There is no better place to come to to see how people feel about cities than a forum like this. So based on posts of others (and myself included, I may add), I need to ask:

Is there something warped and dysfunctional (or at least skewed) about the way we see our cities greatness today?

Why do I ask? because the following resonate with too many elements of truth to me:

1. When we "rank" our cities, it is often based on power and economic power rules the roost. Culture and other elements of greatness take a back seat to economic power. If there is a parralel, it might be medieval Europe where the size, importance and number of cathedrals in one city might have been the overwhelming measure of greatness.

2. we worship height and density more than the appropriateness and quality of that height and density. We fail to see height as being what is: an American inspired concept and just one aspect of how urbanity may be organized

3. we undervalue parkland and over space (although we do want them). We give little credit to cities that afford us an opporunity to "get away from the hustle" internally, without leaving citgy limits

4. our American sense of competitiveness (shared with the rest of the world along with much of our culture) causes us to give cities some sort of rank order which relates little to the value of each of those cities, what it is like to live in or visit them, and the opportunities they afford. We view cities as a fraternity and are careful which pledges make it....and the prestige of each once it makes it in.

5. We may lament that artists and other creative types can no longer afford to live in our truest "Greatest Cities" but we secretly view this as a positive testament to how popular these cities are. If we price you out, we must be great. We don't really give enough credit to how cities have suffered by the loss of the middle class and the loss of children's importance to the structure of the city in the process.

6. We have far more interest on how our cities function organically, as a whole, as a living organism, than we are on how those cities work for individuals, be they residents or visitors. So if our biggest cities are a tremendous hastle for people to live in, it's like "well, that's your problem"...is just shows how great we really are. The message: the city is important. the individual is not so.

7. We view numbers over quality, see population as an automatic bonus, see the height of our skyline as a civic barometer. We are convinced that if a western city has 419 Afghanistani restaurants, it must be a great place...even if we don't like Afghanistani food.

As I said, I'm part of this, along with many of you. Is it possible, just possible, that instead of this whole city vs. city, let's-add-it-up (and crunch the numbers) culture of ours, each and every city offers greatness because of what it is, not how it stacks up against other cities?

Sometimes it's good to place everything in another perspective, so your thread is good to think about.

1. When we "rank" our cities, it is often based on power and economic power rules the roost. Culture and other elements of greatness take a back seat to economic power.2. we worship height and density more than the appropriateness and quality of that height and density. We fail to see height as being what is: an American inspired concept and just one aspect of how urbanity may be organized
Well, we are here on skyscrapercity, so it is not strange that people see cities that way. But i agree, it's good to put everything in perspective.
And people like to rank things, and therefore there must be facts and figures. There is nothing wrong to rank cities, but it's wrong to value the outcomes of those rankings and present opinions as 'facts'.

5. We may lament that artists and other creative types can no longer afford to live in our truest "Greatest Cities" but we secretly view this as a positive testament to how popular these cities are. If we price you out, we must be great. We don't really give enough credit to how cities have suffered by the loss of the middle class and the loss of children's importance to the structure of the city in the process.
People like to see developments, not the human factor but the urban (and economic) factor. That's just a small part of the urban spectrum, but what can someone expect on this site? Urbanity is seen as a target.

6. We have far more interest on how our cities function organically, as a whole, as a living organism, than we are on how those cities work for individuals, be they residents or visitors. (...) The message: the city is important. the individual is not so.
That's something what makes me wonder over here. I hear a lot of people saying that some cities are over- or underrated. The most of that time they mean that a city is interesting and deserves more attention because of it's skyline and size than the quality of live of the people who live there.
But again, urbanity as target is not that strange on a site like this. I bet if you would go to a forum for naturefreaks they would have other ways to view a cities 'greatness'. Based on other values, other opinions, other facts and interpretations etc. Their opinion would be totally different than most opinions here, but are those better or worse? No, it's just an opinion. Man is the measure of all things, but man thinks that his measure is the right measure.

7. We view numbers over quality, see population as an automatic bonus, see the height of our skyline as a civic barometer. We are convinced that if a western city has 419 Afghanistani restaurants, it must be a great place...even if we don't like Afghanistani food.
I must admit i have sometimes my doubts about the way people (here) see the cities. A lot of people seems to think that quantity = quality, and quantity is a big, if not the most important issue for a lot of people.
People are sometimes not aware that they are making things more beautiful than they really are (how romantic...). Your example of the Afghani restaurants is a good example of a bigger issue here on SSC, multiculturism as an overrated issue. That's something that has it's good an bad sides, just like everything else in the world. But sometimes here on SSC people have a one-way view of certain items.
That's not bad, not good, but people must remember that is and will be just an opinion. Just like everything else what is said of thought about cities. It's not that we see our cities wrong, the true problem is the value we give to our or other interpretations and opinions.

I agree with the original poster. Most people in this forum see the cities from a view of how dense they are, how tall are the building (another way: how many skyscrapers it has), what's the population, and always the answer is: the BIGGER, the taller, the denser the better!

I disagree with this view and I have another one. I prefer a 80,000 town in Germany than London or New York. I believe the quality of life in this town is better. I prefer the silence I can have in house in this kind of cities, while I can never have it in London.

Thats my opinion of course.