3 ms·

> "tier 2" cities in the US actually have most/all of the food, culture, and activities that they think are exclusive to New York. I'm not knocking tier 2 citi

> "tier 2" cities in the US actually have most/all of the food, culture, and activities that they think are exclusive to New York. I'm not knocking tier 2 cities or advocating NY, but that's just not true. Some people don't value what NY has to offer - the elite, the center of the world in arts, business, food, talent, etc etc. If you don't value it, absolutely don't pay for it - pay for things that you value. If you do value those things, there is no place else in the US, and with some exceptions, the world.

pclmulqdq 3y ago
> Some people don't value what NY has to offer - the elite, the center of the world in arts, business, food, talent, etc etc. If you don't value it, absolutely don't pay for it - pay for things that you value. If you do value those things, there is no place else in the US, and with some exceptions, the world. I have a question for people who say this: Have you ever actually lived in any metropolitan area outside New York? I usually ask because the answer I usually get from New York exceptionalists is a dismissive version of "no," like "why would I live anywhere else?" A lot of cities (both in the US and around the world) have better environments for each of the things you stated there, but New York is somewhat unique in that it is good for all of them. Also, note that I am not talking about Cleveland as a "tier 2" city. New Yorkers think that San Francisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles are "tier 2."
- wolverine876 3y ago
  > Have you ever actually lived in any metropolitan area outside New York? Yes, and I've spent a lot of time in many cities. > A lot of cities (both in the US and around the world) have better environments for each of the things you stated there, but New York is somewhat unique in that it is good for all of them. It's just not true. For example, name another city in the US that has arts anything like NY: fine arts, jazz, classical, theater, etc. etc. And if you think that other city has them like NY, you either don't understand the art or don't understand what NY has. (OK, maybe London.) Pull up the theater listings in NY and in the city you are thinking of. Again, other cities can be wonderful; not everyone cares about those things or does at that level; not everyone has time for them (one reason many people with families move to suburbs); but there's no comparison.
  - pclmulqdq 3y ago
    This is actually interesting, because your list includes a lot of things that were invented/developed in New York. The New York arts: * If you're looking for the Broadway experience, you won't find it anywhere but Broadway (West End sometimes tries). If you want to define theater a little more broadly, though, there are a lot of options. West End is a different beast, but I think it's actually a bigger scene. For other kinds of theater, Tokyo is also fantastic, and I hear that Melbourne, Australia has a huge theater scene. If you define theater more broadly to include film, LA beats out New York by a mile. * New York is the jazz capital of the world right now, but New Orleans, Memphis, and Chicago have traded that role and all have a huge scene. That said, jazz basically grew up in Harlem, so it's hard to beat New York. The non-New-York arts: * Boston and SF probably have the best classical music scenes in the US. Outside of the US, Vienna holds the title hands down. Like in most arts, New York has the big spectacle (the Met Opera and Carnegie Hall), but in classical music it has a lot less less depth. * In terms of old artworks, New York has the biggest collection of old works in the US, but Paris, Barcelona, London, and Rome are all huge and probably more notable. In terms of new art, LA is the place to be (in the US). Again, I said that New York is good at all of these things, but it's not exactly head and shoulders above the rest of the world unless you specifically want a New York experience. It sounds like yours is Broadway, and that's fine, but it's not a universal desire. I personally prefer to travel to New York when I want to see something on Broadway or at the Met Opera, and that's (IMO) a lot better than living there 24/7.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > Like in most arts, New York has the big spectacle (the Met Opera and Carnegie Hall), but in classical music it has a lot less less depth. Pull up the classical music listings in NY and in any of those other cities, or all of those other cities combined. It's really not true in any sense. Let's not forget all the musicians in NY, the top music school (Julliard), etc etc etc. > In terms of old artworks, New York has the biggest collection of old works in the US, but Paris, Barcelona, London, and Rome are all huge and probably more notable. In terms of new art, LA is the place to be (in the US). I'm pretty sure that if you want to be an artist - making 'new art' - NY is the place to be, probably in the world. But yes, some other global cites in Europe and Asia are good too. Of course Europe has more 'old art' - that's where much of it came from.
- mtalantikite 3y ago
  > I have a question for people who say this: Have you ever actually lived in any metropolitan area outside New York? For me, Chicago and Boston. I spent a ton of time hanging out in SF between 2008-2015 when I worked for a startup out there. I've spent a lot of time in LA for both work and pleasure. [edit] I also spent a lot of time in Miami for work at one point in my life. And yeah, to me it's true. There's really no comparison with NYC in the US. That doesn't mean there aren't really awesome cities in the country, they're just not New York. > New Yorkers think that San Francisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles are "tier 2." Not that these rankings really mean much, but whenever people try to quantify it, NYC is often at the top [1]. Again, lots of the "tier 2" cities have similar things as NYC, it's just not often on the same scale. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
  - caddemon 3y ago
    If the NYC <> Boston bullet train ever happens, Boston will be such an ideal place to live. I already prefer it to NYC personally, but it's true there are "tier 1 global city" things it can't offer. But if it becomes feasible to get door to door in under 2 hours? I suppose that could also change the entire character of the city over time though.
    - mtalantikite 3y ago
      I vaguely remember reading the announcement about Acela when I was a teenager, originally thinking it was going to be high speed rail between Boston and NYC. It's really embarrassing as a country that it takes 4 hours to get between the two cities by train. And on top of that, it often is at least as expensive as a 30 minute flight.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > But if it becomes feasible to get door to door in under 2 hours? I suppose that could also change the entire character of the city over time though. Philadelphia is about 1.5 hours by train from NY (and probably ~2 hours driving). While it's very underrated - really a special place of its own - it's not NY or part of it.
- misun78 3y ago
  I would maybe keep SF and LA as tier 1.5 (ignoring the fact that LA is mostly a collection of suburbs) given their presence at the global scale, but there is a drop-off in tiers for all other cities. Chicago is a great example, it's usually considered a sister city to NYC, but as someone who grew up there and then later spent time in NYC, the differences in cultural attitudes between the two could not be starker.

pclmulqdq 3y ago

> Some people don't value what NY has to offer - the elite, the center of the world in arts, business, food, talent, etc etc. If you don't value it, absolutely don't pay for it - pay for things that you value. If you do value those things, there is no place else in the US, and with some exceptions, the world. I have a question for people who say this: Have you ever actually lived in any metropolitan area outside New York? I usually ask because the answer I usually get from New York exceptionalists is a dismissive version of "no," like "why would I live anywhere else?" A lot of cities (both in the US and around the world) have better environments for each of the things you stated there, but New York is somewhat unique in that it is good for all of them. Also, note that I am not talking about Cleveland as a "tier 2" city. New Yorkers think that San Francisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles are "tier 2."

wolverine876 3y ago
> Have you ever actually lived in any metropolitan area outside New York? Yes, and I've spent a lot of time in many cities. > A lot of cities (both in the US and around the world) have better environments for each of the things you stated there, but New York is somewhat unique in that it is good for all of them. It's just not true. For example, name another city in the US that has arts anything like NY: fine arts, jazz, classical, theater, etc. etc. And if you think that other city has them like NY, you either don't understand the art or don't understand what NY has. (OK, maybe London.) Pull up the theater listings in NY and in the city you are thinking of. Again, other cities can be wonderful; not everyone cares about those things or does at that level; not everyone has time for them (one reason many people with families move to suburbs); but there's no comparison.
- pclmulqdq 3y ago
  This is actually interesting, because your list includes a lot of things that were invented/developed in New York. The New York arts: * If you're looking for the Broadway experience, you won't find it anywhere but Broadway (West End sometimes tries). If you want to define theater a little more broadly, though, there are a lot of options. West End is a different beast, but I think it's actually a bigger scene. For other kinds of theater, Tokyo is also fantastic, and I hear that Melbourne, Australia has a huge theater scene. If you define theater more broadly to include film, LA beats out New York by a mile. * New York is the jazz capital of the world right now, but New Orleans, Memphis, and Chicago have traded that role and all have a huge scene. That said, jazz basically grew up in Harlem, so it's hard to beat New York. The non-New-York arts: * Boston and SF probably have the best classical music scenes in the US. Outside of the US, Vienna holds the title hands down. Like in most arts, New York has the big spectacle (the Met Opera and Carnegie Hall), but in classical music it has a lot less less depth. * In terms of old artworks, New York has the biggest collection of old works in the US, but Paris, Barcelona, London, and Rome are all huge and probably more notable. In terms of new art, LA is the place to be (in the US). Again, I said that New York is good at all of these things, but it's not exactly head and shoulders above the rest of the world unless you specifically want a New York experience. It sounds like yours is Broadway, and that's fine, but it's not a universal desire. I personally prefer to travel to New York when I want to see something on Broadway or at the Met Opera, and that's (IMO) a lot better than living there 24/7.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Like in most arts, New York has the big spectacle (the Met Opera and Carnegie Hall), but in classical music it has a lot less less depth. Pull up the classical music listings in NY and in any of those other cities, or all of those other cities combined. It's really not true in any sense. Let's not forget all the musicians in NY, the top music school (Julliard), etc etc etc. > In terms of old artworks, New York has the biggest collection of old works in the US, but Paris, Barcelona, London, and Rome are all huge and probably more notable. In terms of new art, LA is the place to be (in the US). I'm pretty sure that if you want to be an artist - making 'new art' - NY is the place to be, probably in the world. But yes, some other global cites in Europe and Asia are good too. Of course Europe has more 'old art' - that's where much of it came from.
mtalantikite 3y ago
> I have a question for people who say this: Have you ever actually lived in any metropolitan area outside New York? For me, Chicago and Boston. I spent a ton of time hanging out in SF between 2008-2015 when I worked for a startup out there. I've spent a lot of time in LA for both work and pleasure. [edit] I also spent a lot of time in Miami for work at one point in my life. And yeah, to me it's true. There's really no comparison with NYC in the US. That doesn't mean there aren't really awesome cities in the country, they're just not New York. > New Yorkers think that San Francisco, Chicago, and Los Angeles are "tier 2." Not that these rankings really mean much, but whenever people try to quantify it, NYC is often at the top [1]. Again, lots of the "tier 2" cities have similar things as NYC, it's just not often on the same scale. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
- caddemon 3y ago
  If the NYC <> Boston bullet train ever happens, Boston will be such an ideal place to live. I already prefer it to NYC personally, but it's true there are "tier 1 global city" things it can't offer. But if it becomes feasible to get door to door in under 2 hours? I suppose that could also change the entire character of the city over time though.
  - mtalantikite 3y ago
    I vaguely remember reading the announcement about Acela when I was a teenager, originally thinking it was going to be high speed rail between Boston and NYC. It's really embarrassing as a country that it takes 4 hours to get between the two cities by train. And on top of that, it often is at least as expensive as a 30 minute flight.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > But if it becomes feasible to get door to door in under 2 hours? I suppose that could also change the entire character of the city over time though. Philadelphia is about 1.5 hours by train from NY (and probably ~2 hours driving). While it's very underrated - really a special place of its own - it's not NY or part of it.
misun78 3y ago
I would maybe keep SF and LA as tier 1.5 (ignoring the fact that LA is mostly a collection of suburbs) given their presence at the global scale, but there is a drop-off in tiers for all other cities. Chicago is a great example, it's usually considered a sister city to NYC, but as someone who grew up there and then later spent time in NYC, the differences in cultural attitudes between the two could not be starker.