Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote
NYC does have more of an “unkempt” look that matches the fast-paced, “IDGAF” temperament of the city. It’s grand, but not monumental like Paris (or DC). And it’s nouveau-riche, with no aristocracy or class structure like London.
It doesn’t have the legacy of being the capital of a colonial empire that dates back several centuries, but rather that of a city built by immigrants that rose to global prominence only a century ago. I mean, the Empire State and Chrysler Buildings aren’t even 100 years old yet.
|
Some of that idgaf can be seen in how much graffiti is all over the place there. Most cities, including the ones in euope, have the same thing too, but it's way more commonplace in NYC. But it's not as prevalent today as it was apparently over 40 yrs ago when NYC's subway cars were tagged from front to back.
As for the grand vs monumental, although I understand what you're referring to, my main issue is just how 'charming' a city is or isn't, whether it's a cultural capital or a small berg. Something about cities in the US, from the east to the west, doesn't do charming very well or at all. But that's been true for over 150 yrs too. So I'd be the last to say that what I'm placing an emphasis on in the long run will necessarily either help or hurt a city or country.
Again, a city like SF has long been seen as somewhat charming, while LA has been just the opposite of that. Yet the way such places evolve can defy conventional wisdom. Similarly, look at how NYC has progressed since the late 1800s compared with london, paris, Madrid, etc. BTW, NYC had more old bronx type slums over 40 yrs ago than it has today. So in
certain ways it's better off in the 2020s than it was in the 1950s, 1970s, 1990s.