Is DC "Cool"?

As always after a lull in posts, we feel compelled to offer up some explanation...alas, all I can say is "life". Busy at work and at home, and with a trip to the hospital to boot, makes for not a lot of time to keep the blog updated.

So that's why we thought it would be interesting to come back from our post-cation with a rather simple question: Is DC cool?

We only ask because the Post was asking this question over the weekend. It seems that with the arrival of President Obama, there is talk that DC might become a "cool" city, on par with places like New York, San Francisco or Chicago. But will we, really? And do we want to?

Consider, for instance, some choice quotes from "coolness experts" from the Post article:

"On a recent Washington vacation, he thought the city seemed too empty. "I spent a typical museum week in D.C. with my kids and you walk and walk and walk and it never feels dense," Gloor says. "In Times Square, you could walk on the heads of people."

"The buildings of official Washington make it feel too planned, too stretched out, too grandiose, too impressive. It's not organic enough, according to Gloor."

"...if this cool president manages to make the coolest people want to work for him and flock to the bureaucracy of Washington, he can change the city."


OK, these demand some kind of response. To begin, how can someone classify him or herself as an "expert" in cool? Doesn't that follow the if-you-have-to-ask-you'll-never-know line of thinking?

Next, since when is Times Square the definition of cool? As Mrs. 14thandyou so eloquently put it: "Letting a bunch of advertisers come in and take a dump in the middle of your city isn't cool." No, it's not. Granted, a lot of people flock to Times Square...but they're also typically the type of people bunching up at the bottom of Metro escalators with maps unfolded trying to figure out how to exit the damn Metro station.

And criticizing the feeling of being in a planned city seems a bit absurd, considering that DC is, well, a planned city. We have a Metro stop named after the French guy who laid out our streets after all. Slamming DC for being too "planned" is like getting all up in San Francisco's grill about being too hilly, or Chicago for being too windy. It's part of the city's character; to be rid of something like that would rid the city of much of its charm. It certainly doesn't help the density, but it does help make the city unique.

As to the last quote...well, I'll only say that I have a sneaking suspicion of the type of person being referred to as the "cool person" who might want to come work in our city now that Obama is here. Yeah, they would be the Democratic version of the Late Night Shots crowd, and this city needs more of them like it needs more exploding manhole covers.

Now, perhaps I sound a bit defensive, but that would be a misinterpretation of my stance. Personally, I've never thought of DC as a particularly hip or trendy city. Fashion trends don't begin here, musical movements aren't born here, and no one would mistake Logan Circle for Chelsea. But, come on. We've got the Capitol building and the White House; the National Mall and the Washington Monument; Dupont and Georgetown and Logan and U Street and H Street and Capitol Hill. We've got the National Cathedral, the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian; lots of very educated people doing educated (and not-so-educated) things, cultural opportunities galore and some great restaurants. In other words, we've got a lot. And we've got a lot that other cities don't.

So, is DC cool? Well, it's not New York-cool, or LA-cool, or Miami-cool. But DC has a coolness about it that existed long before Obama got here. It's probably what brought a number of people--such as myself--to the city in the first place. And while I could make do with a few fewer Asian fusion restaurants in Penn Quarter, there's not a whole lot about the culture of the city I would be quick to change. Especially not to meet some coolness expert's arbitrary definition of "cool".