U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: LA or NYC
NYC 28 50.91%
LA 27 49.09%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-05-2019, 06:29 PM
 
Location: Northeast states
10,633 posts, read 7,707,992 times
Reputation: 2835

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027 View Post
I'll vote LA. I simply think that LA is having by far the most transformational changes. The growth of its public transportation combined with the coming of both electric cars and driverless vehicles will give a third way to public transportation that is different from NY and distinctly LA, a new model. Downtown is being revitalized, USC and its area is changing, Inglewood is getting better, all good things. I like NY, great city, but its subways are getting worse and so far there is little being done about it. I don't think NYC will be worse, just the same.

People worry about the water usage, I think that with decent management it will fare well. Even Phoenix which is in the middle of the desert can survive, I think LA can definitely manage. Besides, the real user of water in CA is agriculture, not cities, that's a whole other bag of worms.
They can get large chuck of ice from South Pole it last for year or two the frozen ice is actually fresh water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2019, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Brooklyn, New York
3,489 posts, read 3,647,967 times
Reputation: 3160
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
I think if South Florida can manage to politically overcome North Florida by either controlling state government or full on seceding, Miami can be saved. But if it's stuck relying on the Republican-controlled state government, Miami's a goner and it can partly be attributed thick-skulled yet somehow brainwashed retirees voting Republican and not caring about the environment when they're going to die soon anyway and leaving the future generations of Floridians to fix what they created.
I think this has nothing to do with politics. I am not sure there is even a technological solution to Miami's problems? As other poster mentioned, the rising sea levels would impact the water table, so the water will rise from the ground itself on top of the ocean surge. It would have to be a gigantic dam all the way around Florida panhandle to lower the whole water level, and I don't think this is feasible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2019, 01:39 PM
 
Location: Nashville, TN
4,599 posts, read 3,646,113 times
Reputation: 3264
New York City
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2019, 01:56 PM
 
2,534 posts, read 4,667,723 times
Reputation: 3230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027 View Post
By mid-century, where would you prefer to live - NYC or LA? Both will have grown, LA should have finished its public transportation roll-out.
Neither!! I would prefer 50 acres on a lake in Northern Minnesota.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027 View Post
Do you think that the edge will be as large for NYC or LA as it is now?
What edge? Both places are unpleasant and overcrowded. LA has impossible traffic and NYC has always been an urban nightmare.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027 View Post
Which place has the brightest future? Of course compare the metro not just the immediate cities..
Considering the Southern San Andreas fault is "locked and loaded" for a very big earthquake, the long term future for LA is very dim.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2019, 10:23 PM
 
81 posts, read 28,063 times
Reputation: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
I wouldn't go that far, but it is losing its status. Many studios are opening satellite locations that rival LA's capability. Movies are being filmed in many more locations now. Off the top of my head, I know Atlanta, NC, and Vancouver are stealing a lot of LA's filming. It'll never die in LA, it'll always be the center of it all, but Hollywood is going to continue facing stiff competition from other cities and studios opening in other cities.
Far from dying.. A big reason Silicon Beach happened in LA was so that tech companies can get in close to the entertainment business. I guess you never heard of streaming cause Netflix, Amazon, etc are buying up office space like crazy all over the city. Sorry pal try again.



-also with the Olympics coming there's lots of of new rail lines being built as we speak plus new law that should pass which will allow dense vertical housing next to these new rail stops. LA is moving into the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2019, 01:55 AM
 
Location: SoCal
1,029 posts, read 1,384,934 times
Reputation: 1011
Los Angeles has the most potential out of the two cities. NYC is established and pretty much what many cities want to aspire to in terms of dense city, urbanity, public transit. It has the best skyline, a very good wide-reaching public transit system in the city, NJ, and good commuter rail into the far suburbs. All the new developments are just a bunch of cherries on top an ice sundae topped with chocolate syrup, sprinkles, gold flakes, etc.

Now LA Metro would take the prize of having the more sprawled, dense metro suburbs, freeways, wide roads, etc but still have all the great amenities of a world class city. It was great decades ago with millions less people and millions less cars, but now in 2019, slowing crushing itself with its notorious traffic and no more land left to sprawl that people are living so far away and commuting high distances or moving out of state because it is so expensive to live closer to work.

So the LA Metro has no other choice but change and transform from sprawl and low rise development, and a car centric less walkable area towards a more public transit, walkable, vertical dense city. It likely wont be NYC tall and dense or walkable but LA will do its own version. It isn't a competition. London and NYC are two amazing cities at similar level but they are not comparable are they. London isnt trying to build the tallest skyscrapers and thickest skyline. London spreads out its population and city amenities over a larger square miles than NYC which does the opposite and concentrates them in mainly Manhattan. LA is already established in where its museums are located. Sports stadiums. Shopping areas. And city areas.

How LA transforms itself is still anyones guess. You can currently see where most new development is happening. Mainly in areas near Metro stations. Often many 5-7 story apartment buildings. or high rise /skyscrapers like in Downtown LA, Hollywood Koreatown. LA is not scared to tear down buildings and build new ones. LA isnt an old city and a lot of the architecture isn't that amazing or enough to be kept. Older east coast cities like Philly, NYC, Boston have lots of great architecture within the central areas that is harder to tear down. I cant imagine tearing down brownstones, row homes, brick buildings or any historic buildings to build a modern high rise condo building.

By 2050, I think LA will have a decent metro rail system but it is spread thin rather than have a concentration that meet goes through manhattan before it spreads thin in the other boroughs. Downtown LA will have that rail concentration as it will have 4/5 current Metro rail lines and 1 future line go throughout Downtown.
By 2050 gentrification of all areas of central core of LA and inner city areas will have been over. Places that are considered ghetto/high poverty now will have turned into middle class and upper class areas. This includes places like Westlake, Historic Filipino Town, Koreatown, East Hollywood, Hollywood, Boyle Heights, Lincoln Heights, Echo Park, Frogtown, West Adams, Crenshaw. Historic south Central. Im hoping the issues of poverty, wage distribution, homelessness are solved by then. It is a national issue rather than local.
By 2050 many neighborhoods will be more walkable and less car centric. I think automatic cars will be a thing. But more people will live closer to public transit lines and areas where they can walk to local grocers, restaurants, cafes, maybe jobs. So car ownership will be less or reduced.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2019, 07:04 AM
 
Location: In the heights
20,986 posts, read 22,563,879 times
Reputation: 10939
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz View Post
I think this has nothing to do with politics. I am not sure there is even a technological solution to Miami's problems? As other poster mentioned, the rising sea levels would impact the water table, so the water will rise from the ground itself on top of the ocean surge. It would have to be a gigantic dam all the way around Florida panhandle to lower the whole water level, and I don't think this is feasible.
This doesnít mean there arenít any mitigation measures that can be done. So far, itís only on the municipal level that communities in Florida have taken much action, but they have very limited resources compared to the state and even more compared to the federal. A state level change in direction can pony up more resources for mitigation measures and is better equipped to lobby the federal government for funding as well as guide the conversation on measures for prevention though that last bit is a tall order that requires a lot of people outside South Florida to get onboard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2019, 07:09 AM
 
Location: In the heights
20,986 posts, read 22,563,879 times
Reputation: 10939
Topic-wise, my vote between the two leans towards NYC though a 31 year timeline is a long, long time. I think the general hope is that NYC figures out regional transit by then and that the downtowns of the various cities in the metropolitan region are thriving at that point. Thereís already been steady improvements in places like Newark and New Haven, and those will hopefully continue. My hope is that thereís essentially no more greenfield development in the area and itís all targeted brownfield development and redevelopment with a lot of mass transit improvements especially combining and expanding the various commuter rail operations in the area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2019, 07:58 AM
 
Location: New York City
5,187 posts, read 4,745,352 times
Reputation: 2457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027 View Post
I'll vote LA. I simply think that LA is having by far the most transformational changes. The growth of its public transportation combined with the coming of both electric cars and driverless vehicles will give a third way to public transportation that is different from NY and distinctly LA, a new model. Downtown is being revitalized, USC and its area is changing, Inglewood is getting better, all good things. I like NY, great city, but its subways are getting worse and so far there is little being done about it. I don't think NYC will be worse, just the same.

People worry about the water usage, I think that with decent management it will fare well. Even Phoenix which is in the middle of the desert can survive, I think LA can definitely manage. Besides, the real user of water in CA is agriculture, not cities, that's a whole other bag of worms.
You could make that argument for New York. Hudson Yards is the largest private development project in US history. An entirely new neighborhood built over train tracks, and that is just one small area of Manhattan.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2019, 08:48 AM
 
115 posts, read 146,825 times
Reputation: 183
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
I wouldn't go that far, but it is losing its status. Many studios are opening satellite locations that rival LA's capability. Movies are being filmed in many more locations now. Off the top of my head, I know Atlanta, NC, and Vancouver are stealing a lot of LA's filming. It'll never die in LA, it'll always be the center of it all, but Hollywood is going to continue facing stiff competition from other cities and studios opening in other cities.
I doubt it. People have been saying this for decades, but the negative outcome never happened in LA and probably won’t. The runaway production scare started in the late 90s, but 20 years later it’s turned out to be a race to the bottom for cities to offer tax credits. Entertainment jobs have only increased in LA to its highest level. Filming locations are just that. Places to film. That was never the center of Hollywood’s power. The power lies with the major studio system, which are all based in LA. That’s not something that can be relocated.

It’s analogous to America losing it’s manufacturing economy to cheap labor overseas. The US just replaced those jobs by becoming a service economy for those same companies that manufactured overseas.

Same thing happened to NY financial companies. They started expanding satellites outside of NYC. NYC didn’t lose status. It just signified the maturity and growth of the financial industry, rather than a sign of NYC losing status.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top