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.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,197,163 times
Reputation: 2925
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
I just said DC doesn't have much of a brand.
True, but in a thread about prestige, it looked as if that was an argument you were trying to make. My bad if I misinterpreted you.
What do you mean by brand, though? I'd argue that D.C. does have a brand, at least in how I interpret it--it's the capital. That's all it's really known for, and that seems to work well for it. It isn't on the level of Los Angeles or San Francisco, sure, but it's up there. But how are you defining brand?
The advent of technology has rendered traditional trading floors rather obsolete, no?
Speaking of stocks, the Bay Area is home to more equity capital(investment dollars) than the rest of California and all surrounding 13 western states COMBINED.
That's incredible, actually.
Quote:
Bank of America moved to Charlotte!?!
Bank of America was bought out by NationsBank based in Charlotte. Remember?
Wells Fargo is headquartered in SF and is the most valuable bank in the world, and holds more home mortgages than any other bank.
ijs
LA totally lost First Interstate and Security Pacific, it's two big banks.
Quote:
Why didn't S.F. adapt to container shipping instead of moving the port to Oakland?
Adapting is exactly what SF did. Unlike Downtown LA, which fell into serious decline and disarray, after port and industrial activity left the waterfront, downtown SF's waterfront boomed and successfully rebranded itself into the hottest business and entertainment destination in California.
Also, why didnt LA adapt to changing times instead of losing all of it's defense and aerospace companies to Washington DC and Texas?
Quote:
Why is there a Silicon Valley in the first place instead of Downtown San Francisco?
Speaking of downtowns, why do you think downtown LA is so subpar vs. downtown SF?
Quote:
That's what I meant by decline.
Well, what you call 'decline' is really adapting and improving. San Francisco has consistently been the best and strongest performer on the world stage among California's 2 world class cities over the past 3-4 decades.
Los Angeles has seriously declined in ways that really hindered it's ability to compete for talent and really grow. I find it almost hopeless at this point, even with all the supposed improvements, which I applaud by the way, at this point, I dont see how LA can stop the ongoing erosion of it's reputation and status, along with SF's rise in stature and reputation.
It doesnt look too great for LA in this regard. I think that ship has sailed. The Bay Area is too much.
Quote:
Hopefully tech companies are starting to move out of suburban Silicon Valley and populating Downtown San Francisco skyscrapers instead.
Well, Downtown SF is one of the most expensive downtowns to lease office space and has one of the lowest vacancy rates too. That's because downtown is the most prestigious business address in the entire state. Downtown LA
[QUOTE[Most of the workers live in S.F. but have to commute to the suburban peninsula for work. [/quote]
No one is hurt by this are they? hahaha
Quote:
Apple's new campus looks like that S.F. won't be patronized by the major tech companies in the near future.
Oh, and off the top of my head, SF is where Craigslist, Disqus, Fitbit, imgur, Instagram, Lyft, Pinterest, Reddit, Salesforce, Twitter, Uber and Zygna are all headquartered.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,197,163 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
Obviously Ottawa will have some sort of prestige about it as the capital of Canada, but not nearly as much as Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and maybe even QC--at least from an American perspective. I don't know anyone who's visited Canada or who wants to visit Canada who's been to or wants to go to Ottawa. In the same way, Canberra doesn't appear to have nearly the same amount of prestige as Sydney, Melbourne, etc.
But "prestige" is a pretty subjective thing as has been demonstrated in this thread. I think most of it comes in the form of a city's built environment and personality, as well as the amenities and attractions they offer. So DC is not without competition here, especially since most visitors don't visit DC to actually see DC, but just the National Mall and museums and such.
You're arguing popularity, not prestige. The two are often closely related, but often not. Prestigious things/places/people are often not popular, and vice versa. Las Vegas is one of our country's most popular cities, for example, but you'd have to frame a pretty extreme argument to classify it as a prestigious city.
Prestige is subjective, obviously, but it's not as murky as you make it seem. There's tiers to prestige. For example, I went to a great school in the University of Delaware, which has produced Vice President Joe Biden and Republican Presidential contender Chris Christie, for starters. UD has prestigious alumni, and has some schools/programs you could argue as prestigious (ice skating, engineering, physical therapy) but overall, the school isn't viewed as prestigious in the same manner as Harvard. It's a solid state school but it doesn't come close to hanging with the big boys. I'd say it's the same with cities.
LA is more glamorous (fascinating, exciting), but SF is more prestigious (high status, wealth, importance).
IMO, SF is the most all around "prestigious" city in the US after New York. Although SF might not command the "serious news" attention of DC, it generally held in higher regard as an "world class urban city." Better shopping/dinning, more interesting street life, more desirable place to live and visit. It's frequently featured with NYC as the most expensive/desirable place to live in the US among the yuppie elite. Lots of stories about how the city is being over-run by highly educated and compensated yuppies with lots of money to blow on $3,000 studios, $20 cocktails and artisanal toast. It can seem very intimidating for your average joe.
DC is a bit of a mixed bag. It is prestigious, as it is an important world center for politics and diplomacy. Flip through Le Monde or watch the BBC you will see they spend more time discussing what's going in DC than any US city outside NYC. But, as a "urban city" DC still has a reputation for being somewhat of a stodgy government town.
LA is glamorous, but not really prestigious. Similar to Miami in that regard. For better or worse, LA is so synonymous with beaches and celebrity culture that it isn't really scene as a "high status" city. Despite world class universities and cultural institutions, it has a general reputation for being superficial compared to the Bay Area or the East Coast.
Chicago isn't particularly prestigious despite world class universities and all of the high end urban amenities of SF. It's known as a big mid-American city, that is a little more blue collar and less expensive than the coastal cities. While lots of people like it, it's big attraction is that you don't need to be making six-figures to just get buy. You typical college educated professional can afford to actually buy a place there.
You're arguing popularity, not prestige. The two are often closely related, but often not. Prestigious things/places/people are often not popular, and vice versa. Las Vegas is one of our country's most popular cities, for example, but you'd have to frame a pretty extreme argument to classify it as a prestigious city.
Prestige is subjective, obviously, but it's not as murky as you make it seem. There's tiers to prestige. For example, I went to a great school in the University of Delaware, which has produced Vice President Joe Biden and Republican Presidential contender Chris Christie, for starters. UD has prestigious alumni, and has some schools/programs you could argue as prestigious (ice skating, engineering, physical therapy) but overall, the school isn't viewed as prestigious in the same manner as Harvard. It's a solid state school but it doesn't come close to hanging with the big boys. I'd say it's the same with cities.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,168 posts, read 7,638,698 times
Reputation: 5811
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
I just said DC doesn't have much of a brand.
LA is not more prestigious than DC on any level other than maybe fashion. There is nothing in that city that I deem "prestigious." Boston is more prestigious than LA.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,197,163 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpdivola
Of the 4, I would say:
1) SF
2) DC
3) LA
4) CHI
LA is more glamorous (fascinating, exciting), but SF is more prestigious (high status, wealth, importance).
IMO, SF is the most all around "prestigious" city in the US after New York. Although SF might not command the "serious news" attention of DC, it generally held in higher regard as an "world class urban city." Better shopping/dinning, more interesting street life, more desirable place to live and visit. It's frequently featured with NYC as the most expensive/desirable place to live in the US among the yuppie elite. Lots of stories about how the city is being over-run by highly educated and compensated yuppies with lots of money to blow on $3,000 studios, $20 cocktails and artisanal toast. It can seem very intimidating for your average joe.
DC is a bit of a mixed bag. It is prestigious, as it is an important world center for politics and diplomacy. Flip through Le Monde or watch the BBC you will see they spend more time discussing what's going in DC than any US city outside NYC. But, as a "urban city" DC still has a reputation for being somewhat of a stodgy government town.
LA is glamorous, but not really prestigious. Similar to Miami in that regard. For better or worse, LA is so synonymous with beaches and celebrity culture that it isn't really scene as a "high status" city. Despite world class universities and cultural institutions, it has a general reputation for being superficial compared to the Bay Area or the East Coast.
Chicago isn't particularly prestigious despite world class universities and all of the high end urban amenities of SF. It's known as a big mid-American city, that is a little more blue collar and less expensive than the coastal cities. While lots of people like it, it's big attraction is that you don't need to be making six-figures to just get buy. You typical college educated professional can afford to actually buy a place there.
I can respect this as a solid, well argued opinion. I'm going to disagree with you, but it isn't like you're far off base or something. Lol, apparently I'm in the minority here.
To me, San Francisco has the exclusivity and money thing down pat (as Montclair loves to remind us). It has the cultural institutions, the universities and the better urban fabric stuff, as well. Maybe it's just me though, but I don't feel it does those things SUBSTANTIALLY better than D.C. does. Not enough to overcome the 800 pound gorilla in DCs favor that is the federal government. D.C. isn't exactly a laggard in any of those departments.
Yea, SF has the 9th Circuit thing going on, but that's pretty much it, government wise (edit: add the Mint and Federal Reserve too). To me, and maybe I'm a starry eyed optimist, government isn't sexy in the slightest, but it IS very prestigious. Prestige isn't necessarily glamorous (or I'd agree with the L.A. folks), at least in my interpretation of the concept. And prestige doesn't necessarily equate to wealth, either (snobbery/extreme wealth may be a stereotype of prestige, but it isn't tied to it). People love to "support the troops". No one has bumper stickers supporting corporate fat cats. That, to me, is the true definiton of prestige.
And to that end, as big of a NYC booster as I am, I don't think this is one of those areas where NYC steamrolls the competition. The OPs assertion that it's the default prestigious city seems premature. It may have the MOST prestigious institutions, but on the whole, when viewed as a "character" of that city? Certainly up for debate.
Last edited by qworldorder; 08-25-2015 at 05:17 PM..
LA is not more prestigious than DC on any level other than maybe fashion. There is nothing in that city that I deem "prestigious." Boston is more prestigious than LA.
Well, if you deem so.
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.
