Rotterdam's architecture is what the bombing made possible - the experiments that wouldn't happen in cities where medieval centers survived. The Cube Houses that Piet Blom designed, tilted 45 degrees on their edges; the Markthal whose apartment-arch covers food market; the Erasmus Bridge whose asymmetric pylon earned it 'Swan' nickname - Rotterdam collects architectural statements that other Dutch cities couldn't accommodate.

The architecture is not uniformly successful - the experiments that didn't work, the buildings that aged poorly, the urban planning that prioritized cars over people. Rotterdam is honest about what it is, the working city that doesn't pretend to charm that bombing destroyed.

The Port of Rotterdam is Europe's largest, the 42 kilometers of harbor that handles 450 million tons annually, the petrochemical complex that fuels European industry. The port that Rotterdam's location made inevitable - where the Rhine meets the sea - is what makes the city economically essential if not aesthetically celebrated.

The port is what Rotterdam is for, the employment and wealth and purpose that industry provides. The port tours that visitors can take, the views from Euromast tower that encompass the scale - the port is Rotterdam's reason for being, the commerce that made reinvention possible.

The Markthal is Rotterdam's covered market, the horseshoe-shaped building whose interior is painted with giant produce images, whose 228 apartments arch over the food stalls below. The market that opened in 2014 immediately became landmark, the architecture that serves function while creating spectacle.

The Markthal represents what Rotterdam does - the combination of commerce and architecture, the willingness to try what other cities wouldn't attempt. The market is where Rotterdam's diversity displays itself - the Turkish and Surinamese and Indonesian and Dutch vendors, the food that reflects who lives here.

The recovery from 1940 shaped everything Rotterdam became. The bombing that killed 900 and destroyed the center, the fires that consumed what bombs hadn't reached, the decision to build new rather than replicate old - Rotterdam chose modernity when nostalgia would have been easier.

The recovery narrative is what Rotterdam tells about itself - the resilience, the pragmatism, the forward orientation. The recovery also erased what was lost - the medieval city that photographs preserve, the character that other Dutch cities retained. Rotterdam is what recovery made it; whether that was best choice depends on what you value.

Rotterdam's culture is what commerce enables - the museums that shipping wealth endowed, the festivals that diverse population creates, the nightlife that working class city developed. The Kunsthal museum that changing exhibitions fill, the Boijmans Van Beuningen collection that reopens in depot-museum, the festivals that summer brings - Rotterdam has culture despite its industrial image.

The culture is different from Amsterdam's - less established, more experimental, more willing to fail. Rotterdam's culture reflects its population - the immigrants who make the city majority-minority, the youth who find Amsterdam too expensive, the creatives who need space that working cities provide.