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.
What a typical response. Im well off in NYC. Sorry to say but if it weren't for Hollywood, beaches and mountains then LA would have nothing. There's a reason people steer away from placing LA as a solid second because it lacks sophistication, education, urban fabric, and so many other things. As for the mountains they are hideous and brown for months before the seasonal rains come through
That's an illogical statement. That's like saying if it weren't for The Golden Gate Bridge, beautiful architecture and good food, SF would be nothing. Or if it weren't for finance and media, NYC would be nothing. Provenance inextricably links why an industry florishes in that region, and vice versa.
You guys might have some fun with this link. I can't vouch for how accurate it is - as you will see some cities will lose to ones that you wouldn't think they would lose to. Still, it's pretty fun to play around with.
You guys might have some fun with this link. I can't vouch for how accurate it is - as you will see some cities will lose to ones that you wouldn't think they would lose to. Still, it's pretty fun to play around with.
You didn't think Philly would beat out Houston? Houston has a higher GDP and that's about all it beats Philly at... Houston has certainly grown a lot though and will continue to grow a lot and is certainly becoming one of my favorite Southern Cities.
You weren't supposed to look at just those two cities. Those were the last two that I put in the comparison list. Shame on you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Summersm343
You didn't think Philly would beat out Houston? Houston has a higher GDP and that's about all it beats Philly at... Houston has certainly grown a lot though and will continue to grow a lot and is certainly becoming one of my favorite Southern Cities.
Yes we know LA is big. Nobody is disputing its size. But if you are gonna claim that it's so much more important than Chicago you need to come up with more than that. The reality is that LA does many things reasonably well but excels at very few. It does not have world class architecture or nightlife or urban energy or museums. Its top art museum draws 1.2 million visitors a year. London has SEVEN museums that are more highly attended, Paris has 4 and even Madrid has 2.
Hence the point is made that for such a huge city LA is punching far below its weight. And that is why it doesn't get the kind of respect that a 15m+ metro area should.
Are you an art critic now? Given that you're using attendance figures to gauge the quality of museums, I doubt it. Regardless, L.A. has something like 300 museums scattered about, and has one of the top contemporary art scenes right now, so it's doing quite alright in that regard. Considering that there are more working artists here than any other city in the world, you might want to keep the focus on L.A.'s relative lack of white collar jobs anyway, because the city does not "punch below its weight" in culture and arts.
L.A. is also a powerhouse for modern architecture--some of the best architects and top schools are based here. You could not have highlighted your ignorance in this area any clearer.
Urban energy and nightlife--laughable criteria there. Where you in a stupor when you came up with that?
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 03-29-2012 at 12:02 AM..
What a typical response. Im well off in NYC. Sorry to say but if it weren't for Hollywood, beaches and mountains then LA would have nothing. There's a reason people steer away from placing LA as a solid second because it lacks sophistication, education, urban fabric, and so many other things. As for the mountains they are hideous and brown for months before the seasonal rains come through
Remove this, take away that, blah blah blah. There's a sound argument.
You probably think that riding around in a rat-infested subway is the epitome of the good life, so I'll take your comments about L.A.'s mountains with a grain of salt.
What a typical response. Im well off in NYC. Sorry to say but if it weren't for Hollywood, beaches and mountains then LA would have nothing. There's a reason people steer away from placing LA as a solid second because it lacks sophistication, education, urban fabric, and so many other things. As for the mountains they are hideous and brown for months before the seasonal rains come through
Yes we know LA is big. Nobody is disputing its size. But if you are gonna claim that it's so much more important than Chicago you need to come up with more than that. The reality is that LA does many things reasonably well but excels at very few. It does not have world class architecture or nightlife or urban energy or museums. Its top art museum draws 1.2 million visitors a year. London has SEVEN museums that are more highly attended, Paris has 4 and even Madrid has 2.
Hence the point is made that for such a huge city LA is punching far below its weight. And that is why it doesn't get the kind of respect that a 15m+ metro area should.
In terms of culture, LA lacks famous architecture. But it can be said that NY lacks important architecture. The only architecturally significant building in NYC is Wright's Guggenheim building. (please don't mention Chysler or Empire State Building which are landmarks, but not important works) Both Chicago AND LA surpass NYC in terms of important works by significant architects. Wright, Neutra, Koenig, Schindler, Eames, Greene, Van der Rohe can be split between both those cities in terms of their most significant works. The same simply cannot be said of NYC which is still waiting for a significantly building by a significant architect.
I also disagree that LA excels at few things. It excels at most artistic mediums and creative industries, such as music, tv, film, contemporary art. It also has some exceptional museums, even if NY's are more exceptional. In other words, weakness in museum attendance is far from an argument against LA's cultural life.
And then it excels at international trade, manufacturing, higher education, and aerospace.
This is why I'm not convinced by your argument, because that's more than a few.
There are things that LA lacks, but it's rather silly and biased to frame the discussion using criteria drawn from NY's strengths.
The criteria I listed are just examples. There are countless others. The point is that if you want to compete with big boys on the world stage -- NY, London, Paris and yes even Chicago -- you need to come up with more than just "LA is big and has a large manufacturing base". That's a laughable argument that won't convince a gullible 5 year old.
Los Angeles has the third largest metropolitan economy in the world, not three of the four "big boys" you listed, so I can definitely see how it has some catching up to do.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 03-29-2012 at 12:07 AM..
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.
