Correct. The cities in rotation are Dallas (the capital of oil), Houston (the other capital of oil), Atlanta (the capital of black people), Miami (the capital of Latino people), SF (the capital of rich people), and DC (the capital).
Denver is my city, but I don’t think it qualifies.
I think Denver has a lot of great qualities - it is the home of outdoor/mountain life in the US, has the fittest population of any major city, is one of the biggest hubs of craft beer and cannabis, and is a significant player in tech, aerospace, and finance. Considering “Denver” to be the whole Front Range and I70 corridor, we are also a major military hub, the home of the olympics training center, and a hub for advanced computer chip design. We have a significant EDM music scene, the world famous Red Rocks amphitheatre, and world famous skiing at Aspen and Vail.
However, I can’t imagine putting Denver on the list at #4 for major American cities - the biggest factor simply being population. NYC metro has a population of 24 million. SF: 9 million; Houston: 8 million; Atlanta: 7 million. Denver has 3 million.
That might be forgiveable if it were more influential in culture, politics, or economics - but it isn’t. The political and economic power of Houston-Dallas have been the driving force in all the wars we’ve been in for the past 30 years: oil. Denver’s biggest political claim to fame is making weed legal. Our urbanist movement seems to have stalled out, and as many of my friends have commented - the city itself is fairly ugly in most places. And Denver fails to have any kind of unique and distinctive cuisine, instead, having a food scene that is, in the estimation of everyone who has visited, quite bad.
The three major cultural forces in Denver are Mexican, Midwestern Nice, and Mountain Yuppie. All of these together tend to create culture that is diven and hard-working, but that also has other priorities (like family, work-life balance, and time in the mountains). But this also creates a culture that has less emphasis on relaxation, creativity, and social openness. I’ve often said that the reason Denver punches under its weight on food and night life is because the typical demographic you would see hitting bars and restaurants on a Friday night - young professionals with disposable income - are going to bed early to go hiking Saturday morning. And these cultural priorities (along with the general auto-dependence of the city) combine to create a city that is not particularly welcoming to visitors and newcomers, and which mostly keeps to itself on the national and international stage. And at least politically, I think this has worked out well for us as (Imo) we typically have extremely sensible legislation governing the city and state (compared to other cities and states I hear about, at least).
While I would love to see Denver grow into one of the great cities in north america, at present I see it as more of a character actor - a city that is known and relevant because of a certain aspect of itself, but which is not a major player. Thus, it finds itself in the company of cities like Portland, New Orleans, Austin, Orlando, Las Vegas, or Detroit - cities that a foreigner has a 50/50 shot of knowing about because of a distinctive characteristic they have.
People, very nice, drivers… Massholes are very real, but did you ever notice how they rarely break things? Agressive, yes, but they also learned to drive in a place where the road itself is also an adversary.
Who cares about Dallas, Houston or Atlanta - do people actually go those places when they don’t have to? I mean travel there by choice rather than necessity.
My criteria wasnt about appeal, but influence. Dallas and Houston are the biggest hubs of cowboy culture, which is probably the most iconic American look recognized around the world. These cities define the way other US cities are built, leading the way in car centric design. And the oil industry is responsible for every war we’ve been in for the last 30 years.
Atlanta, in addition to having a large population, is a huge center for music, food, and civil rights, and plays an outsized role in national politics as turnout there can sway presidential elections and congressional balance.
This is true. As someone trapped in TX, I know lots of people who moved here excited that they sold their [insert civilized place] house and can buy a mansion in TX. Golly geez, people sure are nice here. Then they realize why the house was comparatively so inexpensive. Then they learn the difference between nice and kind. Then they leave or wish they could.
The people who live in Houston seem to think it’s as good as Chicago, I’d disagree with them but at least there are good restaurants. Also from a population standpoint, Houston is basically the same size as Chicago so it invites comparison in one regard.
Houston has some amazing neighborhoods, cultural diversity, a solid professional job market, and great parks and museums. Unfortunately, this is only a fraction of Houston, where the rest is concrete wasteland and/or culturally devoid
Dallas and Miami for sure. SF is basically the same as LA with Golden Gate. But Boston, Seattle, (New) Detroit, and maybe Omaha/Wichita if there’s tornado chasers or country/city clashes.
Omaha and Wichita are not on the same level as any of the rest you’ve listed. Very random to put them in here. Omaha is the 42nd largest city and Wichita is 52nd. And if you’re comparing Metro areas I would guess that disparity would place them much lower.
SF same as LA??? Have you been to either? Scale. LA is huge. SF is a tiny city.
Weather. LA has nice weather. SF has four seasons: windy, foggy, ok, rainy. Always somewhat cold.
Food: LA is so much bigger and has much more to offer. SF has good food if you can afford it.
Vibe: in LA everyone is nice to you but doesn’t care about you unless you’re rich. In SF no one cares about you.
Architecture: suburb vs Victorian suburb.
Yes, I have. On camera they both look so similar that the only way to discern the difference between Culver City and the Mission district is the background or having lived in those areas. This is how movie planning goes - what looks similar enough to pass as the area. It’s why Atlanta was used for New York in The Matrix (but you don’t seem to notice) with street names from Sydney (which you also don’t notice).
LA and SF have the same architecture from the early 1900s. Both have big parks, dense downtowns, and multi-storey sprawl for housing.
Have you been to these places and actually looked around?
Correct. The cities in rotation are Dallas (the capital of oil), Houston (the other capital of oil), Atlanta (the capital of black people), Miami (the capital of Latino people), SF (the capital of rich people), and DC (the capital).
Denver?
Denver is my city, but I don’t think it qualifies.
I think Denver has a lot of great qualities - it is the home of outdoor/mountain life in the US, has the fittest population of any major city, is one of the biggest hubs of craft beer and cannabis, and is a significant player in tech, aerospace, and finance. Considering “Denver” to be the whole Front Range and I70 corridor, we are also a major military hub, the home of the olympics training center, and a hub for advanced computer chip design. We have a significant EDM music scene, the world famous Red Rocks amphitheatre, and world famous skiing at Aspen and Vail.
However, I can’t imagine putting Denver on the list at #4 for major American cities - the biggest factor simply being population. NYC metro has a population of 24 million. SF: 9 million; Houston: 8 million; Atlanta: 7 million. Denver has 3 million.
That might be forgiveable if it were more influential in culture, politics, or economics - but it isn’t. The political and economic power of Houston-Dallas have been the driving force in all the wars we’ve been in for the past 30 years: oil. Denver’s biggest political claim to fame is making weed legal. Our urbanist movement seems to have stalled out, and as many of my friends have commented - the city itself is fairly ugly in most places. And Denver fails to have any kind of unique and distinctive cuisine, instead, having a food scene that is, in the estimation of everyone who has visited, quite bad.
The three major cultural forces in Denver are Mexican, Midwestern Nice, and Mountain Yuppie. All of these together tend to create culture that is diven and hard-working, but that also has other priorities (like family, work-life balance, and time in the mountains). But this also creates a culture that has less emphasis on relaxation, creativity, and social openness. I’ve often said that the reason Denver punches under its weight on food and night life is because the typical demographic you would see hitting bars and restaurants on a Friday night - young professionals with disposable income - are going to bed early to go hiking Saturday morning. And these cultural priorities (along with the general auto-dependence of the city) combine to create a city that is not particularly welcoming to visitors and newcomers, and which mostly keeps to itself on the national and international stage. And at least politically, I think this has worked out well for us as (Imo) we typically have extremely sensible legislation governing the city and state (compared to other cities and states I hear about, at least).
While I would love to see Denver grow into one of the great cities in north america, at present I see it as more of a character actor - a city that is known and relevant because of a certain aspect of itself, but which is not a major player. Thus, it finds itself in the company of cities like Portland, New Orleans, Austin, Orlando, Las Vegas, or Detroit - cities that a foreigner has a 50/50 shot of knowing about because of a distinctive characteristic they have.
There’s also Portland, which now in recent years has become the city of trans people. But that’s only from the last few years.
Not a large enough population. Maybe Seattle
This is the right answer. Anyone can look at a list of populations. This is also a question about culture.
[sad Boston noises] they only get to be on the list when one or more of their sports teams is doing well and everyone hates them for it.
Ah yes Boston the capital of assholes.
(Surprisingly, when I lived there, I thought people were very nice)
People, very nice, drivers… Massholes are very real, but did you ever notice how they rarely break things? Agressive, yes, but they also learned to drive in a place where the road itself is also an adversary.
Who cares about Dallas, Houston or Atlanta - do people actually go those places when they don’t have to? I mean travel there by choice rather than necessity.
My criteria wasnt about appeal, but influence. Dallas and Houston are the biggest hubs of cowboy culture, which is probably the most iconic American look recognized around the world. These cities define the way other US cities are built, leading the way in car centric design. And the oil industry is responsible for every war we’ve been in for the last 30 years.
Atlanta, in addition to having a large population, is a huge center for music, food, and civil rights, and plays an outsized role in national politics as turnout there can sway presidential elections and congressional balance.
No one goes to Texas on purpose. Something has to go wrong in your life to land you there.
There are people who having decided to move there was the beginning of everything going wrong with their life, and i’m not even joking
This is true. As someone trapped in TX, I know lots of people who moved here excited that they sold their [insert civilized place] house and can buy a mansion in TX. Golly geez, people sure are nice here. Then they realize why the house was comparatively so inexpensive. Then they learn the difference between nice and kind. Then they leave or wish they could.
Welcome to Atlanta where the players play, and we ride on them thangs like every day
Being forced to go there is what makes them the rotating 4th.
I had Miami and SF on my list, but the others make sense.
The people who live in Houston seem to think it’s as good as Chicago, I’d disagree with them but at least there are good restaurants. Also from a population standpoint, Houston is basically the same size as Chicago so it invites comparison in one regard.
Houston has some amazing neighborhoods, cultural diversity, a solid professional job market, and great parks and museums. Unfortunately, this is only a fraction of Houston, where the rest is concrete wasteland and/or culturally devoid
Dallas and Miami for sure. SF is basically the same as LA with Golden Gate. But Boston, Seattle, (New) Detroit, and maybe Omaha/Wichita if there’s tornado chasers or country/city clashes.
Omaha and Wichita are not on the same level as any of the rest you’ve listed. Very random to put them in here. Omaha is the 42nd largest city and Wichita is 52nd. And if you’re comparing Metro areas I would guess that disparity would place them much lower.
SF same as LA??? Have you been to either? Scale. LA is huge. SF is a tiny city. Weather. LA has nice weather. SF has four seasons: windy, foggy, ok, rainy. Always somewhat cold. Food: LA is so much bigger and has much more to offer. SF has good food if you can afford it. Vibe: in LA everyone is nice to you but doesn’t care about you unless you’re rich. In SF no one cares about you. Architecture: suburb vs Victorian suburb.
Yes, I have. On camera they both look so similar that the only way to discern the difference between Culver City and the Mission district is the background or having lived in those areas. This is how movie planning goes - what looks similar enough to pass as the area. It’s why Atlanta was used for New York in The Matrix (but you don’t seem to notice) with street names from Sydney (which you also don’t notice).
LA and SF have the same architecture from the early 1900s. Both have big parks, dense downtowns, and multi-storey sprawl for housing.
Have you been to these places and actually looked around?