What American cities actually are truly world class? (live, place, difference)
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.
Actually I need to take out DC because of the dining scene there.
LA lacks in the heavy rail department so in my opinion it isnt truely world class. IMO the urban core has to be world class in order for the city to be world class which is another reason it isnt world class. Only Chicago and Nyc can truely be world class
Tend to agree but I'd nudge LA in as world class. It's a behemoth population and GDP-wise. It's also a huge intermodal transort center. It also distinguishes itself through the film and entertainment industry.
World class city= world class transportation, dining, museums, universities and a dense urban core. All of these need to be world class in order for the city to be truely world class
World class city= world class transportation, dining, museums, universities and a dense urban core. All of these need to be world class in order for the city to be truely world class
Why, exactly? Why would you need a dense urban core, for example?
London doesn't have a particularly dense urban core. It's probably among the least dense cities in Europe.
So London isn't world-class?
Also, NYC is the only U.S. city with world-class public transit, so that would be pretty limiting. Most U.S. cities (even arguably world class ones like Chicago and SF) do not have very good public transit, compared to most cities around the world.
World class city= world class transportation, dining, museums, universities and a dense urban core. All of these need to be world class in order for the city to be truely world class
Is this your definition, or can you back this up in any way? I would tend to agree with your generalizations, but what are you basing this on?
Actually I need to take out DC because of the dining scene there.
LA lacks in the heavy rail department so in my opinion it isnt truely world class. IMO the urban core has to be world class in order for the city to be world class which is another reason it isnt world class. Only Chicago and Nyc can truely be world class
Los Angeles generates entertainment that permeates every part of the globe from the most remote to most posh. It's lack of heavy rail make it less non world class to you? DC is the national seat of the most powerful nation on the planet. Decisions that are made there are discussed in major first-world cities and small villages in Africa, Asia, etc. alike. The fact that it's dining scene isn't up to your standard make it non world class? What a weird definition of world class you have.
I love Chicago -- it's my favorite U.S. city. I consider it world class, but it's definitely not more world class than either Los Angeles or DC.
Los Angeles generates entertainment that permeates every part of the globe from the most remote to most posh. It's lack of heavy rail make it less non world class to you? DC is the national seat of the most powerful nation on the planet. Decisions that are made there are discussed in major first-world cities and small villages in Africa, Asia, etc. alike. The fact that it's dining scene isn't up to your standard make it non world class? What a weird definition of world class you have.
I love Chicago -- it's my favorite U.S. city. I consider it world class, but it's definitely not more world class than either Los Angeles or DC.
Washington DC is lacking in one area that San Francisco and Chicago both have. World class fine dining.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastphilly
Michelin Guides list the finest restaurants/Chefs in the world. Chicago, New York and San Francisco have their own guides as do all major world class cities throughout the world. Washington DC does not.
Sorry but DC is not on the level of the aforementioned cities when it comes to dining.
DC is quickly improving on this one, but it's definitely a step behind for that right now. However, I wouldn't say the lack of a Michelin Guide is that good of a measure. LA had and lost its Michelin Guide for a very simple reason and it didn't have to do with a lack of great dining options. It was because the sales and projected sales for the guide were extremely low. Fine dining is also just one of several things that can be argued in terms of making a place world class. It's definitely arguable that having a certain threshold of good world class fine dining is more important than having a certain threshold of good world class transportation infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fastphilly
San Francisco is a bus oriented city. I can board a Muni Bus at 3AM to take me most anywhere in the city. Muni has multiple streetcar lines in the city as well. Yes BART travels in only one corridor through San Francisco so what's your point? So not having a subway system criss-crossing the city like Manhattan automaticly strips a city of World Class status?
For you to compare MARTA to BART is laughable. BART has the fifth highest ridership numbers in the country and MARTA isn't in the Top 5. San Francisco was developed long before BART came to be and the city residents were content with surface streetcar/bus transportation. That doesn't take away from San Francisco being World Class. 30 Foreign airlines serving San Francisco and the surrounding area should tell you there is a HUGE demand from overseas visitors that want to see the World Class destination San Francisco. What about Atlanta?
Sure, it's a bus and walking oriented city. I think it's possible to give world class status to a city without a subway system, but you'd have to seriously make up for it with a lot of other infrastructure boosts somewhere (like dedicated BRT or something like that) and SF doesn't really have that either. BART acts a lot more like a commuter rail/subway hybrid or a S-Bahn, but unlike DC's system, the interlining for BART seems ridiculously stupid in the core of the city. Since we're comparing US cities to the rest of the great cities of the world, this seems like a pretty strong failing on the part of SF (and really, a lot of US cities save for NYC, Chicago, and DC).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold As War
Exactly my point and what I suspected as an answer. IMO world class Cities should have more than one park and museum at world class status. They should have MULTIPLE! NY has 3-5 parks and 3-5 museums that are world class...... And in honesty Way more if i sat down and counted.
GGP and those museums you listed are nice though, SF just needs more like them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold As War
GGP is one park. Any others? Thought so.
Check out Madrid, London, Paris, Zurich, NY, Barcelona, etc. They have multiple, SF only had ONE! No comeback?
#truth
SF definitely has world famous parks. Golden Gate Park as mentioned, but also the Presidio where a lot of films are shot and where you actually see the Golden Gate Bridge. SF's Union Square is also pretty famous. Its museums are pretty famous as well and its performing arts groups are fantastic.
Having these be world famous aren't specifically necessary though. I think Seoul is a world class city and I think most people will have a hard time naming its museums or parks (save for maybe the new Han River development, but my guess that very few people outside of South Korea know about it). SF's possible exclusion from world class probably has little problem in terms of name recognition, landmarks/tourist sites, or economic clout, and the mentioning of parks and museums is sort of odd because those are two of the categories where SF does considerably well, but more with its sheer size (both the city and the metro, of which the city makes a relatively small part of), relative lack of political power and infrastructure investments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gerrythesnake
World class city= world class transportation, dining, museums, universities and a dense urban core. All of these need to be world class in order for the city to be truely world class
Pretty good one. I think the issue with this topic and similar ones is that there's no universally shared definition of a world class city.
The only US city I think can comfortably be considered world class by nearly any measure is NYC. Right now, I think the shoe-ins are NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo, and Hong Kong. I suspect that in the fairly near future, Seoul, Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Istanbul, Shanghai, Beijing, Moscow, and Mumbai might join them (unless some rubric straight out disqualifies some of the non-American cities for various social and political issues). Any US city would probably have a pretty hard time to be as strong an all-around contender on the balance of quality of life and global clout.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 07-17-2013 at 10:34 AM..
Actually I need to take out DC because of the dining scene there.
LA lacks in the heavy rail department so in my opinion it isnt truely world class. IMO the urban core has to be world class in order for the city to be world class which is another reason it isnt world class. Only Chicago and Nyc can truely be world class
Will Los Angeles be world class in your mind once the Purple Line (heavy rail) is extended to the Westside and the Expo Line (LRT) goes to Santa Monica? Does mostly grade-separated LRT count?
How much rail does a city need to be considered world class? I would love to see you map out where Los Angeles would need to add rail in order to be considered world class. Does the 30/10 map fulfill that requirement?
Is Chicago's system really world class? There are some huge gaps and it is pretty core-focused. I am going on a trip to Chicago in the fall, and to get to my destination I have to ride the rails all the way into the Loop then all the way back out. Probably just going to end up taking a taxi as the destination is only a handful of miles from the airport and that transit ride seems incredibly inefficient.
BART isn't pathetic, it just is not intended as an intra-city transportation system. It is amazing for what it is and I wish Los Angeles would convert Metrolink to be something more like BART.
Anyways IMO NYC, LA and Chicago are world class. The Bay Area is on the brink. DC is on the brink. Boston, Seattle, Philly, Houston, Dallas are all on the brink of being on the brink.
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.
