Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-08-2012, 06:48 AM
 
2,918 posts, read 4,178,953 times
Reputation: 1527

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post
This isn't 1980.
Are you saying L.A.'s public transit was even worse in 1980 than it is now?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-08-2012, 11:58 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,385 posts, read 28,391,021 times
Reputation: 5877
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex?Il? View Post

But unlike Chicago, LA has nightlife hotspots, concert venues, etc., etc., scatttered everywhere, many of
which are not at all served on a transit line of any kind, and one must drive.

This is not an issue in Chicago, because nearly ALL tourist attractions, nightlife, venues, that would bring droves of people are basically all in and around downtown.
This is the main problem with LA for me... I have never driven to go out in Chicago... ever, whether that be going out of the city to Evanston, Oak Park, or Ravinia festival. Doesn't matter if it is Logan Square or Rogers Park and have to go into DT to transfer, it's pretty easy to do. I also rarely if ever go out in dense nightlife areas like Lincoln Park, but go elsewhere with no problems whatsoever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2012, 12:01 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,385 posts, read 28,391,021 times
Reputation: 5877
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Los Angeles does have a train system now and a bus system. The problem is that things are more spread out in Los Angeles. My cousin was on the city council and was the city controller of LA for over 15 years. She told me about the problems they face in LA even though they have public transit. The numbers have been getting better though. I think a lot of people would be surprised at how many people actually ride their system, but at the same time for many areas within Los Angeles, it's just not efficient to take that. For other areas of course it is.

You could live within a car in LA, but it depends on where you live, where you work, etc. There are areas of LA that are completely walkable (go to Ventura Boulevard in many areas and tell me you NEED a car), but at the same time there's a ton of areas in LA where you absolutely need a car depending on your lifestyle especially.
To enjoy the place you need a car. Also some of the best places like Santa Monica, Venice, etc have no rail lines going there.

The Bay Area wasn't really like that, like Chicago, you could get to where you are going for the most part w/o a car in San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley, it's actually more amenity packed than Chicago in it's cohesiveness, so I usually went more places entirely on foot there w/o the need to get on the light rail or subway. NYC of course, even more so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-08-2012, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Upper West Side, Manhattan, NYC
15,331 posts, read 23,764,559 times
Reputation: 7419
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
To enjoy the place you need a car. Also some of the best places like Santa Monica, Venice, etc have no rail lines going there.

The Bay Area wasn't really like that, like Chicago, you could get to where you are going for the most part w/o a car in San Francisco/Oakland/Berkeley, it's actually more amenity packed than Chicago in it's cohesiveness, so I usually went more places entirely on foot there w/o the need to get on the light rail or subway. NYC of course, even more so.
Yep, I agree. The problem is that things are spread out and with everyone driving, if you want to get from say hmmm Woodland Hills to Hollywood or something by public transit, it's going to take you at least 90-120 minutes. There are certainly areas you can live without a car there, but it's much more "regional" than a Chicago or NYC is.

A car is very recommended for LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-09-2012, 10:28 AM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,385 posts, read 28,391,021 times
Reputation: 5877
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu View Post
Yep, I agree. The problem is that things are spread out and with everyone driving, if you want to get from say hmmm Woodland Hills to Hollywood or something by public transit, it's going to take you at least 90-120 minutes. There are certainly areas you can live without a car there, but it's much more "regional" than a Chicago or NYC is.

A car is very recommended for LA.
Yeah, you could easily live in Hollywood without a car, Santa Monica without a car... etc. But most of these areas are ultra pricey, and they aren't well connected to the other walkable places... Basically you would drive, then could walk around for awhile... If you are traveling a lot like I do, getting to the airport is also a headache in LA, esp compared to Chicago which has subway lines going to 2 international airports directly from downtown.

That was my experience there at least. I'm sure I could make it work, but then I would lose out on the benefits of living in Los Angeles, which is all the nature, going to the beach, going up to Malibu, Pasadena, hikes in the mountains, all are gems, but you need a car for this kind of lifestyle, and while I'm sure it's great I prefer to stay on foot most of the time.

Trying to emulate a lifestyle one might live in Wicker Park, Lincoln Park, Lakeview, most any neighborhood off the subway line stops or especially areas like river north/gold coast/loop/south loop/streeterville/old town in Chicago wouldn't translate well in LA. My first years in Chicago I barely left the river north/downtown/west loop/south loop areas, walked to work most days, and had plenty to do and all on foot.

I wouldn't mind even tighter streets in Chicago, such as what you might see in Boston, Philly or SF, LA is far more spread out and things take longer to walk to, crossing wider streets, definitely far less pedestrian friendly than Chicago.

Last edited by grapico; 10-09-2012 at 10:36 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Illinois > Chicago

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top