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 this is mostly accurate. But does the emboldened not help contribute to a unique type of vibrancy, accessible within an urban environment not as readily available other places? It's very common for locals to divide a Saturday along the lines of: hiking Santa Monicas in the morning, visiting LACMA in the afternoon, taking in any form of entertainment imaginable at night, with at least one meal/drink stop somewhere along the way. During each of those experiences, one will encounter many different ambulating humans, from all walks of life, all in very different contexts. Together, it's vibrant. But you need to engage the place on its own terms and be willing to temporarily put aside your pre-conception of "vibrancy". Again, I agree with most of your premises, but what I described above leaves one energized, and experienced within an undeniable, albeit unconventional, urban setting.
This is an awesome post. I pretty much agree with everything you say. It is not fair to use the dynamic of New York to assess L.A. There is a lot of vibrancy in L.A. I do see that. I could live the rest of my life in L.A. and be happy. I'm a bass fisherman, and I could make day trips to Castaic to fish for lunkers. I have an advanced degree in marine biology. Splashing around after grunion and looking at the interesting fishies brought up on the S.M. pier would be right up my alley. I live to hike. I love ethnic food. The list goes on and on. Hollywood and the film industry are obviously unique in the world. Because I love all those things, I might choose to live in L.A. over New York, even though New York is more vibrant to me, at least on the level of the street.
The only thing I'm not sure about is how much of the L.A. metro it's fair to collect and say, "This all counts," especially given the lack of a great public transportation system (in my eyes--I know there's probably a concocted stat somewhere that says L.A. public transportation is great). Here's what I mean. Way back when, when my friends and I were YUMPIES (Young Unemployed Mountain People Into Extreme Sports) in Boulder, Colorado, a common question we asked ourselves was, "Should we live in Boulder or the mountains?" A common answer we gave ourselves was, "It doesn't matter. If you live in Boulder, you just go to the mountains when you want. If you live in the mountains, you just go to Boulder when you want." Except that turned out not to be true. Amazingly enough, when you lived in Boulder, you actually lived in Boulder, and made it to mountains far less than if you lived in the mountains. And vice versa.
Now recently I had the opportunity to try and drive back to Phoenix from Malibu at 5:00 P.M. on a weekday. I won't bother describing the first couple of hours of my journey, because I'm sure you know how it went. My conclusion was that if I lived in Malibu, I would not be able to leave the house on a whim to eat in any of the great little hole in the wall Asian eateries I remembered in Alhambra (are they still there?). I just wouldn't. So were I to live in Malibu, while I might wave my arms and try to convince out of town visitors that those great little Asian eateries as well as all of the entire L.A. metropolitan area for a fair piece down the coast and even backing up to Palm Springs was at my beck and all, that just wouldn't be true. I would be kind of fibbin'. The truth would be that by picking Malibu, I'd be picking a place to make my stand. And that's how I see L.A. Yes, it's all there, sort of. But how do you get to it? Proximity and transportation and just the bother of it all count. It's a real world thing, you know?
Of course, there are far, far, far worses than Malibu to pick to make a stand, or Pasadena, or Santa Monica, and so on. Those places are vibrant, and cool, and you can get to other stuff in the L.A. metro area from time to time, I know that, especially if you can pick and choose when to travel. We don't have anything in Phoenix that can match any of those places, except maybe Scottsdale, but... nah. So I will recognize the greatness of the L.A. metro area. However, I don't think it's fair to count all of those smaller urban cores and more within a certain radius of central L.A. and say, "This all belongs to me, and anyone else who lives in L.A." No, it doesn't. Just the little piece you live in and can manage to reasonably reach in your car is yours. It's your home range. And if your home range in L.A. is huge, then you spend too much time in your car and I'm not sure your lifestyle is vibrant anymore. New York is much more compact, and has a great transportation system to whisk you wherever you want in the city, and as a result the streets are full of people. The whole thing is centered, if you will. That said, I'll end where I started. L.A. is an awesome place, and I might well choose to live there instead of New York. I'll buy your argument that L.A. is vibrant. But it does take a little work to understand it.
We are talking cities right? Not metro's. Don't know how a metro is vibrant.
Speaking here in Chicagoland, not much vibrancy in the burbs. Naperville, Oak Park, Evanston most vibrant downtowns, but most downtowns are not vibrant, but more cutesy along the metra train tracks like the western, south suburban, and north suburban. A lot of character in the towns all the way from LaGrange to the Fox Valley area.
Again not vibrant, but full of character.
I have been all over L.A. and their is no vibrancy like Rush hour in the Union Station/Ogolvie train stations, loop during rush hour, Michigan Ave in Dec or summer months.
It is not a "knock" against L.A., they are just two completely different cities. Like there is no place like Time Square in Chicago. I know everyone hates Time Square with the TGI Fridays and Ruby Tuesdays, but their is no foot traffic like it in the U.S.
Again, to me L.A. is not vibrant, L.A. the city. Chicago is, NYC is a clear No. 1 winner, with Boston, Philly, Wash DC, San Fran.
L.A. is a beautiful city with its metro area endless. Their is a reason so many people moved west starting in the 60s. Beautiful weather, scenery, etc. And yes it is known more than Chicago worldwide for one word, Hollywood
And L.A. has a huuuuuge(borrow from Donald Trump) economy outside Hollywood, from the ports, etc.
Hope made myself clear, I never bash cities and don't want to sound like I am. Chicago more vibrant in the city, L.A. more natural beauty, better weather, etc.
This is an awesome post. I pretty much agree with everything you say. It is not fair to use the dynamic of New York to assess L.A. There is a lot of vibrancy in L.A. I do see that. I could live the rest of my life in L.A. and be happy. I'm a bass fisherman, and I could make day trips to Castaic to fish for lunkers. I have an advanced degree in marine biology. Splashing around after grunion and looking at the interesting fishies brought up on the S.M. pier would be right up my alley. I live to hike. I love ethnic food. The list goes on and on. Hollywood and the film industry are obviously unique in the world. Because I love all those things, I might choose to live in L.A. over New York, even though New York is more vibrant to me, at least on the level of the street.
The only thing I'm not sure about is how much of the L.A. metro it's fair to collect and say, "This all counts," especially given the lack of a great public transportation system (in my eyes--I know there's probably a concocted stat somewhere that says L.A. public transportation is great). Here's what I mean. Way back when, when my friends and I were YUMPIES (Young Unemployed Mountain People Into Extreme Sports) in Boulder, Colorado, a common question we asked ourselves was, "Should we live in Boulder or the mountains?" A common answer we gave ourselves was, "It doesn't matter. If you live in Boulder, you just go to the mountains when you want. If you live in the mountains, you just go to Boulder when you want." Except that turned out not to be true. Amazingly enough, when you lived in Boulder, you actually lived in Boulder, and made it to mountains far less than if you lived in the mountains. And vice versa.
Now recently I had the opportunity to try and drive back to Phoenix from Malibu at 5:00 P.M. on a weekday. I won't bother describing the first couple of hours of my journey, because I'm sure you know how it went. My conclusion was that if I lived in Malibu, I would not be able to leave the house on a whim to eat in any of the great little hole in the wall Asian eateries I remembered in Alhambra (are they still there?). I just wouldn't. So were I to live in Malibu, while I might wave my arms and try to convince out of town visitors that those great little Asian eateries as well as all of the entire L.A. metropolitan area for a fair piece down the coast and even backing up to Palm Springs was at my beck and all, that just wouldn't be true. I would be kind of fibbin'. The truth would be that by picking Malibu, I'd be picking a place to make my stand. And that's how I see L.A. Yes, it's all there, sort of. But how do you get to it? Proximity and transportation and just the bother of it all count. It's a real world thing, you know?
Of course, there are far, far, far worses than Malibu to pick to make a stand, or Pasadena, or Santa Monica, and so on. Those places are vibrant, and cool, and you can get to other stuff in the L.A. metro area from time to time, I know that, especially if you can pick and choose when to travel. We don't have anything in Phoenix that can match any of those places, except maybe Scottsdale, but... nah. So I will recognize the greatness of the L.A. metro area. However, I don't think it's fair to count all of those smaller urban cores and more within a certain radius of central L.A. and say, "This all belongs to me, and anyone else who lives in L.A." No, it doesn't. Just the little piece you live in and can manage to reasonably reach in your car is yours. It's your home range. And if your home range in L.A. is huge, then you spend too much time in your car and I'm not sure your lifestyle is vibrant anymore. New York is much more compact, and has a great transportation system to whisk you wherever you want in the city, and as a result the streets are full of people. The whole thing is centered, if you will. That said, I'll end where I started. L.A. is an awesome place, and I might well choose to live there instead of New York. I'll buy your argument that L.A. is vibrant. But it does take a little work to understand it.
Fortunately our transportation is getting there although at a snail's pace, the thing I was trying to say earlier was that many people judge LA from far away places, OC, SFV, SGV, IE, etc. How many tourists do you see in the core of Los Angeles vs Hollywood, W Hollywood, SaMo, Venice, West LA, Universal Studio, Anaheim? To be honest I wouldn't even recommend Central LA to a tourist since there's nothing really special about it and very rough around the edges, if they want that urban old school (by American standards) experience there's better cities in this country to give you that, SF, Chicago, and of course New York, I can fully agree to this, but to say the place is lifeless and lacking vibrancy because you spent your whole time at Disneyland is an insult to those of us who know the city.
We are talking cities right? Not metro's. Don't know how a metro is vibrant.
Speaking here in Chicagoland, not much vibrancy in the burbs. Naperville, Oak Park, Evanston most vibrant downtowns, but most downtowns are not vibrant, but more cutesy along the metra train tracks like the western, south suburban, and north suburban. A lot of character in the towns all the way from LaGrange to the Fox Valley area.
Again not vibrant, but full of character.
I have been all over L.A. and their is no vibrancy like Rush hour in the Union Station/Ogolvie train stations, loop during rush hour, Michigan Ave in Dec or summer months.
It is not a "knock" against L.A., they are just two completely different cities. Like there is no place like Time Square in Chicago. I know everyone hates Time Square with the TGI Fridays and Ruby Tuesdays, but their is no foot traffic like it in the U.S.
Again, to me L.A. is not vibrant, L.A. the city. Chicago is, NYC is a clear No. 1 winner, with Boston, Philly, Wash DC, San Fran.
L.A. is a beautiful city with its metro area endless. Their is a reason so many people moved west starting in the 60s. Beautiful weather, scenery, etc. And yes it is known more than Chicago worldwide for one word, Hollywood
And L.A. has a huuuuuge(borrow from Donald Trump) economy outside Hollywood, from the ports, etc.
Hope made myself clear, I never bash cities and don't want to sound like I am. Chicago more vibrant in the city, L.A. more natural beauty, better weather, etc.
Yes at the core Chicago is undeniably bigger and more vibrant, as the entire city I will in my bias observations give the nod to LA, as a metro is where LA really pulls away, and yes Metro's can be vibrant ever heard of Tokyo? Sao Paulo? Just because the majority of Chicagoland is snoreville doesn't mean every other metro is the same.
LOL. Sorry I have already graduated past the 8th grade, so you will excuse me if I can't "debate" at your level anymore. Besides, your posts themselves are technically serving as my "comeback" if you're catching my drift.
Anyways, right now I'm just sort of bemused and laughing about how posters like you are actually trying to sell metros, which are like what 70-80% suburbia (probably still being generous there) as urban...something no actual urban resident in their right mind would ever do or even consider.
I would love to hear some explanations as to what exactly makes them so "urban" as you say.
Yes at the core Chicago is undeniably bigger and more vibrant, as the entire city I will in my bias observations give the nod to LA, as a metro is where LA really pulls away, and yes Metro's can be vibrant ever heard of Tokyo? Sao Paulo? Just because the majority of Chicagoland is snoreville doesn't mean every other metro is the same.
I have never been to Sao Paulo so I can't comment on it directly. But logic would indicate a lot of it's areas are 3rd world, not uncommon for lots of countries down below in Latin America. And 3rd world density/vibrancy makes most cities in the first world look sleepy. I have however been to Tokyo which falls in the first world. Yes, Tokyo outskirts compared to all other outskirts in the US including NYC is a lot more dense/vibrant. But they are still not very urban at all in reality.
Basically, what you are doing with all this metro bragging is the equivalent of beefing up at best a good minor league hitter, and pretending like he does well in the Majors. On a side note, there are a lot more urban cores in the world than Tokyo btw, including NYC.
And lastly, you aren't talking about Tokyo, the mammoth sized city of East Asia. You are talking about LA, which will remain American no matter how many people of Mexican descent you throw in there. And it's outskirts are still very sleepy whether you want to admit it or not. I will wait for the fallacy filled responses about how puny little 80k cities like Santa Monica says otherwise though. Which in itself gets really overrated for urbanity by you lot, if we are being honest.
LOL. Sorry I have already graduated past the 8th grade, so you will excuse me if I can't "debate" at your level anymore. Besides, your posts themselves are technically serving as my "comeback" if your catching my drift.
Anyways, right now I'm just sort of bemused and laughing about how posters like you are actually trying to sell metros, which are like what 70-80% suburbia (probably still being generous there) as urban...something no actual urban resident in their right mind would ever do or even consider.
I would love to hear some explanations as to what exactly makes them so "urban" as you say.
I have never been to Sao Paulo so I can't comment on it directly. But logic would indicate a lot of it's areas are 3rd world, not uncommon for lots of countries down below in Latin America. And 3rd world density/vibrancy makes most cities in the first world look sleepy. I have however been to Tokyo which falls in the first world. Yes, Tokyo outskirts compared to all other outskirts in the US including NYC is a lot more dense/vibrant. But they are still not very urban at all in reality.
Basically, what you are doing with all this metro bragging is the equivalent of beefing up a good minor league hitter, and pretending like he does well in the Majors. On a side note, there are a lot more urban cores than Tokyo btw, including NYC.
And lastly, you aren't talking about. Tokyo, the mammoth sized city of East Asia. You are talking about LA, which will remain American no matter how many people of Mexican descent you throw in there. And it's outskirts are still very sleepy whether you want to admit it or not. I will wait for the fallacy filled responses about how puny little 80k cities like Santa Monica says otherwise though. Which in itself gets really overrated for urbanity by you lot, if we are being honest.
Lol ok so the outskirts are sleepy Chicagoland outskirts look something like this:
Yeeeeehaaaaw!!! At least you boys know how to have fun out there.
Ahhhh...internet troll then. You see now it just feels silly that I even wasted my time with this.
Yes good sir, your metro filled with mostly suburbia just like every other place in the country, is quite sleepy compared to any real urban place. But if it makes you feel better, your burbs do have higher density in general than other places, since your type obviously needs just about anything you can get to boast about. It can be the great LA tradition of bragging about high density suburbs LOL. It will be another one of those things you only see in citydata.
On a more serious note, going by experience of visits there rather than actual data, I believe LA's suburbia actually has higher density because it's more continuous and kind of never-ending in a way on a weighted density level, where as other suburbia around the country tends to have large clusters of minor gaps. I guess I will have to look at census tracts or something to confirm the actual story.
Oh and nice summary of Donald Trump supporters with that pic . I don't think Chicago has very many of them though.
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.
Chicagoland outskirts look something like this:
. I don't think Chicago has very many of them though.
