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.
Glamour and sophistication have significant overlap IMO.
A lot of cities towards the top of this lift have both independently- but they’re certainly closely related and not antonyms. Being flashy isn’t inherently glamorous, and being sophisticated isn’t inherently understated and homely.
Beacon Hill is sophisticated. Seaport is glamorous. Midtown is glamorous, Lower West side is sophisticated. Newbury Street is both glamorous and sophisticated. North end is sophisticated Encore Boston Harbor is glamorous.
But for many- simply being a well known sophisticated place is pretty damn glamorous. He expense, the history/culture, and the exclusivity of said places closely correlates with ideas of glamour. Glamour is not flash.
I said this was PR clickbait. Companies like that produce lists like this in hopes that people like me will write about them in the publications they work for and give the company some visibility.
Glamour and sophistication have significant overlap IMO.
A lot of cities towards the top of this lift have both independently- but they’re certainly closely related and not antonyms. Being flashy isn’t inherently glamorous, and being sophisticated isn’t inherently understated and homely.
Yes I agree but look at Montclair’s examples. Miami and LA are both extremely seen as glamorous (you can argue that they’re the two most in USA). While neither are particularly sophisticated.
I do agree that there’s an overlap though but not as heavily as you put it.
Yes I agree but look at Montclair’s examples. Miami and LA are both extremely seen as glamorous (you can argue that they’re the two most in USA). While neither are particularly sophisticated.
I do agree that there’s an overlap though but not as heavily as you put it.
I think in general sophistication on the street is seen as part of glamour unless your talking about like politically.
Glamour:
an exciting and often illusory and romantic attractiveness
especially attractive and exciting, and different from ordinary things or people
the special exciting and attractive quality of a person, place, or activity
If you describe someone or something as glamorous, you mean that they are more attractive, exciting, or interesting than ordinary people or things.
...some of the world's most beautiful and glamorous women.
Synonyms: attractive, beautiful, lovely, charming
I think in general sophistication on the street is seen as part of glamour unless your talking about like politically.
Glamour:
an exciting and often illusory and romantic attractiveness
especially attractive and exciting, and different from ordinary things or people
the special exciting and attractive quality of a person, place, or activity
If you describe someone or something as glamorous, you mean that they are more attractive, exciting, or interesting than ordinary people or things.
...some of the world's most beautiful and glamorous women.
Synonyms: attractive, beautiful, lovely, charming
I understand what you’re saying but again, sophistication doesn’t equate to beauty and glamour.
South Beach is beautiful and glamorous but…. Nothing sophisticated about it (maybe North Beach is). I don’t necessarily agree that Seattle isn’t glamorous but it’s no where near as glamorous as Miami while being far more sophisticated. Seattle has an intellectual personality that makes it sophisticated.
Glamour is wealth and status that wants to be well-known. It's blatant and often ostentatious.
Sophistication is wealth and status that makes an effort to be surreptitious or even downplayed.
I don't see how those two things honestly overlap in any context.
Simple.
1) Because you can’t definitively say either of those things without making a whole bunch of assumptions about other people motives and taste in your own head.
2) Also your definition of glamour and sophistication aren’t anywhere near the actual definition of the word. They certainly aren’t my definition of those words.
3) Sophistication doesn’t necessarily mean making an effort to downplay. Not at all. Thats people putting their own connotation on the word. I wouldn’t call the way Mark Zuckerberg or Bill Gates or Shia labeouf dresses as sophisticated even if they are wealthy- it’s still bummy.
4) ostentatious often correlates inversely with wealth. Many flashy dresser who aren’t wealthy and have little to no status IRL.
Lastly, the overlap is wealth and status- per your own words. Those crowds are bound to move to encounter each other in a major city. Sophistication isn’t an antonym of glamour and likely is a part of glamour.
This is like so many list. Try adding so much criteria that the term it is said to show status on --- is far from what basically we see it as. Do we really use the term GLAMOROUS for housing and size of homes or lawns? Do we really see Entertainment under Glamorous, in the criteria they use?
I know I THINK OF PEOPLE ALONE UNDER TERM OF GLAMOROUS. This is far from merely about people as glamorous. I ALSO SEE CLASSY AND GLAMOR AS NOT THE SAME.
- Just the Beauty criteria
Luxury Cosmetics and Beauty Supply Stores per Square Mile
Plastic Surgeons per 100,000 Resident
Spas and Wellness Centers per Square Mile
It is clear why a San Francisco will win this. Its density as a very wealthy Boutique city despite issues. Densest next to NYC in a small footprint. Clearly if just a Manhattan? I can see NYC a sure win. But really, once you add a Bronx. Do we expect the same # of Plastic Surgeons? In SF sure we can by the sheer level of density+wealth of a very compact city. NO WAY can a Dallas compete because of density of people per Sq/Mi HUGE difference.
- Under the Fine Dining Criteria
Fine Dining Restaurants per Square Mile
Number of Michelin-Starred Restaurants (Points)
Number of Restaurants in NY Times Top 50 List
Totally unfair in again, density is a must to score, Michelin is not in all these cities they rank and if you are going by the NY Times top 50 list. Just go by that alone.....
- Under Fashion Criteria again, Most the criteria is per Sq/Mi. How in the world can a Dallas or Houston compete? Totally needs density.
- Under Entertainment Criteria.
Honestly, 14 things for criteria listed as a under entertainment. 4 are per Sq/Mi.
Then we have 3 of the 14 criteria needing a BODY OF WATER. Seems many inland cities even have Boat shows/conventions so guess body of water is not even needed or are outside the city anyway, but what about these below?
Number of Marinas
Number of Yacht Clubs
Number of Platinum Yacht Clubs
I do not think this is going to be anything a Atlanta or Oklahoma City are going to have help in? So how do you compete with denser and cities on larger bodies of water for entertainment just in them 3? Does not include anything sports related as definitely not glamorous. Just a lot of criteria location to topography of a city hurts it.
- Some stats ODDITIES I see.
Costly Boston nearly a Boutique city. Is ranked here at #59 under Status and Wealth Rank (guess multi-millionaires live outside Bos proper)?
San Jose CA ranked #91 in Fine Dining (guess density hurts it big time)? Maybe they go to SF for fine dining... all 1-mil people.
Los Angeles ranked #54 under Beauty Rank (guess most plastic surgeons are outside of LA)? Yeah Berverly Hills and Malibu are not LA.....
How on Earth did Houston rank higher than Atlanta or even DFW? Houston seem to flaunt wealth less than the other two.
Less about flaunting wealth and fashion. Less notoriety in pop culture, entertainment.
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.