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 personally think DC has slight edge over NYC for depth and diversity of museums
I think because Chicago has a reputation as "second city" people elevate it's cultural institutions to assume they must be second best, but I honestly think Boston and Philly have better museums.
All the historical site museums in both cities alone can't be matched by Chicago. Thats a big difference.
And while the AIC is great, its collection is not nearly as expansive as MFA Boston (though it does have bigger building) and is no better than Philly's. Boston also has three other world class art museums at Harvard, Gardner Museum and Peabody Museum. Philly similarly has Barnes, Rodin and Penn Museums besides Philly Art Museum.
Chicago has the Field which exceeds the best natural history museum in either city, but Boston does have Harvard's Natural History and Peabody Museum of ARcheology and Ethnology and Philly Penn's museums, which are amazing, older collections. Philly and Boston both have several great smaller science museums as well and Boston has the MOS which is one of worlds top science centers.
Chicago has done a better job of building facilities and marketing itself, but if you look at depth and diversity of offerings in detail its Boston and Philly jousting for 3 and 4 IMO
I personally think DC has slight edge over NYC for depth and diversity of museums
I think because Chicago has a reputation as "second city" people elevate it's cultural institutions to assume they must be second best, but I honestly think Boston and Philly have better museums.
All the historical site museums in both cities alone can't be matched by Chicago. Thats a big difference.
And while the AIC is great, its collection is not nearly as expansive as MFA Boston (though it does have bigger building) and is no better than Philly's. Boston also has three other world class art museums at Harvard, Gardner Museum and Peabody Museum. Philly similarly has Barnes, Rodin and Penn Museums besides Philly Art Museum.
Chicago has the Field which exceeds the best natural history museum in either city, but Boston does have Harvard's Natural History and Peabody Museum of ARcheology and Ethnology and Philly Penn's museums, which are amazing, older collections. Philly and Boston both have several great smaller science museums as well and Boston has the MOS which is one of worlds top science centers.
Chicago has done a better job of building facilities and marketing itself, but if you look at depth and diversity of offerings in detail its Boston and Philly jousting for 3 and 4 IMO
I personally think DC has slight edge over NYC for depth and diversity of museums
I think because Chicago has a reputation as "second city" people elevate it's cultural institutions to assume they must be second best, but I honestly think Boston and Philly have better museums.
All the historical site museums in both cities alone can't be matched by Chicago. Thats a big difference.
And while the AIC is great, its collection is not nearly as expansive as MFA Boston (though it does have bigger building) and is no better than Philly's. Boston also has three other world class art museums at Harvard, Gardner Museum and Peabody Museum. Philly similarly has Barnes, Rodin and Penn Museums besides Philly Art Museum.
Chicago has the Field which exceeds the best natural history museum in either city, but Boston does have Harvard's Natural History and Peabody Museum of ARcheology and Ethnology and Philly Penn's museums, which are amazing, older collections. Philly and Boston both have several great smaller science museums as well and Boston has the MOS which is one of worlds top science centers.
Chicago has done a better job of building facilities and marketing itself, but if you look at depth and diversity of offerings in detail its Boston and Philly jousting for 3 and 4 IMO
I completely disagree with this. The Art Institute houses more because it has a greater collection, Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry dwarfs anything in Boston or Philadelphia, the Shedd Aquarium, Museum of Natural History and the Adler planetarium jutting out from the lake also are unmatched in Boston and Philly. Marketing has nothing to do with the stature of the museums; and there are many smaller museums in the city.such as the Children's Museum and the Museum of Modern Art. You could spend all day in the AIC, the Museum of Natural History, and the Museum of Science and Industry and have to come back another day. To say these museums status is somehow"elevated" by the size and stature of Chicago, and marketing, is ridiculous, and shows that you have never set foot in any of them.
It came out very wrong which is why it was misinterpreted. Like I said that was what I meant to say but didnt know exactly how to put it in words. Although, what I'm saying is overall DC beats NYC in muesems. Having a world class art muesem and multiple world class history muesems. Also having unique places like the spy muesem. NYC beats DC in art obviously but besides that?
Like I said, that's not a misinterpretation. You should figure out what misinterpretation actually means.
NYC beats out DC for history collections by a long shot and for history collections of very many different cultures and in many different fields. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, despite the name, is an encyclopedic museum and not one strictly on art which is obvious on stepping foot into that museum. The museum and its collections are massive with the Met more or less comprising what would generally be multiple different and sizable museums under one massive roof (which is why it's the largest museum in the Western Hemisphere). The difference in scale between just this one museum and its collection to that of any single DC history museum covering an overlapping category is massive and even with several DC museums combined would still be larger and more extensive.
It's also far from the only museum with historical artifacts as there is a vast and diverse number of NYC museums looking at different cultures around the world and different facets of culture. There's even another major encyclopedic museum with an exhibition space and collection that rivals among the largest museums in the US that are not the Met, but that doesn't matter so much as the multitude of much smaller-scoped but extensive museums throughout the city which together cover a huge gamut.
The only one broader category that DC is tied for or better than what you have in NYC would be what's generally found in natural history museums. The spy museum is great and there are other smaller, more focused museums in DC--but not nearly the same number as in NYC. For each museum like the spy museum, you'll have something like a fashion museum, a skyscraper museum, and a sex museum.
Again though, DC definitely has the largest single complex of museums though. So that's pretty great and really convenient. I just think taken in as a whole, NYC and its museums when it comes to the breadth and depth covered and the variety of programs offered are a step above--it's just not nearly as conveniently centralized.
DC--it has many museums that are just fantastic, and landmarks too. And the best part is that they're free!!
LA-it has more museums than any other city in America, and as the 2nd biggest city, they're quite diverse in interests and really good.
NYC-for obvious reasons
Chicago-also for obvious reasons
San Francisco-a lot of stuff. Asian Art museum, lots about the gold rush and Chinese immigration, etc
Boston-One of America's oldest cities; I'd imagine they have a lot to see
Philadelphia-it's the country's original capital; lots to see.
Miami is good for art museums and festivals, and New Orleans has an impressive WW2 Museum.
MFA 450,000 pieces of art, AIC 250,000 pieces of art (Philly has about 240,000 and Harvard, as an aside, has about 260,000). Just a much larger collection
Museum of Science in Boston easily comparable to Science and Industry in Chicago
Agree No comparison to Field Museum in Boston or philly, but both cities have way more medium and small museums of science that were interesting to me and Harvard museums have comparable collections, in much less impressive building spaces.
Shedd Aquarium is larger than New England Aquarium, but both are great
But both philly and boston have numerous important historical site museums that chicago just does not have that adda whole second level. Just my two cents.
Also Boston's second best art museum, Harvard Art Museums, just opened a brand new building to house an encyolpedic collection of 260000 works and Chicago has nothing comparable for it's second art museum
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.
