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.
Let's be real... East coasters and nor cal people do have a bias against LA in almost everything, not just urbanity. Actually anybody who doesn't live in Los Angeles or Visted and stayed on the westside have a huge bias against LA. I think it's really wierd.
Yeah, seems we do this topic every couple of months. The results are always the same.
The original post states that NYC is obviously top.
One of the first 3 posts states this is a ****ty topic that has been done before.
2-5 is some mix of Chi, SF, PHILLY, BOS. With a bunch of posters arguing their city is the clear 2nd after NYC.
DC is always 6th. With people arguing whether DC is the least urban of the CHI-BOS tier or a tier below. DC boosters always say the city is blowing up and will soon be much more urban. Then someone mentions federal spending being out of control.
LA is always ranked somewhere between 2-7 with no clear consensus. Boosters point out its large population living in high density neighborhoods. Detractors retort it is too decentralized and auto-centric. Then LA booster accuse people of having an east coast bias.
Seattle and Baltimore are usually in the top 10. People point to Seattle's rapid growth and vibrant downtown. Then people argue it isn't really urban outside downtown. People mention Baltimore's miles of row houses. Then someone says the city is in decline or crime ridden.
Miami gets some mentions. Then a bunch of people come in saying its not urban despite its density. Someone posts a google maps link showing a street with no sidewalk and an empty lot next to tall buildings.
Someone ranks New Orleans in the top 5. Then a bunch of people say it isn't urban outside the French quarter.
Portland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis are occasionally mentioned in the lower part of people's top 10 lists. Someone works in a crack about Portland being a home for art school potheads, not a major city. The other's basically get left alone as long as they're below the top 6.
Someone ranks Atlanta in the top 10. This sets off a mini-**** storm. Then Atlanta boosters retort how can an area of millions of people not be urban and accuse the forum of being biased in favor of the same 5 or 6 cities in every thread.
Some posters try to dig up some statistics on pop density, walk scores, transit usage. Then posters argue the lists are flawed, the data is bad/their city is unfairly screwed on the ranking.
Then the thread goes off topic when posters start arguing that everyone is out to get their city or city X is a ****hole. There is a spike in posts with and condescending uses of .
One of the last 3 posts state this is a ****ty, subjective topic and they are done with city data and will never reply to poster X ever again.
Eventually the thread dies out and a couple months later a modified version of the thread is created and all the same posters reappear.
Looks good to me.
May want to add a part that says:
"D.C. boosters get offended and begin defending the city after countless posts with misinformation overrun the thread causing more countless posts trying to set the record straight with facts and truth."
This thread is a perfect example of that. At some point, people will stop commenting on things they haven't researched especially when they no longer live in that city leaving them completely out of the loop.
Let's be real... East coasters and nor cal people do have a bias against LA in almost everything, not just urbanity. Actually anybody who doesn't live in Los Angeles or Visted and stayed on the westside have a huge bias against LA. I think it's really wierd.
I guess for me it's not that there is a bias (though it can exist in some posters for sure) but that LA more than many other cities needs to be experienced first hand and not through a superficial typical tourist experience or photos or Google maps. Because the built form, while not bad by US standards, do not totally fit the standards of what most consider to be urban so I do get where many people are coming from. In fact, I held these beliefs having lived in Boston and only really experiencing LA in a skin-deep, superficial manner.
What I mean when I say that LA needs to be experienced is that even in the autocentric parts of the core, the city just feels alive. For instance, I went to a party a few weeks ago on Temple in Westlake / Echo Park. Temple is a pretty banal street, mostly liquor stores, auto shops and some strip malls. I wouldn't call it walkable and on first glance it even appears suburban.
However, I arrived at about 10 pm on a Saturday and the neighborhood was just blowing up. Tons of pedestrians, food trucks and gnarly family shopping-cart hot dog and tsco grills, impromptu stands selling Spanish language CDs, a nightclub in a building that looks abandoned during the day. Every house had people sitting in the stoops hanging out with their families and friends (sort of like the lauded stoop culture of NYC/PHI only with 15 feet of grass between me and the residents). So I guess it is this intangible energy LA has that really elevates its urban ranking in my eyes. It is pretty hard, of not impossible to quantify on a message board though.
I guess for me it's not that there is a bias (though it can exist in some posters for sure) but that LA more than many other cities needs to be experienced first hand and not through a superficial typical tourist experience or photos or Google maps. Because the built form, while not bad by US standards, do not totally fit the standards of what most consider to be urban so I do get where many people are coming from. In fact, I held these beliefs having lived in Boston and only really experiencing LA in a skin-deep, superficial manner.
What I mean when I say that LA needs to be experienced is that even in the autocentric parts of the core, the city just feels alive. For instance, I went to a party a few weeks ago on Temple in Westlake / Echo Park. Temple is a pretty banal street, mostly liquor stores, auto shops and some strip malls. I wouldn't call it walkable and on first glance it even appears suburban.
However, I arrived at about 10 pm on a Saturday and the neighborhood was just blowing up. Tons of pedestrians, food trucks and gnarly family shopping-cart hot dog and tsco grills, impromptu stands selling Spanish language CDs, a nightclub in a building that looks abandoned during the day. Every house had people sitting in the stoops hanging out with their families and friends (sort of like the lauded stoop culture of NYC/PHI only with 15 feet of grass between me and the residents). So I guess it is this intangible energy LA has that really elevates its urban ranking in my eyes. It is pretty hard, of not impossible to quantify on a message board though.
Yes! It's just weird...and not really the outsiders view of LA. If you live in LA long enough you realize it is way more complicated than it initially seems. I'm sure it's not NYC complex, but there is a reason it is regarded in such high esteem by some people. When I lived away people were certain that LA had no culture and LA is this way and that way. Like, how would you know if you just visited a friend or family on vacation? People have been living here all their lives and are still discovering things they bypassed. I don't know. LA is way deeper than people give it credit for but nobody wants to admit it.
But to the original topic... Manhattan for the city Life, West side LA for the lifestyle.
However, I arrived at about 10 pm on a Saturday and the neighborhood was just blowing up. Tons of pedestrians, food trucks and gnarly family shopping-cart hot dog and tsco grills, impromptu stands selling Spanish language CDs, a nightclub in a building that looks abandoned during the day. Every house had people sitting in the stoops hanging out with their families and friends (sort of like the lauded stoop culture of NYC/PHI only with 15 feet of grass between me and the residents). So I guess it is this intangible energy LA has that really elevates its urban ranking in my eyes. It is pretty hard, of not impossible to quantify on a message board though.
Do they really call stairs "stoops" in Los Angeles? The house I grew up in had "stairs" or "steps." We never said stoop.
Looking at this thread, LA and DC forumers have a definite "persecution complex".
No, LA, no one is out to get you. We know LA, you're just mad we know LA so well.
No, DC, you aren't a mini NYC. Great town, but give me a break already.
So, I think it’s time to clarify what people are talking about when we say D.C. is attacked. This is not really about one particular thread; this is a theme on this forum. Many threads throughout this forum talk about development and the things happening across the country. During the recession, Washington D.C. was the only city that continued to boom as other cities were brought to their knees by the recession. As projects moved forward in Washington D.C., posters from D.C. would talk about all of the amazing things happening in the city from a development standpoint. Posters from other cities, knowing that the government was recession proof, began to get sick to their stomach. The fact that a city was booming largely because of government spending while the entire country struggled infuriated people. Many times, other cities would post projects across the nation getting applause and cheers, while D.C.’s projects would receive jealousy and resentment.
Should we have tapered our excitement about the mega development happening in Washington D.C.? Probably considering the circumstances, however, Washington D.C. was hit harder than any city in the nation with violence for decades. We held the murder capital title for over 10 years. This city sat vacant and blighted since 1964 when the entire city was brought to its knees by the Martin Luther King Jr. assassination riots. This is the most prosperous time Washington D.C. has ever been in throughout its entire history. So yes, we are excited that we finally have something to talk about.
The comparisons to NYC have nothing to do with anybody thinking that Washington D.C. is NYC or will ever come close; it has to do with development style. The only difference between NYC and Washington D.C. from a development style is the width of the streets. Washington D.C. will have a higher percentage of its citizens living in large apartment buildings than any other city outside of NYC soon. The reason for this is because the city has sat largely vacant for decades. There aren’t many buildings to rehab; D.C. might as well have been Detroit. Entire block leveling is taking place as class A apartment/condo buildings and hotel/office buildings rise.
The biggest difference between Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, San Fran, and New York in comparison to Washington D.C. is those cities were far more developed than D.C. in the year 2000. D.C. was the urban renewal guinea pig of the 1950s. The rest of D.C. burned to the ground in the 1960s. Fact of the matter, there just wasn't much left across the 61 square miles of this city. Fast forward to 2014, the entire city is being built from scratch in high-rise form.
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.
and condescending uses of 
.
