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.
Why are LA posters getting their panties in a bunch? LA simply does not have that super-dense, urban, desirable core like Manhattan and San Francisco.
There has to be a reason city-snobs praise New York and San Francisco and usually dismiss Los Angeles. Manhattan and SF have far more parallels than SF and LA, IMO. The fundamentals between the two are similar. The major one being one of the very few truly walkable counties in the United States.
????
If anything, it's New Yorkers who are up in arms over the comparison. Bragging about their density again? Outside of the NE quadrant, your typical San Francisco resident wakes up in a cold sweat thinking about NYC density. They'd rather die than live in that environment, and couldn't care less about the peeing contests on city data.
San Francisco could add 50,000 housing units tomorrow, they'd get snapped up so fast it would make your head spin. Good luck getting them built though. Invading Russia in the winter sounds like an easier proposition.
The answer to the question is neither. The NE quadrant (minus the hills) wouldn't feel too out of place south of 14th Street, and there are small areas on the outskirts that look remarkably similar to Southern California, but most of San Francisco proper doesn't remember either city at all. The pastel colors, prominent Victorian architecture, and rowhouses are features unique to San Francisco.
Gun to my head, I'd choose Manhattan, only because the NE quadrant is the most prominent area of the city, and it does give off a South of 14th Street vibe. But really, San Francisco is its own animal. All three cities are.
Shouldn't you be at someone's cowboy ranch somewhere? I'm sure you have plenty of things to do in your backyard other than discussing urban environments. Please sit!
I can tell you've never been here otherwise you'd know the different cultures and feel from borough to borough are minuscule. Manhattan is an island and guess what? ALL the boroughs are on an island except the Bronx so what exactly are you attempting to prove?
The ONLY boroughs that were cities were Brooklyn and Manhattan so if you want to post please come with facts or don't post at all. Lol, I can't.
Lastly all of the borough natives except for Brooklynites will say they are from New York (when they aren't in the city.) But if someone from BK goes somewhere you will know they are from Brooklyn first and then NY.
I honestly don't care what SF is to the Bay. No one cares that it's the financial center. No one cares it's surrounded by water. No one cares about the Chinatown or Little Italy. ETC. No one cares about this comparison because it's old and tiring and will never change.
It will never be or remind anyone of Manhattan so just deal with it.
It's an urban 46 Sq. Mi city on the West Coast. /thread
And after all of this smashing at your keyboard - Manhattan is still the City and Brooklyn is not.
No one thinks of Brooklyn when they think of NYC lol. The purpose of the outer-boroughs is to serve Manhattan. It's the City whether you like it or not.
?
Gun to my head, I'd choose Manhattan, only because the NE quadrant is the most prominent area of the city, and it does give off a South of 14th Street vibe. But really, San Francisco is its own animal. All three cities are.
There is nothing in the NE quadrant of SF that looks like Manhattan south of 14th Street.
That's the oldest part of Manhattan, and NE SF was built long after Manhattan south of 14th was built. They're from two totally different eras, like 100 years apart.
No one thinks of Brooklyn when they think of NYC lol. The purpose of the outer-boroughs is to serve Manhattan. It's the City whether you like it or not.
You obviously know nothing about NYC if you like this.
Brooklyn, if anything, is more prominent than Manhattan in terms of cultural relevance. I'm not sure if there's a more prominent geography than Brooklyn anywhere on the planet, at least when it comes to a younger skewing demographic.
Manhattan is the CBD and has not housed a majority of the creative community in quite some time. The creative center of NYC is definitely Brooklyn, and has a cultural vibrancy lacking in Manhattan. In short, Manhattan is too rich, corporate and transient to develop the creative energy of Brooklyn.
You can say the exact same things about West LA and Manhattan. So I guess Beverly Hills is Manhattan?
Both West LA and Manhattan are the two biggest wealth centers in the U.S.
Both West LA and Manhattan are the two biggest celebrity concentrations in the U.S.
Both West LA and Manhattan have the two biggest concentrations of high end retail in the U.S.
Both West LA and Manhattan are the biggest centers of the entertainment and media industry.
I could do these for most big cities. NYC and Chicago-
NYC and Chicago have the biggest skylines in the U.S.
NYC and Chicago have the biggest financial, corporate and consulting concentrations in the U.S.
NYC and Chicago have the two biggest rail networks in the U.S.
NYC and Chicago have the two biggest CBDs in the U.S.
Or NYC and DC-
NYC and DC are the two biggest political/international relations centers in the U.S.
NYC and DC have the two biggest concentrations of foundations and nonprofits
NYC and DC have the two biggest concentrations of lawyers and lobbyists
NYC and DC have the two biggest concentrations of office space
NYC and DC have the two highest transit shares in the U.S.
Or NYC and Philly-
NYC and Philly have the largest contiguous urban streetscapes.
NYC and Philly have the largest number of rowhouses.
NYC and Philly have the largest concentration of 19th century architecture.
NYC and Philly have the largest concentration of Italian American culture.
NYC and Philly are the only cities with true European style regional rail, almost totally electrified
Long story short, I could find similarities between any two American cities. I can find many similarities between even totally different cities, like SF and Detroit. Doesn't mean they are similar overall.
Well, you're kind of proving my point. Now compare LA and SF. I'll start...
Both cities are in CA
Both cities have a mild climate (though still vastly different)
Both cities have a lot of pastel colors
Scratching head for the rest...if you can legitimately do what you just did above for LA and SF and produce better similarities than between SF and Manhattan, then I'll concede. These can't be super subjective things in your strident super-opinionated and often wrong mind, but things that are universally agreeable and are actually things.
If anything, it's New Yorkers who are up in arms over the comparison. Bragging about their density again? Outside of the NE quadrant, your typical San Francisco resident wakes up in a cold sweat thinking about NYC density. They'd rather die than live in that environment, and couldn't care less about the peeing contests on city data.
San Francisco could add 50,000 housing units tomorrow, they'd get snapped up so fast it would make your head spin. Good luck getting them built though. Invading Russia in the winter sounds like an easier proposition.
The answer to the question is neither. The NE quadrant (minus the hills) wouldn't feel too out of place south of 14th Street, and there are small areas on the outskirts that look remarkably similar to Southern California, but most of San Francisco proper doesn't remember either city at all. The pastel colors, prominent Victorian architecture, and rowhouses are features unique to San Francisco.
Gun to my head, I'd choose Manhattan, only because the NE quadrant is the most prominent area of the city, and it does give off a South of 14th Street vibe. But really, San Francisco is its own animal. All three cities are.
Hell, your typical NYC outer-borough residents would equally kill themselves if they lived in as dense as an area as Manhattan as the outer-boroughs are suburbs compared to the City aka Manhattan, but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
Areas like those serve their purposes, and are extremely unique and jewels of our sprawled nation, and attract tons of money, commerce and the most tourism. Manhattan is more similar to San Francisco. From top to bottom. End of.
Scratching head for the rest...if you can legitimately do what you just did above for LA and SF and produce better similarities than between SF and Manhattan, then I'll concede. These can't be super subjective things in your strident super-opinionated and often wrong mind, but things that are universally agreeable and are actually things.
Shoot.
I already did. NYC and LA are the two biggest cities, two biggest concentration of wealth, two biggest celebrity centers, two biggest entertainment centers, two biggest economic centers, two biggest ports, two biggest transportation hubs, etc. etc.
Anyone can do these comparisons for any city. I can do SF and Detroit.
SF and Detroit are both dominated by a single industry, both SF and Detroit have highly cyclical economies, both SF and Detroit are located on large bodies of water, with prominent bridges, both SF and Detroit have huge concentrations of engineering talent, both SF and Detroit are huge patent centers, both SF and Detroit have scenic downtown ballparks, both SF and Detroit have around 10% of their CSA population, both SF and Detroit have Asians dominating their skilled immigrant ranks, both SF and Detroit have most international flights going to Asia, both SF and Detroit have around the same MSA population.
See how silly that is? Now SF is Detroit, according to to your criteria. You can do this with any two cities.
And after all of this smashing at your keyboard - Manhattan is still the City and Brooklyn is not.
No one thinks of Brooklyn when they think of NYC lol. The purpose of the outer-boroughs is to serve Manhattan. It's the City whether you like it or not.
Lol! You know nothing about current NYC but you're from Texas I don't even know why I'm entertaining this nonsense.
You obviously know nothing about NYC if you like this.
Brooklyn, if anything, is more prominent than Manhattan in terms of cultural relevance. I'm not sure if there's a more prominent geography than Brooklyn anywhere on the planet, at least when it comes to a younger skewing demographic.
Quote:
Manhattan is the CBD and has not housed a majority of the creative community in quite some time.
No one cares where struggling artists live. Where do the creative elites live? Manhattan. Where is their art displayed and sold? Manhattan. Where are the studios? Manhattan.
Which brings us back to my original point - people rise bright and early to make that trek into Manhattan, which by all means makes it the City. How many Manhattanites go to Brooklyn to work? Yes, exactly. No one.
Quote:
The creative center of NYC is definitely Brooklyn,
Yet most of the creative elite live in Manhattan.
Quote:
In short, Manhattan is too rich
Which is why it's so fabulous.
Quote:
corporate
Which is why it's considered the greatest city in the world...it's the most economically powerful and rich. Not to mention that wonderful urban core. Do you think New York would still be the World's Greatest City if Manhattan went away? Hah.
Quote:
and transient
Yes, most economically prosperous cities are transient in its cores. That's what make them the "City". People come from all over to experience and learn from those outsized global economies. But there is no transiency in Manhattan's elite. Those super-rich people have been in Manhattan for generations and are imbedded into that culture. They will be there for generations to come. They are the ones that make Manhattan so grand. No one goes to Brooklyn to work.
Quote:
to develop the creative energy of Brooklyn.
Creative energy is moved from Brooklyn to Manhattan every morning. Again, that's why Manhattan is considered the City.
Again, no one is saying Brooklyn isn't creative. Point is - Manhattan is THE CITY.
No offense to the texas guy but its possible you should stick to things you know about and see on a daily basis.
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.
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.
