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 will start off with my questions. Would you agree with my general assessments? Are these rivalries comparable? Are there more apt and comparable comparisons involving any of these cities or other cities on the coasts (i.e.: Seattle or Miami), in your opinion? I will leave this thread pretty open-ended as I'm sure people who have lived in either pairing of cities or on either coast will have insightful perspectives.
The two rivalries mentioned are obviously the great intra-regional urban rivalries on the coasts. Let's look at California first:
Los Angeles: world's third largest metropolitan GDP, densest urban conglomerate in America, wealthy suburbs with powerful elites (i.e.: Beverly Hills, Santa Monica), nouveau riche suburbs with gaudy impressionists (i.e.: Newport Beach), major university network without being a college town, car-dependent for the most part, over 160 languages spoken, largest Asian community outside of Asia, very large geographically, very crime-ridden areas but overall safe, mix of socioeconomics. Views New York as much more of a rival than San Francisco which drives Bay Areans crazy. Somewhat of a reputation for entertainment industry and nouveau riche snobbery. Griffith Park is the nation's largest urban park. Greater metropolis population approximately 18 million, or 21 million if you include San Diego. San Francisco: Stanford and Berkeley very nearby, decent university system within city limits but not as prestigious as L.A.'s offerings, second densest city in United States, extremely progressive politically to the point of cultural monotony, city has okay public transit but metro is car-dependent, very educated population, cleaner overall than L.A. proper, very small geographically, much wealthier population with small southside ghettos. Waterfront heavily utilized. Somewhat known for academia/intellectual snobbery. Greater metropolis population 7.7 million, or 11 million if you include Sacramento, Stockton and Modesto.
As for similarities b/t LA and SF, one can fly between multiple airports in either metropolis in an hour. One can fly to the major Asian port cities in 10-14 hours. Easy flights to Hawaii. Both share the world-renowned University of California system. The areas are linked by the 5 and 101 corridors. People marvel at the natural beauty within and surrounding the cities. Both cities have great California-style and Spanish-influenced architecture. Giants v. Dodgers are two old New York teams that relocated to CA in the 1950s and carried on the intense rivalry.
Now, let's look at the Northeast:
New York: world's second largest metropolitan GDP, very large urbanized area, densest populated city limits in U.S., wealthy suburbs with powerful elites (i.e.: the Hamptons, Greenwich), nouveau riche suburbs with more poseurs (i.e: parts of outer NJ burbs), major university network without being a college town, great public transportation, very crime-ridden areas but overall safe, mix of socioeconomics, 24/7 city, huge Asian, Puerto Rican and Dominican communities, large geographic area, over 190 languages spoken. Somewhat of a reputation among some for a "New York elitist" snobbery. Central Park is world-famous. Metropolis has 22 million residents.
Boston:Some would argue this to be San Francisco's twin sister. Universities in Boston proper might not be as prestigious as NYU or Columbia, but Cambridge has freakin' Hah-vahd! Pretty densely populated, I would argue more politically "progressive" than NYC or NY State as a whole, city has decent public transit but metro is quite car-dependent, very educated population, probably cleaner than NYC, wealthier general population in region with smaller southside "old" neighborboods. Charles River heavily utilized. Somewhat known for academia/intellectual snobbery like SF. Metropolis has around six million residents, or eight million if you include Providence and Southern NH.
Similarities between NYC and Boston: easy flights or train rides between the two cities. Connected by I-95. Flights to Europe in 5-8 hours. Known for founding period American history and 300- to 500-year old architecture. Yankees (GO YANKEES!) and Red Sox fans have a very intense rivalry.
Gracias, from EclecticEars in California!
Last edited by EclecticEars; 07-28-2012 at 02:08 AM..
SF vs LA "rivalry" is pretty one-sided though. Outside of the Giants and Dodgers, the bitterness tends to flow in one direction: North to South. I've always noticed that people in the Bay Area hold a major grudge against LA and the LA area while people in LA tend to think fondly of SF and the Bay and often enjoy visiting.
Gotta give NYC and Boston their due. NYC is one of the worlds top cities period and LA isn't. One can fly from NYC to virtually anywhere on earth mostly nonstop it takes about 13 hours to Tokyo only six to western Europe. Boston has Harvard and MIT. Its CSA is bigger than the Bay area. Can fly nonstop to Tokyo in 13 hours and back in 12. Flights to Europe are short and numerous. Both are bigger financial centers than either west coast city.
Gotta give NYC and Boston their due. NYC is one of the worlds top cities period and LA isn't.
Yeah, it is.
Quote:
One can fly from NYC to virtually anywhere on earth mostly nonstop it takes about 13 hours to Tokyo only six to western Europe.
What about Australia?
Quote:
Boston has Harvard and MIT.
SF has Berkeley, LA has UCLA and USC. I'm not denigrating Boston's top status for education (I grew up there and my dad is a Harvard alumni), but it's not like there aren't any good schools in LA or SF.
Quote:
Its CSA is bigger than the Bay area. Can fly nonstop to Tokyo in 13 hours and back in 12. Flights to Europe are short and numerous.
Flights to/from Asia and Latin America are shorter and more numerous in regards to CA...
Quote:
Both are bigger financial centers than either west coast city.
Boston is definitely not a bigger financial center than LA.
Gotta give NYC and Boston their due. NYC is one of the worlds top cities period and LA isn't. One can fly from NYC to virtually anywhere on earth mostly nonstop it takes about 13 hours to Tokyo only six to western Europe. Boston has Harvard and MIT. Its CSA is bigger than the Bay area. Can fly nonstop to Tokyo in 13 hours and back in 12. Flights to Europe are short and numerous. Both are bigger financial centers than either west coast city.
LA is definitely a top city, and LAX and SFO have pretty comparable flying ranges to NYC airports since these are all major international cities (I'm guessing the same for Boston's airport) with East Asia, Southeast Asia, Oceania, and parts of Latin America shorter flights for SF/LA than for NYC (the world is actually a globe and planes exist everywhere). There are good world class schools for all four places. The Boston CSA is pretty comparable to the Bay Area's. Yep, Europe is closer to the East Coast--super good grasp of geography there. SF/The Bay Area is generally ranked pretty much even with Boston as a financial center, but I agree LA does fairly poorly in that category.
Good cities all around and I agree with the analogy of sorts between the two west coast and the two east coast cities. Maybe Chicago could do with a smaller paired city itself, but there isn't really any large, affluent and educated city close by.
Z/Yen top 20 Global Financial Centers. NYC 2, Boston 11, SF 12, LA not in top 25 as of 2012.
Point on flying time, it doesn't take much longer to Tokyo from Boston than it does from LA. It does take significantly longer from CA to Europe than from northeast.
Good cities all around and I agree with the analogy of sorts between the two west coast and the two east coast cities. Maybe Chicago could do with a smaller paired city itself, but there isn't really any large, affluent and educated city close by.
Sure there is: Minneapolis-St. Paul.
However, neither CHI nor MSP can complete on the scale with the East and West Coast mega-metropolises. Chicago has ten million in its CSA, or 14 million if you count Milwaukee, Rockford, South Bend/Elkhart, and Benton Harbor. MSP has around four million if you count Rochester.
There isn't much of a rivalry between SF and LA. Most Californians know that SF (as well as the Bay Area) is where the affluent, college-educated crowd goes. On perception alone, Californians view LA as a sprawl of poor, uneducated communities (a generalization, but the perception nonetheless). SF (Bay Area) is a place that people desire to live in. Few people want to willingly live in LA.
These are all opinions that I notice a vast majority of native Californians have. SF (and the Bay) is heralded by most Californians whereas LA is ridiculed as a third world city.
There isn't much of a rivalry between SF and LA. Most Californians know that SF (as well as the Bay Area) is where the affluent, college-educated crowd goes. On perception alone, Californians view LA as a sprawl of poor, uneducated communities (a generalization, but the perception nonetheless). SF (Bay Area) is a place that people desire to live in. Few people want to willingly live in LA.
These are all opinions that I notice a vast majority of native Californians have. SF (and the Bay) is heralded by most Californians whereas LA is ridiculed as a third world city.
It's the HugeFoodie215 reverse troll
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.
