Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [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)
View Poll Results: Your Choice
West Coast 118 41.40%
East Coast 167 58.60%
Voters: 285. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 02-09-2011, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
24,508 posts, read 33,303,120 times
Reputation: 7622

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThroatGuzzler View Post
If the entire US had the same climate as Los Angeles, LA would be an after thought.
Some of the other cities would still lack the scenery of Los Angeles. And the varied topography.

 
Old 02-09-2011, 01:32 PM
 
Location: Toronto
1,654 posts, read 5,853,802 times
Reputation: 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Los Angeles was founded in 1781.
Hardly significant. Their 1850 population was less than 1700 people. Boston had a bigger population 2.5 centuries earlier. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt; half a century worth.
 
Old 02-09-2011, 02:54 PM
 
Location: So California
8,704 posts, read 11,112,972 times
Reputation: 4794

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL_WvOly7mY
 
Old 02-09-2011, 02:59 PM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
27,555 posts, read 28,641,455 times
Reputation: 25141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThroatGuzzler View Post
Hardly significant. Their 1850 population was less than 1700 people. Boston had a bigger population 2.5 centuries earlier. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt; half a century worth.
In most places, hardly anybody heard much about Los Angeles before the 20th century. Even today, very few people outside the western U.S. could tell you anything about Los Angeles pre-1920.
 
Old 02-09-2011, 03:08 PM
 
Location: yeah
5,717 posts, read 16,346,364 times
Reputation: 2975
Nobody cares what people thought a hundred years ago. I'm sure they'd burn you as a witch if you showed them a cell phone. Big deal.
 
Old 02-09-2011, 05:20 PM
 
940 posts, read 2,026,452 times
Reputation: 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Los Angeles was founded in 1781.
Yes, but--like Boston in the 1600s--it was hardly a city.

The urban fabric of the major cores of the East is mostly from the mid-to-late-19th century. The urban cores of the West are mostly from the early 20th.

Yes, there are small historic districts in the East coast cores that date to earlier, but on a whole, walk around in an East Coast city and you're looking at 1850 onward. On the west coast, it's 1900 onward. 50 years.

Now, despite being such a short amount of time, it's a HUGELY significant time-period (i.e. the second industrial revolution) so that by the time West Coast cities came around there was electricity for powering the red cars in LA, the cable cars in SF, etc.

The cores of Seattle, Portland, SF, Oakland, LA and SD all have a street-car character to them, while East coast cores are mostly horse-carriage based. The subways really were more similar to the west-coast streetcars at that time, bringing in well-to-do people from first-ring suburbs. The average tenement worker in NYC in 1900 didn't take the subway to work.

All of this history lesson aside... the vast majority of people in america (be it in the west, east, north, south) don't live in a core or a first-ring suburb, they live in postwar auto-oriented suburbia. Hence, my earlier point about how I'd rather live in postwar suburbia in the west than in the east.

But my first choice is to live where I do live - in the streetcar suburbs of a west coast city, where the lots and streets were drawn up at the turn of the 20th century, and where I can walk to local stores and yet still be surrounded by gardens, sunshine, and diverse architectural forms and styles.
 
Old 02-09-2011, 05:29 PM
 
Location: The Bay
6,914 posts, read 14,747,106 times
Reputation: 3120
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWarPlanet View Post
Dont mind Nineties Flava hes on crack right now. "Hope you get over your addiction" Now for WCvEC
East coast wins in location geography you can choose different types of climates, alot more different life styles, East coast has alot more things than the West coast i can name hundreds of things. East coast got NYC, Miami, DC (capital), Orlando, Boston Buffalo Baltimore Atlantic City etc... West coast.... SF LA LV Seattle Portland SD and thats it GG. Plus East coast has easy access to most of the world like Europe, Africa, Latin America. East coast has more histroy than the west coast


Nope, no drugs here. I'd have to wonder why you're putting Orlando, Buffalo and Atlantic City on the same pedestal as NYC, Miami, DC & Baltimore and then proceed to only list the well known cities on the west coast.


Oakland
Long Beach
Sacramento
San Jose
Reno
Spokane
Tacoma
Napa

All more than stack up to Orlando/Buffalo/Atlantic City.
 
Old 02-09-2011, 05:32 PM
 
Location: Toronto
1,654 posts, read 5,853,802 times
Reputation: 861
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220 View Post
All of this history lesson aside... the vast majority of people in america (be it in the west, east, north, south) don't live in a core or a first-ring suburb, they live in postwar auto-oriented suburbia. Hence, my earlier point about how I'd rather live in postwar suburbia in the west than in the east.
Bravo... I fully agree with you actually. What percentage of the US population actually lives in dense, urban, century old neighborhoods with no sprawl? Not a whole lot. But it's always nice to experience it when visiting the city; just like one would visit Paris solely for it's architecture and aesthetic.
 
Old 02-09-2011, 05:35 PM
 
Location: East Coast of the United States
27,555 posts, read 28,641,455 times
Reputation: 25141
Quote:
Originally Posted by krudmonk View Post
Nobody cares what people thought a hundred years ago. I'm sure they'd burn you as a witch if you showed them a cell phone. Big deal.
The United States, its core political philosophy, its legal and economic systems were all founded on what certain people thought well over 200 years ago. The Revolutionary War and the Civil War are perhaps the two most defining periods in U.S. history. Almost anything else pales in comparison.

But of course I know you're joking.

Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 02-09-2011 at 05:49 PM..
 
Old 02-09-2011, 06:23 PM
 
Location: The City
22,378 posts, read 38,895,654 times
Reputation: 7976
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220 View Post
Yes, but--like Boston in the 1600s--it was hardly a city.

The urban fabric of the major cores of the East is mostly from the mid-to-late-19th century. The urban cores of the West are mostly from the early 20th.

Yes, there are small historic districts in the East coast cores that date to earlier, but on a whole, walk around in an East Coast city and you're looking at 1850 onward. On the west coast, it's 1900 onward. 50 years.

Now, despite being such a short amount of time, it's a HUGELY significant time-period (i.e. the second industrial revolution) so that by the time West Coast cities came around there was electricity for powering the red cars in LA, the cable cars in SF, etc.

The cores of Seattle, Portland, SF, Oakland, LA and SD all have a street-car character to them, while East coast cores are mostly horse-carriage based. The subways really were more similar to the west-coast streetcars at that time, bringing in well-to-do people from first-ring suburbs. The average tenement worker in NYC in 1900 didn't take the subway to work.

All of this history lesson aside... the vast majority of people in america (be it in the west, east, north, south) don't live in a core or a first-ring suburb, they live in postwar auto-oriented suburbia. Hence, my earlier point about how I'd rather live in postwar suburbia in the west than in the east.

But my first choice is to live where I do live - in the streetcar suburbs of a west coast city, where the lots and streets were drawn up at the turn of the 20th century, and where I can walk to local stores and yet still be surrounded by gardens, sunshine, and diverse architectural forms and styles.

Actually it is closer to a hundred year differential really
Largest cities in the United States by population by decade - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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.


Closed Thread


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 > General U.S. > City vs. City

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