More seriously, why is it that just about any city of size in Italy has worldwide recognizable landmarks while even fairly big modern US cities just look like, well, each other? Think about it, in the US we have:
- New York - several landmarks, most notably the Statue of Liberty and Empire State building.
- Washington DC - Washington Monument and several classical buildings like the White House and Capitol.
- Chicago - with the, well, whatever they're calling the Sears Tower now.
- St Louis - with the Gateway Arch
- San Francisco - with the Golden Gate bridge
- Seattle - with the Space Needle
You'd think that we would have more than that. In fact, it's kind of crazy that Texas, where everything is BIGGER, doesn't have anything on the list. (With the possible exception of the Alamo. But I'm not sure that the Alamo stands out on the world stage.) Surely some oil tycoon would fund something at some point.
Is it because the US isn't very old yet? Or because we were founded after the era when landmarks were big and beautiful churches? Do we not go in for this because they're not money makers? Possibly we have nothing because the last century of art has failed us on some level.
I don't know the reason, but I find it kind of sad.