures everywhere, but donors contributed $66 million to build that thing. Live classical performing arts are well supported in Houston. Now that's commitment.Part of what makes a big city great. The city was cited having more live theater seats than any other US city outside New York. That includes Los Angeles and Chicago (LOCATION | Downtown Houston Hotels | Hotel Icon). That is what I meant by "bat outta hell".
LA has little mass transit to speak of outside buses, but they are progressing with commuter and light rail. Houston's light rail is a joke. Probably that is a big reason why the city did not get the 2012 Olympics. Dallas not so much so, but light rail and surface streets are not a good mix, especially in floods. Atlanta is doing much better than any of the three.
LA is well entrenched in the entertainment biz, and as mentioned in this blog, lots of actors, 98% of whom are aspiring, and as the old Dionne Warwick classic inferred, embarked on other occupations, hoping to get discovered. It seems to me that a lot of promise is shown to such people when they could be embarked on more productive careers in which they would be much happier. Dallas and Houston are more business oriented, but San Antonio and Austin are more fun.
Bottom line: If we go to Places Rated Almanac, we generally have seen Seattle, Salt Lake and Houston as the top three to live in. Cost of living, housing, medical, access to air transport, taxes, crime, arts, etc., factor in. My likes for LA are unfettered. It is a really nice city, but there are other places in this country that also deserve recognition besides LA and NYC. The media have a habitual obsession with LA, I think primarily because most of them live there. There is a huge nation east and north of The Grapevine. Come see us sometime, we'll be here.

Taking cover for incoming rounds...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2012, 08:45 PM
 
3,393 posts, read 5,277,204 times
Reputation: 3031
LA is 1st. Chicago must be 2nd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2012, 01:54 AM
 
Location: NYC/D.C.
362 posts, read 665,240 times
Reputation: 210
1. La
2. Chicago
3. The rest in any order you want
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2012, 02:00 AM
 
Location: White House, TN
6,486 posts, read 6,180,202 times
Reputation: 4584
Chi-Town. The size of LA, but with much more heritage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2012, 08:45 AM
 
Location: Austell, Georgia
2,217 posts, read 3,900,194 times
Reputation: 2258
Chicago for me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2012, 11:09 AM
 
940 posts, read 2,026,452 times
Reputation: 742
One thing I think is up for debate:

Chicago is certainly older than Los Angeles, but is it more historic?

I think that historic has to do with not just what happened in the past but the significance of what happened and the influence on the world since.

For example, which is the more historic city: London or Prague? Personally, I think you'd be silly to say Prague even though the buildings are much older than in London (though I guess London's been around longer as a settlement because of the Romans.. but you get my drift).

Personally, I think LA is as historic as Chicago, when you consider the impact of events/people/things that happened in the past. In my opinion, LA's history in shaping the American Dream and its role in bringing about the global cultural dominance of the US is just as significant as Chicago's history in shaping the US's orientation to its vast material resources and its role in advancing architecture and engineering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2012, 12:59 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn
2,314 posts, read 4,796,759 times
Reputation: 1946
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220 View Post
One thing I think is up for debate:

Chicago is certainly older than Los Angeles, but is it more historic?
Yes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top