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.
The question is about museums, not historical sites. Philly has low educational levels, which could be why it's so underwhelming in this regard.
1. Philadelphia is far from "underwhelming," and it's fairly obvious that Seattle is a cultural newcomer that is not comparable to a much more storied high art city like Philadelphia. Ever hear of The Barnes? Rodin? Mutter? I encourage you to do some thorough research on Philly's offerings, much of which a city like Seattle has no analogue (And Bill Gates' private collection doesn't actually count).
2. You're speaking about something that has far more complexity than you've indicated. The Philly region has a long history of an upper-class cadre that has been generous supporters of the arts, not to mention a relatively highly educated metro population in the present day. Your comment simply does not consider these nuances.
3. Those of lower educational attainment do, indeed, appreciate and frequent art museums. One mustn't make fallacious assumptions.
The Philadelphia Museum of Art is a spectacular museum. I'd probably rank it ahead of Boston's MFA even if the MFA gets twice the visitors. Number of visitors doesn't say much about quality. I've been to mediocre museums that were packed and very good museums that were practically empty.
I wouldnt put SF near the top of this category-yet.
Definitely NY, DC, Chicago and LA.
Los Angeles is underrated in this aspect. Its museums are far superior to San Francisco's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by N610DL
Absolutely. LA has some amazing museums -- but alas, Angeleno's lack culture, right?
When I was in college I had art classes and stayed interested throughout my 20s. Often the painting or the sculpture would list what museum it was located in. Kind of unscientific I know but it gave me a general idea of which cities had the most or the more famous well known pieces. Keep in mind I was more interested in the older works of art from ancient classical to up to say impressionism - not as much a fan of modern art so I do not follow that as much.
Anyway going by memory, Los Angeles would come up from time to time. More then say San Francisco or Seattle. So yes, if I had to take a guess, I would say Los Angeles museums are probably ahead of those cities and also many other cities across the country.
I am thinking about cities with quality museums that offer a variety of cultural experiences. Large collections, niche museums, contemporary art, etc... what cities offer the strongest variety of museums? And what are those museums?
I know Chicago is on the next tier, but I'm not sure who else. I can't think of a lot of cities with a wide assortment of GOOD museums. They may have good art museums, but lack natural history/science museums. They may have great collections of classic art, but lack contemporary art.
Cleveland has one of the best art museums in the country. So there's that city as well. The Saint Louis Art Museum, while not as highly ranked as some of the others, is fairly decent as are some museums in Kansas City. Neither St. Louis or Kansas City comes close to making the top ones though. Pittsburgh also has a great History Museum. The obvious top cities are New York, LA, Chicago, D.C., Philly, and Boston.
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.