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'd be interested in seeing the stats you refer to historically, but as you know international air/sea traffic are one of many variables for "cosmopolitanism." I can't recall the thread at the moment, but I know there was immigration data depicting Philadelphia as having among the most nationalities represented in its immigrant community.
This may be true, but the OP explicitly said in his first post that he meant "cosmopolitan" as a synonym for yuppie. Thus he's not asking about ethnic diversity, he's asking about high concentrations of (mostly white) wealthy left-leaning folks.
I'm guessing Belle Isle because of the urban disclaimer? And I think he/she meant 2nd largest theatre, not theatre district. Don't know the validity to those claims however.
Belle Isle is 982 acres. Wissahickon Valley Park in Philadelphia is over 2,000 acres, for example. Also the park I noted is technically in Anchorage, Alaska.
Belle Isle is 982 acres. Wissahickon Valley Park in Philadelphia is over 2,000 acres, for example. Also the park I noted is technically in Anchorage, Alaska.
Fairmount Park, which also includes the Wissahickon creek valley all the way to Chestnut hill, is the largest in-city park in the world.
Funny how many cities make those "largest park" and "second largest theater district" claims. Both depend on very specific wording to be true, and both then get misquoted endlessly by locals.
Detroit's Rouge Park is apparently 1,300 acres...pretty small compared to the top parks.
The theater district claim is apparently based on seat count. I'd be more impressed by the overall number of seats in the urban core overall, and MUCH more impressed by the number of seats actually filled...or better yet by some sort of quality measure.
Detroit should get props for being a big corporate center, for its airport, and especially for being on an international border. It's clearly #2 here.
Philly wins by a mile of course, though even it seems to underperform with overseas tourism, iconic companies, etc. Where Philly excels most of all is its fantastic urban fabric. You experience cosmopolitanism far more when you're walking among it vs. most of the good stuff being spread out in the fringes of town.
I'd buy Pittsburgh at #3 given its huge university presence in the center of town and its dense and walkable development pattern. Its minimal airline service and immigration volume keep it a couple rungs below the top two.
Yeah, especially St. Louis. Maybe you can argue Pittsburgh is close to Detroit but not Cleveland or St. Louis.
I don't know that I agree. It's an opinion based thing so I'm not really sure there are right or wrong answers. I've been a life long fan of Detroit, but if I'm being intellectually honest with myself I don't think the separation between Detroit and the other three is that significant. The Detroit area was really damaged by 40 years of political warfare between the city and it's suburbs. What's inarguable is that Detroit has the largest population, and economy after Philadelphia. It probably has the next best shopping options as well (if we are looking at a metro level).
After that I think it gets more murky. I am not educated enough to have more than a lay persons point of view on cultural offerings, for all I can tell Detroit's cultural offerings, museums, orchestra's, ect.. are not noticeably superior to those in Cleveland or Pittsburgh. Detroit has virtually no intact trendy urban neighborhoods outside of the 7sq miles that comprise the immediate core. Even then those neighborhoods have only started recovering since the 1990's. Retail is starting to trickle back into the Woodward corridor, but my guess is that you will find urban retail clusters in both Cleveland and PGH. What really hurts the Detroit area is that it has the weakest transit options of every city in this list. Detroit's light rail is a 3 mile route between downtown and Midtown only, and I believe the city and surburbs operate separate transit authorities further disjointing the region. Detroit likely has more wealthy suburban pockets, but they tend to be less cohesive than other regions. Detroit does have a handful of suburban skylines and upscale shopping that might influence a larger feel. But again I would have a hard time believing someone who had never been to any of these cities would judge Detroit more cosmopolitan/bourgeois.
I don't think anyone is denying that metro Detroit has wealthy and cosmopolitan attribute, but there is a huge gap between the Philadelphia metro and Detroit metro in basically every category of measurement, not sure why you would say not to that.
On a metro level, Philadelphia peers are Boston, DC, Dallas, Chicago, San Fran, Houston.
Detroit would be the next tier down, and that isn't a shot at Detroit, its just factual.
I don't deny there's a gap between Philadelphia and Detroit, but I do think it's absurd to say it's huge. Detroit is a lot more comparable to Philadelphia than Cleveland, Pittsburgh and St. Louis, which are barely half or 1/3 its size with far less amenities.
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.
