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.
The vast majority of Los Angeles City is not Wilshire Blvd lol. It's expanding at a faster rate because there's a lot more to expand... The Metro not very long ago was literally a "T".
Just like the vast majority of the Bay Area isn't SF. The vast majority of the Bay Area is sprawl, and lower density sprawl than LA. The only truly urban part of SF Bay is Market Street in SF, and it would honestly be just a non descript street in DTLA.
Quote:
that's what MUNI is for, and unlike LA regular buses actually make sense in SF thanks to it being much physically smaller.
LA MTA in DTLA and the rest of Central LA gets pretty good coverage, and even serves a huge chunk of the Westside and even Valley pretty well.
Quote:
The bolded is not true although it is actually fairly close. There's a decent sized Salvadorean community in San Francisco as well as Richmond and there's a Nicaraguan, Guatemalan and Peruvian population spread throughout the SF Peninsula but for the most part the Bay Area latino population is dominated by Mexicans.
The largest Salvadorians community in the US is in LA, then DC then NYC. SF is nowhere to be found. Same with Nicaraguans and Guatemalans.
Quote:
Koreans are definitely much more prevalent in LA but Indians are much more prevalent in the Bay Area; All of the cities with >10% indian populations are in Northern California.
There are more Indians here than there are Koreans up there. Not to mention Vietnamese and Filipinos.
Quote:
Fremont has the largest Afghan population outside of Afghanistan and there's quite a big Persian and Yemeni community here.
Source?
Quote:
LA's economy is far from great... it's been losing more households than anywhere else in the state (which of course is partly due to its population) and its been slow to rebound from the recession.
Yet by GDP la is so much larger than SF. Not to mention that lots of money comes out of LA to fund the rest of the state, especially win all the spending programs that Northern California seems to love. I'd hate to see how
Much CA would collapse without LA
Quote:
Seems pretty clear I've visited LA much more than you've visited up here.
Well considering I work a white collar job, I don't have oodles of time to visit every place on the planet. One trip to SF was all I needed to make my judgement.
Quote:
Lol please your entire thread is hating on the Bay Area.
Yet you still didn't answer my question
Last edited by Slayer of Lies; 02-15-2014 at 10:40 PM..
Just like the vast majority of the Bay Area isn't SF. The vast majority of the Bay Area is sprawl, and lower density sprawl than LA. The only truly urban part of SF Bay is Market Street in SF, and it would honestly be just a non descript street in DTLA.
Keep trolling
Quote:
Source?
Look it up yourself.
Quote:
Yet by GDP la is so much larger than SF. Not to mention that lots of money comes out of LA to fund the rest of the state
Still doesn't change that unemployment is significantly worse in LA
Quote:
Well considering I work a white collar job, I don't have oodles of time to visit every place on the planet. One trip to SF was all I needed to make my judgement.
Lol
Quote:
Yet you still didn't answer my question...
Let me ask a question: why do Northern Californians hate LA so much? Is it because of water? Is it because LA is in the spotlight more? The inferiority complex is quite annoying considering tha we don't reciprocate the hatred
If we were to go only by your metrics, OP, why in the world would you ever leave NYC? NYC's GDP crushes LA's. It's economy is stronger and more diverse. Its more ethnically diverse (LA has a higher percentage of foreign born, but NYC has a greater diversity of foreign born,) more urban, better transit, more cosmopolitan, etc., etc. Can you see how ridiculous you sound?
It's great that you love LA, and that you're happy there but please take off the blinders. Outside of a few choice areas, LA is sprawl. You're confusing sprawl with country and suburban. LA is a sprawling urban area. Period. SF is the denser, more walkable and transit friendly city. Add the beautiful natural setting, lower crime rate, booming economy, cleaner urbanscape, and it's understandable why many people will prefer SF.
P.S. LA will never rival NYC in the future, but rest assured its place as America's second city is secure for the foreseeable future.
LA was never meant to be NYC. It's a streetcar city without its streetcar; a once massive streetcar network that connected hundreds of bedroom communities together. Outside of Downtown LA (about 3 square miles of that being "urban" in the traditional sense) and LA's boulevards (Wilshire, Hollywood, and Sunset) LA is mostly a collection of bedroom communities. By design, it will never be more walkable than SF until LA restores it's streetcar system.
As far as preference goes, I find them tied. I personally wouldn't want to live in the city proper of either city but rather in their neighboring cities.
Economically, SF Bay seems to be a one trick pony while LA is much more well rounded. Without tech, SF Bay would barely be anything. If all of a sudden tech picks up and leaves SF Bay, it could literally be the Western version of Detroit.
Yea, tech might get all the news but the metro has an economy as diverse as any other. It is more like: "it has a diverse economy--plus just happens to have tons of high technology"
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.