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.
I would agree with you that NYC is the #1 in the US due to it's size and influence over global finance, and I personally chose Mexico City and DC as the other two North American cities for influence of political power (plus Mexico city is like if LA and DC were the same city for Mexico)
That said, I do think that he may have a point. California and maybe even LA has a bigger day to day cultural influence over most Americans than NYC.
When I think about my day to day life and that of most Americans, the city and neighborhood I live in look more like something from California than New York. The computer I use, the iPhone, the TV shows, movies (for the most part) are products of California (even if NBC, HBO, ABC etc are technically based in NYC.) The car I drive, while not a product of either state, is more of a result of the California culture than NY culture.
NYC went from a manufacturing city that made stuff for everyone to a financial services and luxury based economy. NYC just doesn't product much stuff anymore, it mainly provides services. While lots of people have 401Ks, most don't follow fashion week, and the museums and opera of NYC are more just amenities for people that live there than cultural trendsetters.
Even the exception proves the rule: Hamilton was unique as a Broadway play in that it went mainstream, most don't. Even some of the most famous shows set in NYC were filmed in California (The fountain in "Friends" is actually in LA)
Transplants that move to cities Californicate them, they don't make them "Little Queens," The sprawl out into "Little Orange Counties"
Even for cities that are densifying do so in a more west coast style than east coast way. The parts of Denver, SLC, Houston,Dallas or Atlanta That are infilling look more like Berkeley, San Diego, San Jose of even LA than Brooklyn. It's a different more west coast street car type Urbanism. Besides, if you are trying to do sprawl repair and fill in missing teeth, you will look at another sprawl place that has had success doing that.
Of course this isn't to say that NYC isn't impactful on American culture, it is, although in alot of ways it has become more of iconic and symbolic image as "The Big City" rather than having the same sort of influence it might have had 50-100 years ago. American Pop culture has shifted to the west coast even if they still like to set movies and TV shows in NYC and many if not most watch the ball drop in NYC on NYE.
They aren't building to be like California that's just the building style and materials that are popular right now. I don't think 12 story brick buildings are making a comeback because it's expensive because people still really love exposed brick on the inside of their apts/condos. Is Dallas like San Jose or is San Jose like Dallas?
I disagree. I would rank Los Angeles as the more important city in the US/NA. New York is bigger and older for sure, and remains an important center of global finance, but when was the last time NY was a trend setter in social, cultural, technological/medical, artistic, etc. endeavors. Over the last few decades the "Center of the Universe" has shifted from NY to California.
My $0.02. Please be polite if you disagree.
No, I don't agree.
It is sort of inconceivable to have a compilation of North America's Top Three cities and not have New York on it. It's definitely there and it has a nearly definite case to be #1 by far. Nowhere else in North America has that sort of leeway.
That being said, I think Mexico City and Los Angeles, both megacities, are also parts of the overall North American Big Three. According to these projections (watch the visualization change), the North American Big 3 will remain New York, Mexico City, and Los Angeles from here on out. At least size-wise, as things can change in other facets, but with regards to size, this Big 3 will play itself out for the rest of all of our lifetimes.
Just see:
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 10-30-2017 at 02:45 PM..
I’m not denying LA has a great deal of influence, I even voted for it in the poll. I’m just replying to the poster that tried to say that NY somehow did not.
I always thought of suburban culture to start with Levittown. True that most cities in the US are suburban in built form and look more like LA than NYC, but I don’t think all these cities are modeling themselves after LA specifically. I’m sure there probably are some examples of other cities looking to LA for some things, but the same happens with NY too. There’s the term “Manhattanization” that is used a lot on this forum. Even LA itself is marketing its downtown with all the recent growth as “the Manhattan of the West” and LA Live tried to market itself as “the Times Square of the West”. Up in Toronto Canada, they have Dundas Square which is a very obviously modeled after Times Square.
I don’t know why people would even want a “Times Square” in their city as I find that place obnoxious, but whatever.
There’s also Philly recreating their own version of Hudson Yards: “Schuylkill Yards”, and their own version of the high line as well. SF’s transbay transit center is being marketed as “Grand Central of the West” and countless cities + neighborhoods ALL OVER the country are now trying to call themselves as “The Brooklyn of X”
We aren't in disagreement that NYC is the Alpha city of North America, just to be clear.
While I don't want to diminish the importance of Levittown, but suburbanization had already begun before the war It was just more incremental because of the economy.
Different variations of the Bungalow are by far and wide the most popular style of historic architecture over much of the US. Portland, Houston, Dallas, Boise, Denver, Colorado Springs, Chicago, LA, Bay Area, Indianapolis all cities of different sizes and locations have a large number of these type of homes. While you have to make an architectural distinction between the California Craftsman and Prairie Schools in function they are very similar.
NYC is so unique geographically and historically that nothing will ever really be like it. It always has been and always will be the exception to the rule. Even NYC's suburbs on long Island are not that much like most large citie's suburbs; the way that they are divided into hamlets/villages/towns whatever is more the result of local government/history than anything else.
LA has large suburbs like most cities in the US do.
It's hard to say if LA and California in general was leading the pack out the gate or just exemplified the "modern approach" for most of the 20th century, but it certainly reached a point where even if the methods and ideas didn't originate there it came to lead the pack and become looked at as a model.
In general, most cities are much better off looking to LA than NYC when trying to solve problems or for inspiration. They tend to be structured more like LA both politically in their metropolitan area and structurally. I think this is why "California urbanism" as I keep calling it is the model for new, growing cities.
As for the Highline, cool project, but nothing new. People have been turning old railroad lines and bridges into pedestrian paths and parks for a long time. Dallas opened Katy Trail almost a decade before the Highline. Not to say that the highline isn't pretty innovative, but it's just a new take on an old idea. What is most impressive about the Highline is that such a project was accomplished in NYC. How many other cities have an elevated rail line to turn into a park though?
In regard to the “The Brooklyn of X” I think that proves as well as anything that NYC is more of a symbolic/iconic leader than a physical one. None of “The Brooklyn of X” places are like Brooklyn except that they are recently gentrified and full of hipsters, yuppies and leftover working poor. Most actually tend to resemble Portland with Bungalows and warehouses.
New York is unique and while it is a massive global influence, I think domestically LA has more cultural sway over the average American.
Why is Los Angeles even on here? It’s a total dumpster fire logistically and culturally. Doesn’t even look or feel like a city. Endless traffic and sprawl, not walkable, and a disproportionately high number of fake, sleazy individuals. There’s a reason why J. Cole dubbed it the LAnd of Snakes.
We aren't in disagreement that NYC is the Alpha city of North America, just to be clear.
Actually Mexico City is the only Primate City of North America. It's a cultural, economic/financial, political, and religious hub. But the typical (Germanic) Anglosphere-centric view puts NYC on top because of the (Romance) language and cultural barrier, even though it lacks definitely the latter two and it's cultural influence is declining as everything in Anglo-(North) America is shifting westward.
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.
