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.
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.
1. Talent Density: Chicago is optimized talent-wise at a regional level (the midwest), while NYC is optimized at a global level. Chicago simply doesn't have the same pull if you don't live in the midwest the way NYC does for folks living anywhere across the world. This creates an obvious talent gap.
2. Culture: Chicago operates as a much more of an all-American city, reflecting cultural attitudes not too dissimilar from the rest of the country. Examples here include a heavy sports culture, emphasis on drinking/going out. You see a similar trend with NYC transplants (like myself in my early 20's) but you're eventually forced to grow out of it in NYC and create a more unique and diversified identity. I haven't seen much of this in my social circle from Chicago who never left.
3. Industry Density: Chicago is considered top at a few select industries including insurance, commodities etc. OTOH, there are very few industries that NYC would not be considered top in. Strong talent begets strong talent and this creates the sort of network effect that's present in the bay (for tech), and in NYC, but not in Chicago minus a few industries. These network efforts, over a long enough timeframe, fundamentally alter the landscape of one's career.
4. Local v.s. global maxima: Chicago allows you to reach a relatively easier maxima (career or culture wise), which likely means Chicagoans are happier on average. That concept doesn't exist in NYC or the bay. It pushes you to reach a global maxima which is inherently more challenging. For example, getting a job at Google likely sets you for life in Chicago. In NYC or the bay, that's simply a starting point. This isn't for the faint of heart but is highly rewarding if you're ambitious and work-oriented.
5. Arts and Fashion: The same concept of local v.s. global maxima exists here too.
6. Food: Far more global and unique in NYC than in Chicago (which in-itself has great food)
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.
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.
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.
Juilliard is probably the top drama school in the world, however. Also, Manhattan School of Music may be the best jazz school.
Finally, what "listings" are you referring to? I have never seen a good listing of classical music performances anywhere I have lived, including New York, that wasn't essentially word-of-mouth.
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."