NY/NJ/CT vs CA (place, highest, size, tallest)

[missRoxyhart]

Originally Posted by polo89

I think people recognize CA's a beast, and can go toe-to-toe with the whole northeast(from DC to NYC). It's definitely not a run away victory for the Northeast(not like the polls suggest). It's only logical to compare an area just as large as CA to CA. I don't think it's a "You guys have to resort to" moment.

Not in wealth, political or economic importance, education, population, or economic output so in what way? California is a beast but that statement just seems off.

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by polo89

I think people recognize CA's a beast, and can go toe-to-toe with the whole northeast(from DC to NYC). It's definitely not a run away victory for the Northeast(not like the polls suggest). It's only logical to compare an area just as large as CA to CA. I don't think it's a "You guys have to resort to" moment.

I agree and also disagree at the same time.

As a state, no one can deny that the 5 most powerful states in the country are: California, Texas, New York, Florida, & Illinois (Easily). I do think California CAN go toe to toe with NY/NJ/CT but NOT NY/NJ/CT/PA/MD/VA/DC like you're suggesting, that is way overhaul and destructive. With the latter you have Washington DC, America's 2nd most powerful city and the seat of our federal government & New York the worlds most powerful city and the seat of our financial operations globally.

I think its safe to say that already eclipses any states influence already, and then you have Philadelphia, Atlantic City, Baltimore, & Boston all right there too.

But again, that comparison isn't even a logical one. California is a state, Bos-Wash is a megalopolis. I now live in Washington DC, one thing this website fools you with is how it makes it seem like people here are thinking about the "Northeast" everyday when in reality people here in Washington DC are living their lives, in their city, and not thinking of anyone else but themselves. People here don't think of California, Chicago, Texas, New York, or Florida.

[missRoxyhart]

Originally Posted by BacktoBlue

I find it hilarious that people in the Northeast are so intimadated by California that they have to compare 3 states to it! HAHAHA WOW!

I see how it's annoying too if people keep bringing it up in a strictly state comparison but this thread had clearly defined criteria. It seems like you're the intimidated one anyway, what's with that argument, "they have to put 3 states together", if you're gonna compare an area or combined region why do state lines come in to play. Lottsa Westerners seem to have to the same issue with the concept that in smaller states where people cross and live across state lines everyday that it somehow doesn't have a huge impact on our lives to keep "crossing over", like it was a national border with guards and a gate or something. It's not "cheating" for people to live in NJ and go to work in PA or NY and say that's where they live their lives.

Originally Posted by BacktoBlue

Yeah but when it is one northeast city against one CA city, they have to clump their city with the rest of the Northeast just to beat whatever city it is. I think it's pathetic.

Yeah, cause we never ever see the well it's a city in California argument. That seems to be like half the argument sometimes. If you're comparing cities then the surrounding environment is a valid arguing point, but when you say oh Fresno wins because it's in California which is half the West Coast, what do you expect but for someone to say well Baltimore's in the whole Northeast which just as much a region as CA is whether you accept that or not, instead of just say the Baltimore-DC area. If an argument gets ridiculous or out of hand then call it out or excuse yourself from it.

[polo89]

Originally Posted by missRoxyhart

Not in wealth, political or economic importance, education, population, or economic output so in what way? California is a beast but that statement just seems off.

It wasn't that way off(maybe a little). I didn't say CA was more important, I said it can go toe-to-toe. In the end, the east-coast is the more important region in the US. But when you take into account the port of LA and Long Beach, the Bay Area's influence on the technology we use DAILY, and LA's cultural influence(Hollywood, music, fashion, etc) and the Central Valley's fruits, then I'd say CA can go toe-to-toe. CA's production and importance is CRAZY. But in the end, the US started in the East, so logically, it'll be the most important region. I think if something catastrophic was to happen to CA right now, it would ALMOST, have as much of an influence on the rest of the nation as the east-coast would if it were to shut-down. CA's almost a WHOLE coast. What I find more amazing is how short of a time CA has been around in comparison to the east-coast, and to be this influential.

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by BPerone201

There's a NY Vs CA thread floating around that doesn't seem to make much sense to me.


Which do you prefer/rather live? Why/Where?

If this was a comparison between NYC and LA or SF, I'd go for New York... But as a region to region comparison, I'm going with California all the way. To be honest outside of NYC, there isn't a whole lot that really interests me in Upstate New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut. Not saying everything is that bad from what I've personally seen, but it's just hard to compare.

I find the whole state of California far more interesting and diverse than the Tri-State region. You've got everything from deserts to redwoods to coastline on par with the Mediterannean. Lake Tahoe and the Sierra trumps the Adirondacks(not that they aren't nice in their own quaint way), but even the Trinity Alps in far northern California is more impressive mountains in New York... Big Sur or Santa Barbara tops anything on the Jersey Shore or Hamptons. Wildwood is a better boardwalk than Santa Cruz, but Santa Cruz has world-class surfing, redwood forests, mountain wineries, and rugged beaches north of town...

And like I said, I'd pick NYC over San Francisco or Los Angeles. But if you're comparing NYC, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Newark, Hartford, Rochester to LA, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Sacramento, I'd rather live in any of the California cities over the NY/NJ/CT cities with maybe the exception of Philadelphia and New York...

And one other plus of California, no guidos...

[LakeShoreSoxGo]

Originally Posted by Deezus

If this was a comparison between NYC and LA or SF, I'd go for New York... But as a region to region comparison, I'm going with California all the way. To be honest outside of NYC, there isn't a whole lot that really interests me in Upstate New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut. Not saying everything is that bad from what I've personally seen, but it's just hard to compare.

I find the whole state of California far more interesting and diverse than the Tri-State region. You've got everything from deserts to redwoods to coastline on par with the Mediterannean. Lake Tahoe and the Sierra trumps the Adirondacks(not that they aren't nice in their own quaint way), but even the Trinity Alps in far northern California is more impressive mountains in New York... Big Sur or Santa Barbara tops anything on the Jersey Shore or Hamptons. Wildwood is a better boardwalk than Santa Cruz, but Santa Cruz has world-class surfing, redwood forests, mountain wineries, and rugged beaches north of town...

And like I said, I'd pick NYC over San Francisco or Los Angeles. But if you're comparing NYC, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Newark, Hartford, Rochester to LA, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Sacramento, I'd rather live in any of the California cities over the NY/NJ/CT cities with maybe the exception of Philadelphia and New York...

And one other plus of California, no guidos...

Water on the Jersey shore and the Hamptons (have ever been?) is way warmer than the water in Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara or Big sur in the summer. You have to go to the Mexico-San Diego border to get water in the summer. Sure the setting in CA is nice, but people go to the beach to swim and go in the water (with out a wet suit), not just lay in the sand and take pictures.

And while California does not have guidos they have bros and cholos both of which are way worse than guidos.

[HONM]

Originally Posted by Deezus

If this was a comparison between NYC and LA or SF, I'd go for New York... But as a region to region comparison, I'm going with California all the way. To be honest outside of NYC, there isn't a whole lot that really interests me in Upstate New York, New Jersey, or Connecticut. Not saying everything is that bad from what I've personally seen, but it's just hard to compare.

I find the whole state of California far more interesting and diverse than the Tri-State region. You've got everything from deserts to redwoods to coastline on par with the Mediterannean. Lake Tahoe and the Sierra trumps the Adirondacks(not that they aren't nice in their own quaint way), but even the Trinity Alps in far northern California is more impressive mountains in New York... Big Sur or Santa Barbara tops anything on the Jersey Shore or Hamptons. Wildwood is a better boardwalk than Santa Cruz, but Santa Cruz has world-class surfing, redwood forests, mountain wineries, and rugged beaches north of town...

And like I said, I'd pick NYC over San Francisco or Los Angeles. But if you're comparing NYC, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Newark, Hartford, Rochester to LA, San Diego, San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, Sacramento, I'd rather live in any of the California cities over the NY/NJ/CT cities with maybe the exception of Philadelphia and New York...

And one other plus of California, no guidos...

Oh no..but much worse. Cholos.

[polo89]

There should be a cholos vs guidos thread.

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo

Water on the Jersey shore and the Hamptons (have ever been?) is way warmer than the water in Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara or Big sur in the summer. You have to go to the Mexico-San Diego border to get water in the summer. Sure the setting in CA is nice, but people go to the beach to swim and go in the water (with out a wet suit), not just lay in the sand and take pictures.

And while California does not have guidos they have bros and cholos both of which are way worse than guidos.

Nah, you can swim on the coast in the summer. My family grew up bodysurfing on the beaches north of Santa Cruz...you can get used to it if you got cajones. Plus if you're into surfing or kayaking, the West Coast is much better. Yeah, I've been to the Jersey Shore a few times, parts seemed alright but it's not like I'd make an effort to go there when San Diego or Baja or Hawaii is just a fairly short and cheap flight away...

The worst of the cholos are more pervasive in LA or the Salinas or Central Valley, which isn't where I've lived or would live. I was joking about the guidos. Personally I could give rat's a** about any of those groups, it's not like I'd be realistically running into any of them very often with where I'd end up living...

But it's just an opinion, that's all this thread is...The OP asked where you would rather live--I answered honestly.

[BacktoBlue]

Originally Posted by LakeShoreSoxGo

Water on the Jersey shore and the Hamptons (have ever been?) is way warmer than the water in Santa Cruz, Santa Barbara or Big sur in the summer. You have to go to the Mexico-San Diego border to get water in the summer. Sure the setting in CA is nice, but people go to the beach to swim and go in the water (with out a wet suit), not just lay in the sand and take pictures.

And while California does not have guidos they have bros and cholos both of which are way worse than guidos.

A lot of people like to just sit and chill at the beach without going in. A lot of people like me jog along the beach even on the gloomiest days. It's calm and relaxing even without going in.

If it does get cold, you just put a wetsuit on. Problem solved.