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.
I think it's difficult to try and describe what ALL urbanites are looking for. I find it more than hilarious that you believe the qualities that urbanites look for match perfectly with qualities that New York has. If all urbanites desired thousands of mostly bland skyscrapers, filthy public transportation, tired saxophone players in Central Park, and annoying subway performers trying to siphon money out of your pockets by putting on some crappy performance, we'd all live in New York. Based on your post, it's a wonder that urbanites in San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle, Portland, and Denver aren't tripping over and stomping each other to death in an attempt to get the unearthly experience of living in the urban paradise that is New York .
Los Angeles, with its old, congested freeways, horrendous inland pollution, extreme crime rate, constant severe earthquake risk, is still appealing to some. Mixed into all of that you have world-class museums, dense skyscrapers in downtown LA, a few walkable neighborhoods, a subway system, street vendors, and diversity that surpasses any area of New York, with the exception of Queens. On top of that you have nice beaches, numerous recreational areas within a very short distance, and nice year-round weather.
You mention that urbanites don't care about recreation - such as mountain, forests, and beaches. I guess that's why so many New Yorkers frequent Central Park , or flee to the Hamptons, Montauk, Riis and Jones beaches, the Jersey Shore, Martha's Vineyard, the Poconos, and Maine on a regular basis.
I still find it interesting that you, yourself, are a suburban resident, but you have appointed yourself as the spokesman for urbanism. I have lived in Brooklyn, and believe me, Scarsdale isn't on anyone's radar. You certainly don't speak for all New Yorkers. For me, the West coast is truly the best coast.
See, I can respect you. You have good points, unlike Milquetoast who is incapable of respecting a city that is greatly responsible for the growth of Los Angeles during the “Roaring 20s.”
Dense skyscrapers downtown? Are we talking about LA? You know the city whose downtown is about as spread out as a downtown could possibly get?
A FEW walkable neighborhoods… Exactly my point. EVERY neighborhood in NYC is walkable. Angelenos have to hop in their car and drive somewhere in order to take a walk in the city. This is what suburbanites do!
That diversity statement made me laugh. I’ve done research and found that Manhattan does indeed have more ethnicities and cultures than all of Los Angeles County. Same goes for Brooklyn. Staten Island and the Bronx, not so much.
And according to recent internet searches, there are no beaches within the City of Los Angeles. So you can throw that claim out the window.
We do care about recreation, but not in our city so much. A park is nice here and there, but Central Park is unlike any other park in any other city. It has a uniqueness and charming vibe to it. With views of all the historical skyscrapers surrounding it, with sax players on the park bench, with people feeding the ducks, with street performers break dancing, with street vendors serving hot dawgs. It doesn’t get any more fun, urban, unique, and full of character than that.
The West pleases you, but it doesn’t appeal to TRUE urbanites. New Yorkers and Chicagoans are urbanies. Angelenos are suburbanites. When an Angeleno dogs NYC, it’s always about the density. When a New Yorker dogs LA, it’s always about the sprawl. New Yorkers are urban, Angelenos are suburban. End of story. No argument.
And don’t assume I’m in favor of suburbia. I can’t stand it. I’m a city kid, I want skyscrapers, attitude, architecture, etc. Not endless sprawl that LA beholds.
See, I can respect you. You have good points, unlike Milquetoast who is incapable of respecting a city that is greatly responsible for the growth of Los Angeles during the “Roaring 20s.”
Dense skyscrapers downtown? Are we talking about LA? You know the city whose downtown is about as spread out as a downtown could possibly get?
A FEW walkable neighborhoods… Exactly my point. EVERY neighborhood in NYC is walkable. Angelenos have to hop in their car and drive somewhere in order to take a walk in the city. This is what suburbanites do!
That diversity statement made me laugh. I’ve done research and found that Manhattan does indeed have more ethnicities and cultures than all of Los Angeles County. Same goes for Brooklyn. Staten Island and the Bronx, not so much.
And according to recent internet searches, there are no beaches within the City of Los Angeles. So you can throw that claim out the window.
We do care about recreation, but not in our city so much. A park is nice here and there, but Central Park is unlike any other park in any other city. It has a uniqueness and charming vibe to it. With views of all the historical skyscrapers surrounding it, with sax players on the park bench, with people feeding the ducks, with street performers break dancing, with street vendors serving hot dawgs. It doesn’t get any more fun, urban, unique, and full of character than that.
The West pleases you, but it doesn’t appeal to TRUE urbanites. New Yorkers and Chicagoans are urbanies. Angelenos are suburbanites. When an Angeleno dogs NYC, it’s always about the density. When a New Yorker dogs LA, it’s always about the sprawl. New Yorkers are urban, Angelenos are suburban. End of story. No argument.
And don’t assume I’m in favor of suburbia. I can’t stand it. I’m a city kid, I want skyscrapers, attitude, architecture, etc. Not endless sprawl that LA beholds.
I'm starting to really doubt that you've ever been west of the Hudson River. Yes, Los Angeles has a dense downtown. Los Angeles is actually the densest metropolitan area in the entire country. Out West, a Paradox: Densely Packed Sprawl. Los Angeles may be the king of sprawl, but it's dense sprawl, nonetheless. It shouldn't be a surprise to you why so many movies and commercials that are supposedly New York are actually set in downtown LA.
Building Los Angeles in the same form as Manhattan would be pure and utter stupidity. Los Angeles has a extreme severe earthquake risk. Putting up thousands of 60 floor skyscrapers would not be smart. Let me ask you this. If there were to be a magnitude 7.3 earthquake, would you want to be in a skyscraper?? I think not. Low-rise buildings are smart for the environment Los Angeles is in. And it seems as though Los Angeles is utilizing every inch of possible land to cram in buildings. Same for Phoenix. It is MUCH cheaper and less wasteful to cool a low rise building than it is a high-rise. If Phoenix was packed with 800 foot buildings, an enormous amount of energy would have to be used to cool those buildings, with extreme cost. New York is different. The fact that Manhattan and Staten Island are on islands, and Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx and surrounded by suburbs, it would make sense that there are a lot of skyscrapers. There's absolutely no room for New York to expand, even if it wanted to. Additionally, there are no natural disasters that would deter the city from putting up tall buildings. You certainly cannot judge people's levels of urbanity based on the appearance of their cities.
Miami-Dade, Queens, and Los Angeles counties are the most diverse in the United States. I would love to see your link showing that Brooklyn and Manhattan are more diverse the Los Angeles COUNTY of all places. Official stats aren't given showing the most diverse cities in the country. Until you can prove that New York is the most diverse, which you can't, your argument is pretty much null. I've heard claims of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Miami all being the most diverse cities. Who truly knows? Just claiming that New York is the most diverse city just becuase is not a valid argument, and one that I will not accept. With such hatred and lack of knowledge about Los Angeles, I can't truly expect you to come up with rational claims.
People go to Central Park for other reasons than to get a different vantage point of buildings, watching fools breakdance, or twist their bodies into weird contortions, or people doing flips up and down the playground for 5 cents. They go to feed the ducks, be surrounded by trees, and get a rural, pastoral feeling.
Every neighborhood IS NOT walkable in New York. Have you ever been to southern Staten Island and eastern Queens by Nassau County? Woodhaven? Forest Park? Those aren't walkable neighborhoods. I will openly admit that you have to use your car A LOT more in Los Angeles than New York. However, that's part of low-rise sprawl. Everything can't be close by and effectively served by public transportation. Los Angeles still manages to be considered a world-class city.
Los Angeles does have beaches. Ever heard of Venice Beach? That little beach that's featured in a one or two movies, and is shown on TV ever now and then? Guess not. This, in and of itself, shows me that you don't know anything about Los Angeles.
I think it's utterly egregious that you claim that the West does not attract "true urbanites." Have you ever been to San Francisco. No. San Francisco is the densest city in this country.
Your claim about me not be a true urbanite is correct. I would rather live in some clean, new, sprawling suburb than some jam packed, old, filthy city.
Central Park is the ultimate 'fake' park in the country. That land was supposed to be an airport, but it was designed otherwise. Penned in from all sides by the 'concrete' bars of buildings, Central is being held prisoner by its own design and location. I think it's a great accomplishment; if you had to design something like that, you would hope for that kind of result. Still, like Hollywood, it's fake! It's a fake development. Designed to look and feel real. Like Hollywood, see? You are a kid. You don't see the bigger picture yet. Now, if you can only tell the idiots of your generation to keep the noise down in the park so the carraige horses don't kill themselves by bolting and running into trees, I would agree that Central Park is an agreeable place to spend one's afternoon. Rather be at the beach, dude, and that is where L. A. kicks NY's little ass.
That land was supposed to be an airport, but it was designed otherwise. Penned in from all sides by the 'concrete' bars of buildings, Central is being held prisoner by its own design and location.
An airport? That's the first time I've heard that. Are West Coasters this preposterous? This park was completed before the airplane was invented and it was laid out by Olmsted before the Civil War. What park in the West is as world-famous as Central Park? None.
That "penned in" park is what I call Civilized Nature. You see I don't like wild spaces. I prefer planned spaces. New York, Chicago, and a few selected major cities have parks planned by Olmsted and his contemporaries.
[quote=KerrTown;1696297]An airport? That's the first time I've heard that.
That "penned in" park is what I call Civilized Nature. QUOTE]
There's a first time for everything Futur- ..I mean, Kerry! I was in error, slightly. What I meant to state, is that after it was developed, it was favored to be turned into an airport for NY. I guess it was that beloved. August 5th, 1927, NYTimes: "Site offers pour into airport board; Nearly all possibleland, but Central Park is suggested by local groups and realtors." If you knew anything about the nature of things, you would realize that "Civilized Nature" is a contradiction. Nature is taken out of the equation. What da ya got in NY, squirrels? L. A. is surrounded by fox, squirrels, chipmunks, possum, eagles, raccoons, quail, bears, deer, wildcats like bobcats and cougars, and in the ocean, everything from dolphins to sting-rays to swordfish to gray and blue whales! Actually, a perfect analogy for diversity and definition; NY and the east coast being staid and 'civilized', L. A. and the west being 'wild'and diverse!
Some of those pics prove my point. Los Angeles is unattractive to the true urbanite. It's attractive to the suburbanite (not really), but to a TRUE ubranite, it's the last place we'd live in. Look at the sprawl, you even posted a pic of TRAFFIC, you posted scenery (which I said was nice earlier).
But let's be serious, what do people go to a city for? They go to experience a mother****ing CITY! Not to hike in the damn woods, not to watch deer, not to go to the fricking beach. We go to experience the hustle and bustle of people, not cows. We want skyscrapers, architecture, history, walkability, density, diversity, public transportation, street vendors on every corner, street performers at the subway station, a saxophone player in Central Park, business people carrying their brief case WALKING to work, etc. This is exactly why NYC is the place to be for the urbanite. This is exactly why this forum is "bias" towards East Coast cities. This is a forum urban lovers go to. You want to glorify Los Angeles? Head over to the E! forums, head over to the Soccer Mom forums. But no matter what, NYC and Chicago will always be glorified and dominate city forums.
What you just described can be found in any of the major west coast cities including Los Angeles. I am one who's lived in New York, D.C., Newark NJ, Los Angeles and now Seattle. West coast all the way for me. We know NY is the place or urban lovers. But so is Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, Portland and Los Angeles imo. Believe me I love NY but there are so many other cities out there for urban lovers besides NY. I definately live it and I think, or rather hope you know it too.
Because of the extreme inaccuracies about Los Angeles. Additionally, Los Angeles is not old and filthy like most East Coast cities.
Extreme inaccuracies (LA) okay. But 'old and filthy' (east coast cities) sounds like the very same inaccurate statements you protest. Anyone can say that about just about Anycity, USA. It is merely a matter of opinion
There's a first time for everything Futur- ..I mean, Kerry! I was in error, slightly. What I meant to state, is that after it was developed, it was favored to be turned into an airport for NY. I guess it was that beloved. August 5th, 1927, NYTimes: "Site offers pour into airport board; Nearly all possibleland, but Central Park is suggested by local groups and realtors." If you knew anything about the nature of things, you would realize that "Civilized Nature" is a contradiction. Nature is taken out of the equation. What da ya got in NY, squirrels? L. A. is surrounded by fox, squirrels, chipmunks, possum, eagles, raccoons, quail, bears, deer, wildcats like bobcats and cougars, and in the ocean, everything from dolphins to sting-rays to swordfish to gray and blue whales! Actually, a perfect analogy for diversity and definition; NY and the east coast being staid and 'civilized', L. A. and the west being 'wild'and diverse!
By that time that was written, the park was completed 55 years ago. Why would you turn a beloved 55 year old park into an airport?
"Civilized Nature" is what I call the atmosphere of planned parks. The lakes, gardens, woods, paths, statues is what I call civilized. I don't want animals around that would hurt me. This is why I prefer the East--older and more settled and thus more safer. The 'Wild' West was full of lawlessness and barbarity.
"Civilized Nature" Hermann Park, Houston (I wish we had more parks like this around town like in Northern Cities):
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.
. 
