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.
SO many cities call themselves the Hub. Like New Brunswick NJ.
And im not sure you are understanding what we say when we are talking about Humble in Glamour.
I’m sure I do. Boston is not really humble- doesn’t matter the meaning. Bostonians aren’t nor have they ever been slobs, or without style and/or braggadocio. The Boston area vs Boston is a big distinction in this. If you’re really from Boston- you know this. This is the headquarters for a lot of clothing and while it wasn’t Providence it was pretty major in terms of the jewelry industry. Despite those two facets- much of the glamour in Boston is more recent and has to do with international migration from Asia/Middle East and other high COL cities.
Los Angeles honestly does seem less polished and les a impressive throughout a larger area but it is certainly glamorous. Chicago I also don’t think of glamour I think of a blue collar, middle class city with some well educated highly paid people but not up to par for its size. But that of course is perception. Not sure why Boston should be held to only one personality. It’s a lot more complex and layered than that. For example while it’s not a hot spot for celebrities living I see them in Boston pretty often. All the flashy brands that have stores or car dealerships in Boston… it’s not all people from out of state keeping them open.
Boston has a ton of fashion brands and boutiques, many of them quite expensive and they range from reputable streetwear brands to the Alden dress shoes.
The urbanity, the film industry, the high level institutions, scenery and the price tag also give the city what k would call a glamorous feel because it feel elite, exclusive and ‘curated’.
Last edited by BostonBornMassMade; 02-21-2022 at 12:37 PM..
I’m sure I do. Boston is not really humble- doesn’t matter the meaning. Bostonians aren’t nor have they ever been slobs, or without style and/or braggadocio. The Boston area vs Boston is a big distinction in this. If you’re really from Boston- you know this. This is the headquarters for a lot of clothing and while it wasn’t Providence it was pretty major in terms of the jewelry industry. Despite those two facets- much of the glamour in Boston is more recent and has to do with international migration from Asia/Middle East and other high COL cities.
Los Angeles honestly does seem less polished and les a impressive throughout a larger area but it is certainly glamorous. Chicago I also don’t think of glamour I think of a blue collar, middle class city with some well educated highly paid people but not up to par for its size. But that of course is perception. Not sure why Boston should be held to only one personality. It’s a lot more complex and layered than that. For example while it’s not a hot spot for celebrities living I see them in Boston pretty often. All the flashy brands that have stores or car dealerships in Boston… it’s not all people from out of state keeping them open.
Boston has a ton of fashion brands and boutiques, many of them quite expensive and they range from reputable streetwear brands to the Alden dress shoes.
The urbanity, the film industry, the high level institutions, scenery and the price tag also give the city what k would call a glamorous feel because it feel elite, exclusive and ‘curated’.
Yeah, Humble. THe ultra rich / ultra name brand wearers in Boston aren't in your face like they are in NYC, Miami and LA are, where people will go broke to impress you with a name brand. Boston is nuch like DC in that regard. I can see Seattle even going that route as it builds VC and wealth.
Yeah, Humble. THe ultra rich / ultra name brand wearers in Boston aren't in your face like they are in NYC, Miami and LA are, where people will go broke to impress you with a name brand. Boston is nuch like DC in that regard. I can see Seattle even going that route as it builds VC and wealth.
Seattle is a prime of example that just because a place is wealthy doesn't mean it's glamorous or fancy. The fact that it's top 5 on this list is a bit of a head scratcher. The way people there dress and present themselves is pretty much the opposite of glamorous. The nicest houses in Seattle are beautiful and tasteful, but not as opulent and over the top as you would find in other places. Being ostentatious and flashy is generally frowned upon. It's the exact same thing in Portland which is also somehow made the list lol
Just a theory here. But almost every major and even medium sized metro has atleast one area that is indeed glamorous. The difference between the Miamis and the Seattles is that one group is dominated in its landscape by the first. And it’s most known and associated areas are some of the glamorous areas. While the Seattles, Bostons, etc are associated for other things. We all know glamour exists in each of these, but what we know them for are other things. While LA we know it for Beverly Hills and Hollywood (and that’s the place that tourists want to see). This obviously has a local level effect too. But everyone knows there’s hoods and working class areas for days in LA and Miami. But it’s not what the city most associates with.
In reference to the above, Boston and Seattle aren’t at all associated by their hoods either but they also aren’t associated by a Hollywood or a South Beach. They’re both incredibly sophisticated but we already established above the major difference between the two.
Yeah, Humble. THe ultra rich / ultra name brand wearers in Boston aren't in your face like they are in NYC, Miami and LA are, where people will go broke to impress you with a name brand. Boston is nuch like DC in that regard. I can see Seattle even going that route as it builds VC and wealth.
No idea where SF stands.
Flashy=/= glamorous
For example Gisele bunches is glamorous but not flashy. Her presence, her style.
Lil pump is flashy, but not glamorous
There’s a pretty wide gradient between flashy and humble. Somewhere in there is normal.
Just because Boston isn’t as glamorous as LA (it’s not) are there actually like 10 cities in the US more galmorous than Boston? No, Right? the ranking is correct afaik.
It’s not really Seattle because it way cleaner, and less sketchy in central areas. Better mix/integration of flashy and non flashy industries (film, finance, apparel)
I've been to Austin a few times and I'm originally from St. Louis. I think St. Louis is more of an old money city. Austin is more of a new money city. With that said, I think St. Louis' nicest neighborhoods are more impressive than Austin's nicest neighborhoods. I also think that St. Louis' worst neighborhoods are way worst than Austin's low end. When it comes to cultural and civic institutions I would say that St. Louis has more to offer, but also is carrying around way more legacy issues than Austin. In all honesty, it's really hard to compare such different cities.
Much of the discussion that's taken place in this thread only reinforces my contention that what's being measured is "class" rather than "glamour."
I'd also like to weigh in with an observation that Boston's image and reputation is probably the most cerebral/intellectual of the cities on that top 25 list.
It's also true that there's lots of "chic" in "Chicago." But — like Philadelphia — it strikes me that the working stiffs tend to define what outsiders consider its character (and maybe many insiders, too). "Da Bears" and the "Iggles." Chicago hot dogs and hoagies/cheesesteaks. (Those especially are worth noting given how much fine dining exists in both cities, and especially the inventiveness of Chicago's top chefs.) And so on.
Just because Boston isn’t as glamorous as LA (it’s not) are there actually like 10 cities in the US more galmorous than Boston? No, Right? the ranking is correct afaik.
Even with that logic though, the gap between the upper echelon of "glamourous" cities, which the consensus seems to agree at least includes NYC, LA and Miami (and Vegas as a "playground"), and the next "tier," if you will, is pretty much a massive cliff downward.
Those four cities are literally dependent on industries that live and breathe cultivating an image of glamour like no other--they're the epicenters of fashion, entertainment and stratospherically luxurious real estate (not just price, but the type of listings) in the US (although I'd also extend the real estate aspect to California generally). They define "excess."
I just don't even remotely see any other city in the same light.
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.
