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.
The Smithsonian is great - so many world class museums bundled into one. But it fuels my point that DC is the nation's capital and rather than having a set of museums that really depict the city itself, they are a set of museums that are "national" in nature, or are about things that are only in DC because DC happens to be the nation's capital.
So I guess you would strike the British Museum and the National Gallery in London from your list? Or even the Louvre since it is technically owned by the French government and receives a majority of its funding from that source.
The Mona Lisa, perhaps the Louvre's most prized possession, was painted in Florence, Italy. I'm not exactly sure how that is a depiction of the city of Paris, or even French culture, but whatever.
SFMOMA was one of the first museums in the world to exclusively showcase 20th century art, and is one of the largest and most prominent, by far, to this day. I think it fits the city particularly well. Similarly, the Asian Art Museum in SF is also the largest and by far most prominent of its kind in the US, and I think that it also fits the city very well.
Ok, so Irish Coffee was invented in Ireland. I must have just misheard one of those tour bus guides at some point.
The Smithsonian is great - so many world class museums bundled into one. But it fuels my point that DC is the nation's capital and rather than having a set of museums that really depict the city itself, they are a set of museums that are "national" in nature, or are about things that are only in DC because DC happens to be the nation's capital.
And I think I'm generally fair. Why would I "boost" DC when I believe that in terms of culture and icons that SF far exceeds its counterpart? DC is a great city, but it is one of the most sterile cities in this country and it would cease to be even just 20% of what it is today had the "square" in the swamps of the Potomac not been selected, arbitrarily, to be the nation's capital.
No you're not fair. No one said you had to boost DC but yes you're an extreme SF booster and not even reasonable about it. The fact that you feel the need to undermine DC's muesems, yes there are muesems that depict the city and its culture specifically black culture for your information. You seem to be really contradicting yourself saying that DC doesn't have muesems that depict the city then turning around saying or they are things that are only in DC. Well those things are still apart of DC's identity and culture.
^^^It's pretty easy to deny, actually. DC was a backwoods swamp with some government buildings for much of its history, and for almost the entire time it's been a sizable city, SF has been larger.
SF officially passed DC in population in 1870, but from SF's "existence" as an American city in 1849 onwards through 1870 it was pretty close.
SF has always been the "Manhattan of the West Coast" in many various ways, from industry to immigration. While DC was building up itself as the center of American government, San Francisco was harboring immigrants from multiple continents - people coming for the Gold Rush or other opportunity and establishing communities that stand to this day.
DC is not in the same league of American/colonial history as NYC, Boston, Philly, etc etc. DC, SF, and Chicago have relatively similar American histories, in terms of length. In terms of notoriety, I'd say both Chicago and SF have more notable histories than DC, which was kind of a quiet place for most of its existence.
In terms of foreign population, SF-Oakland MSA and San Jose-Sunnyvale MSA are each 30-40% foreign born. DC metro is 20%. City of SF was 35.6% foreign born as of last Census. DC was 13.8%.
Don't even get me started. DC having embassies has nothing to do with how "international" it is. SF has a bazillion consulates...so?
You do realize that a majority of SF's international residents come from the same place. That doesn't make SF more international than DC. because although DC has a lower percentage, I bet you a million dollars the international population of DC is more diverse
You do realize that a majority of SF's international residents come from the same place. That doesn't make SF more international than DC. because although DC has a lower percentage, I bet you a million dollars the international population of DC is more diverse
Haha Asia is very diverse all by itself. China and the Phillipines are totally different from each other and India etc.
Anyway,
Foreign Born Population, 2013
Washington DC
Total Foreign Born Population: 92,819
Born in Latin America 40,047
Born in Europe 17,762
Born in Asia 16,270
Born in Africa 15,841
Born in North America 1,941
Born in Oceania 938
San Francisco
Total Foreign Born Population: 291,896
Born in Asia 190,050
Born in Latin America 54,219
Born in Europe 37,486
Born in North America 4,487
Born in Africa 3,360
Born in Oceania 2,294
Speaks Only English at Home, 2013
Washington DC 82.1%
San Francisco, CA 56.3%
The White House
The Capitol
The Washington Monument
maybe (domestically): The Lincoln Memorial
maybe (domestically): the Smithsonian's original building (too bad nobody reads paper print anymore because the Smithsonian magazine had its original museum plastered all over it)
I absolutely cannot see:
The Vietnam Memorial (it's a friggin wall with names on it...it's symbolic and important, but ask most people in America to recognize it, let alone international people??)
or anything else...the average American barely knows his or her left hand from the right; let alone some random memorial or structure in DC.
For San Francisco:
Domestically and Internationally:
Golden Gate Bridge
Alcatraz
Cable Cars
Cityscape in general
For being the US Capital, DC is not as recognizable as say Paris or London. And DC doesn't have a real vernacular like Paris (or San Francisco) does.
San Francisco's stuff appeals from a more traditional people perspective - human might, cultural movements, gem of American city, etc. DC is monumental and a capital. It's impressive and as is obvious, the capital, however, it doesn't have anything else to give it umph. As everyone seems to agree, it certainly doesn't have the culture/cultural history that SF does.
Also, Just being the capital of the US isnt really enough to beat a city like SF, whose residents have a perceived personas(hippies, gays, liberals, hipsters, weirdos, techies, sexually promiscuous, sophisticated, worldly, affluent etc) that outsiders actually associate with SF.
DC really doesnt have that. Only Angelenos and New Yorkers are as stereotyped as San Franciscans. It's hilarious but it also shows that people pay attention to SF
I voted DC even though I like SF more. It's hard to get more iconic than seeing the white house, capitol building, pentagon, or Washington monument on news every waking minute around the world.
Culture on the other hand goes to SF, so it's a hard vote.
The White House
The Capitol
The Washington Monument
maybe (domestically): The Lincoln Memorial
maybe (domestically): the Smithsonian's original building (too bad nobody reads paper print anymore because the Smithsonian magazine had its original museum plastered all over it)
I absolutely cannot see:
The Vietnam Memorial (it's a friggin wall with names on it...it's symbolic and important, but ask most people in America to recognize it, let alone international people??)
or anything else...the average American barely knows his or her left hand from the right; let alone some random memorial or structure in DC.
For San Francisco:
Domestically and Internationally:
Golden Gate Bridge
Alcatraz
Cable Cars
Cityscape in general
For being the US Capital, DC is not as recognizable as say Paris or London. And DC doesn't have a real vernacular like Paris (or San Francisco) does.
San Francisco's stuff appeals from a more traditional people perspective - human might, cultural movements, gem of American city, etc. DC is monumental and a capital. It's impressive and as is obvious, the capital, however, it doesn't have anything else to give it umph. As everyone seems to agree, it certainly doesn't have the culture/cultural history that SF does.
The Lincoln Memorial is not a "maybe." That is widely known throughout the United States (perhaps even the world)...far far beyond anything in your "maybe" category of SF landmarks. Ghirardelli Square, on the other hand, is not particularly well-known. It only registers 470,000 Google hits.
Lincoln Memorial >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ghirardelli Square/Fisherman's Wharf
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.
