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.
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
Maybe trying to do a larger sample of studies would bear that out. To me, the only stereotypes of Americans I hear a decent amount of abroard are ignorant Americans who meddle in things they don't understand, urban hood Americans and how cool that is, or occasionally cowboys. New Yorkers don't even have much of a set stereotype abroad outside of being from a very cosmopolitan and large city.
Domestically, I definitely see that SF has a stronger set of stereotypes associated with its people than DC does. However, lately there's definitely been an increasing dominance of the stereotype of people from SF being smug and self-righteous and a lot less of hippies, weirdos, hipsters, sort of thing.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-05-2015 at 09:53 AM..
The report measures two aspects of a city's brand: its “assets” – attractions, climate, infrastructure (particularly transport), safety and economic prosperity – and its “buzz”, a combination of social media (Facebook likes and Twitter sentiment analysis) and media mentions.
How is it that Atlanta beats out Tokyo and DC on "assets"?
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.
Sorry but SF is not recognizable as Paris or London. They're not even on the same level..... DC has more iconic structures than SF and this is a fact. More people recognize the white house than the golden gate bridge.
Sorry but SF is not recognizable as Paris or London.
Yes it is, in fact a normal streetscape of SF is more distinct than those 2.
Quote:
They're not even on the same level
You dont read travel surveys do you? lol
San Francisco is frequently near the top of global surveys of international travelers as far as memorable experiences, usually ahead of London actually.
So yeah, level schmevel.
Quote:
..... DC has more iconic structures than SF and this is a fact. More people recognize the white house than the golden gate bridge.
And yet they,arent iconic enough to get increased intl visitors as the numbers of international visitors to DC is declining?
International Visitors, 2013
San Francisco 3,044,000 +9% over 2012
Washington DC 1,698,000 -3% over 2012
DCs "cultural" contributions seem limited to one time political events and archival institutes while SF is more associated with entire movements that change the world as we know it.
Off the top of my head, from the 1950s, movements/ causes/ breakthroughs associated with San Francisco:
1950s-beat generation, birth of counterculture
1960s-hippies, psychadelia, political activism, free speech
1970s-gays go mainstream in SF, black panthers, environmental movement
1980s-the rise of tech begins, AIDS, US foodie & wine revolution
1990s-the internet/ information superhighway takes over the world.
2000s to present-smartphones, green tech, file sharing, social media as a platform to reach the world, self driving cars, electric cars, etc.
Neither city is going to have the number of visitors anywhere near the top few cities as per studies such as this where visitor numbers drop pretty quickly even in a short list of 20. The cultural contribution part I think goes to SF though more important cultural events generally have taken place in DC--so maybe the two are pretty evenly matched on that end. Iconic seems to be pretty solidly DC.
What I'm curious about is how come none of the local culture developed in DC ever sort of spread out very far (or am I wrong about that?). DC was a fairly large city when it went through massive growth in the first half of the 20th century and actually became more populous than SF by the 1940 census, so it seems something might have taken off.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 02-05-2015 at 04:33 PM..
Neither city is going to have the number of visitors anywhere near the top cities as per studies such as this where visitor numbers drop pretty quickly even in a short list of 20. The cultural contribution part I think goes to SF though more important cultural events generally have taken place in DC--so maybe the two are pretty evenly matched on that end. Iconic seems to be pretty solidly DC.
Not really. DC has a few iconic structures and that's it. SF is iconic from it's residential architecture, to it's politics, to it's weather, to it's food, to it's topography, to it's very people. San Franciscans themselves have images that are viewed as iconic to them around the world, etc.
Not really. DC has a few iconic structures and that's it. SF is iconic from it's residential architecture, to it's politics, to it's weather, to it's food, to it's topography, to it's very people. San Franciscans themselves have images that are viewed as iconic to them around the world, etc.
DC cant say the same, at all.
I don't know if that qualifies as iconic or if any of that has much traction outside of the US. I would say the use of DC as a metonym for US politics or the use of the Bay Area overall as one for consumer-facing tech has a lot of traction worldwide, but that's about it. After that, it's pretty much just some iconic shots and pictures and DC gets a lot of exposure in that.
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.