Is Houston a world class city (Dallas, Allen: hotel, movies, live)

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by mkwensky

Miami is also seen as "world class" by a lot of the world, especially in South America, and that counts for something.

Also Europe, particularly Italy, Spain, Portugal and Even France to a degree. The more dominant Anglo cultures of England and Germany however don’t see Miami in the same light

[SanJac]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

Also Europe, particularly Italy, Spain, Portugal and Even France to a degree. The more dominant Anglo cultures of England and Germany however don’t see Miami in the same light

Maybe even in the U.S.? I've never been to Miami and don't really have a desire to go there. Perhaps my perception is skewed by being a resident of the U.S.?

[Spade]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

While so much about the term "world class" is subjective, I also am not sure what I see about SF and LA that people claim elevates them to NYC / London / Tokyo level. LA has shopping (I guess) and the entertainment industry, which is admittedly influential, but what else there is so top-tier that it's better than Houston / DFW / Atlanta / Chicago / Seattle / Boston / DC etc.? And SF is only influential / truly top tier in biotech and, maybe more importantly, eco-consciousness / social justice virtue signaling (which is also admittedly highly influential). Its tech industry is just a subsidiary / beneficiary of innovation that comes from Silicon Valley down the Peninsula. Outside of intentionally hyper-cutting edge expensive restaurants, affordable and relevant to very very few, what else is it influencing or setting the standard for? It's known for having underwhelming and often dysfunctional public transit despite being a city that really needs it. Its reputation seems to live off the legacy of the 1960s counterculture and its role as the primary gay capital of the planet in the 1970s/80s.

I will give LA the distinction of world-class foreign import infrastructure, equaled by few others if any (Rotterdam?), despite it being overwhelmed at the moment.

Sure both LA and SF are popular tourist destinations, but so are Orlando and Venice. Maybe if you consider them as bigger metros - especially combining SF with the whole Bay Area including SV - they're more elevated above the secondary U.S. tier in terms of "world-class"-ness.

I think you could place world class cities even in tiers. The elite tier 1 cities are NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo.

The next tier is where you will find SF, LA, Rio, Moscow, Buenos Aires, Hong Kong, Sydney, Shanghai and the likes.

I think SF has a superior dining and foodie scene then most of its peers at the least. A great economy as you mentioned, very urban, improving public transit but can be better, diversity, architecture, and high education (Cal and Stanford). LA has pretty much the same amenities plus better shopping, good foodie scene, underrated urbanity, improving public transit. I think they outperform the sunbelt cities, DC, and Boston. I think Chicago is on par with SF and LA.

[Raider Scott]

SF has feces and needles in the street.


....world class! LOL

[Jeohnny]

It's really that whole area around SF. It attracts people from all over the world and the importance of technology and higher education in that area rules the world. Along with iconic landmarks which are world known and everything else yall listed

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Jeohnny

It's really that whole area around SF. It attracts people from all over the world and the importance of technology and higher education in that area rules the world. Along with iconic landmarks which are world known and everything else yall listed

I agree that viewing the Bay Area as a whole, vs. SF by itself, makes a huge difference. Same with DFW vs. Dallas and Atlanta metro vs. City of Atlanta.

[WRM20]

Status as a "world class city" has never been one of my criteria for judging a destination. I can honestly say it just doesn't matter. I've lived in London, and have spent reasonable amounts of time in Paris, Mexico City, Sydney, Bangkok, Cairo, etc. I never considered whether they were world class, as I think it's pretty irrelevant.

[NigerianNightmare]

Originally Posted by Spade

I think you could place world class cities even in tiers. The elite tier 1 cities are NYC, London, Paris, Tokyo.

The next tier is where you will find SF, LA, Rio, Moscow, Buenos Aires, Hong Kong, Sydney, Shanghai and the likes.

I think SF has a superior dining and foodie scene then most of its peers at the least. A great economy as you mentioned, very urban, improving public transit but can be better, diversity, architecture, and high education (Cal and Stanford). LA has pretty much the same amenities plus better shopping, good foodie scene, underrated urbanity, improving public transit. I think they outperform the sunbelt cities, DC, and Boston. I think Chicago is on par with SF and LA.

I honestly don't think you can call SF, especially the greater Bay Area, very urban in a Worldwide context. It's arguably only more urban than Sydney on this list, and it's blown out of the water by many of the other cities on this list.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare

I honestly don't think you can call SF, especially the greater Bay Area, very urban in a Worldwide context. It's arguably only more urban than Sydney on this list, and it's blown out of the water by many of the other cities on this list.

Outside of SF / Berkeley / Oakland and the historic downtown areas (mostly pretty small except San Jose) of the remaining cities, it's basically auto-oriented sprawl, and much of it the ugly 1950s-60s version no less.

[Spade]

Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare

I honestly don't think you can call SF, especially the greater Bay Area, very urban in a Worldwide context. It's arguably only more urban than Sydney on this list, and it's blown out of the water by many of the other cities on this list.

To be fair, that’s pretty much every city in America not named NYC and even good parts of NYC metro is auto oriented sprawl. Chicagoland outside Chicago, Evanston, and a couple other quaint small downtowns is auto oriented sprawl. Same with DC, Boston, etc.