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.
Over the course of my adult life, I have known a number of individuals who have lived in New York City. Unfortunately, for most of these individuals, their experiences in New York are concentrated in the boroughs of New York City because, while living in the city, none of these folks owned cars. As someone who has spent a significant amount of time in Downstate New York (as a visitor), I always feel sorry for folks in the city who do not own cars because they are largely unable to experience some of the loveliest aspects of New York State, which are mostly accessible by car. In contrast, people who live in Los Angeles, whether they were born and raised in the city/metropolitan area or not, are much more familiar with the greater region and its offerings due to higher car ownership rates. At the end of the day, there are just some places that public transportation cannot and will not take you. As a result, owning a car can allow one to access many interesting and unique places within a greater region and, subsequently, provide you with a deeper understanding of place.
There's two sides to that coin. Like most in LA I used to commute exclusively by car. Slowly I started increasing transit usage to the point that all my work commutes and half or more of the rest are by transit. That's given me a completely different perspective of LA that I never had driving. You see and appreciate much more when you walk and ride the bus/train. You really get immersed in LA in a way that's nearly impossible by car.
But then there's the side that you describe. I couldn't get to many of my hikes without a car. Many other places that I could visit are less likely due to the difficulty accessing. But much of that is changing with Uber. I feel like I could get by completely fine using transit and Uber.
But ultimately you are getting significantly "more for your money" by choosing to live a transit-dependent lifestyle in New York City than a transit-dependent lifestyle in Los Angeles. In terms of accessibility, time savings, reliability, convenience, span of service, etc. It's not even a comparison, frankly.
I completely disagree. I feel everything is more expensive in NYC including groceries, a simple meal at McDonalds, public transportation is much more in NY. You simply can't say everyone in LA owns a car and New Yorkers don't. I have a car but I have no car payment. I commute to work with public transportation and from what I've experienced is much cheaper in LA.
I like what they say in this article:
I completely disagree. I feel everything is more expensive in NYC including groceries, a simple meal at McDonalds, public transportation is much more in NY. You simply can't say everyone in LA owns a car and New Yorkers don't. I have a car but I have no car payment. I commute to work with public transportation and from what I've experienced is much cheaper in LA.
I like what they say in this article:
That honestly sounds like a "you" problem. My friends and I take trains Upstate, into NJ, to the shore, and all over the city. We regularly go together or to visit other friends on Amtrak to places like Boston, CT, Philly, Baltimore, and DC.
this whole conversation is a “you†problem, even your perogative to take amtrak to Philly. Everything about this is individualistic and contexual. . But it’s also a known stereotype and common stand-up material that New Yorkers won’t leave their boroughs.
this whole conversation is a “you†problem, even your perogative to take amtrak to Philly. Everything about this is individualistic and contexual. . But it’s also a known stereotype and common stand-up material that New Yorkers won’t leave their boroughs.
Yea, but your post struck me as particularly odd, too. I have buses to places nearby, subways to many neighborhoods, extensive commuter rail that goes into small towns, beaches, and forests, rail to a lot of destinations and transit to airports. There are taxis, rideshares, and carshare which are all really convenient. I never have to look for parking and the ten minute walking radius of where I live gives a lot of options for anything in case I did want to stick around. Was it that latter convenience factor that made it so you lived in such a tightly cloistered and restricted life in NYC?
There are people who are pretty proud of the boroughs they live in and then there’s the old stereotype of Manhattanites never leaving the island though that’s usually the elderly and pretty rare.
I decided to look up the median going rate on CL for 1-BR apartments in different cities. I tried to make this realistic for a young professional trying to stay around the $2,000 mark.
Over the course of my adult life, I have known a number of individuals who have lived in New York City. Unfortunately, for most of these individuals, their experiences in New York are concentrated in the boroughs of New York City because, while living in the city, none of these folks owned cars. As someone who has spent a significant amount of time in Downstate New York (as a visitor), I always feel sorry for folks in the city who do not own cars because they are largely unable to experience some of the loveliest aspects of New York State, which are mostly accessible by car. In contrast, people who live in Los Angeles, whether they were born and raised in the city/metropolitan area or not, are much more familiar with the greater region and its offerings due to higher car ownership rates. At the end of the day, there are just some places that public transportation cannot and will not take you. As a result, owning a car can allow one to access many interesting and unique places within a greater region and, subsequently, provide you with a deeper understanding of place.
This is silly. Have you ever heard of a rental company called Zipcar? A monthly membership with that is cheaper than owning a car (which comes with insurance and gas). They have car lots all throughout the city and these days if a young professional wants to go upstate they have all the opportunity to do so.
Why would I compare living in NYC with a car to living in LA with a car? The entire point for millions of people living in NYC is to take the subway and not own a car. So yeah. I'm going to compare NYC without a car to LA with a car. In NYC, a car is a luxury. In LA, a car is a necessity. So, if someone is considering moving to either city, they must own/maintain a car in LA which adds to their monthly costs. However, if they move to NYC, they won't have to worry about car ownership/maintenance. The majority of people in NYC do not own a car. Therefore, it makes absolutely no sense to factor in the COL with a car when comparing NYC to LA.
Studios are far more prevalent in NYC. It's a common thing to live in a studio here. In LA, most people are living in 1 bedrooms. Again, why would I compare something that's common in one city to something that's uncommon in the other.
The generic New Yorker is living in a studio without a car. Therefore, their monthly expenses are based on the median cost of a studio apartment + MTA 30-day Unlimited far.
The generic Angeleno is living in a 1 bedroom apartment with a car. Therefore, their monthly expenses are based on the median cost of a 1 bedroom apartment + ownership/maintenance of a car.
That's the apples to apples comparison. Apples to oranges comparison would be NYC 1 bed + car vs. LA 1 bed + car. Vice versa, apples to oranges comparison would by NYC studio + MTA pass vs. LA studio + LAMTA pass. Neither of those represents the typical lifestyle for a resident of the respective cities.
Some people do love having a car, yes. And those people likely are not living in NYC, where car owners are in the minority of the population. If they enjoyed owning a car, they would be better suited for living in LA. And you're right, it does depend on the person. But again, a typical lifestyle in NYC is not a typical lifestyle in LA, and the comparisons must be adjusted in order to make an equal COL analysis.
Do you think people who live in Staten Island or Eastern Queens have a car as a luxury?
Do you think people who live in Staten Island or Eastern Queens have a car as a luxury?
No, they do as a requirement. But the population in those areas is quite small in comparison to the regions where car ownership is not required. SI is only 5.5% of the entire NYC population with 479,458 residents. Very few parts of Hudson County NJ require a car, so you can easily replace SI with Hudson County and add even more people/land to the category that does not require car ownership.
I'll chime in as an LA native that has only visited NYC. This seems to largely have morphed into the question of, "Is car ownership worth it" in some sense. Despite constant howling to the contrary, I think that LA is one of the best places in the world for car ownership as it gives quite a bit of value if you actually get out.
The difference is that people talk of car ownership only as a means of getting to work. If that was the case then public transportation in NYC is better and there should be no discussion. However the difference is that even if I didn't need a car in LA to work, I would still want one. LA has the beaches, mountains and quite a large urban area in which there are multiple places in farther locations worth seeing. I also live in a state with multiple beautiful national parks and scenic areas that are quite amazing. If I lived in NYC, and the way that people talk about it is that it's all about the city, all about Broadway, all about Manhattan and the other Burroughs. Not to much thought is given about venturing out, so why own a car if that's the vast majority of the value of the place is in living in the heart of the city?
So the value of living in great weather with places to go is worth the extra amount of money you spend on transportation. Outside of that I don't think my life would be substantially better in NYC in any other measurable way. We still have theaters and arts etc. Maybe you could make an argument that some facet would be better here or there in the arts etc. But losing the great outdoors is a massive QOL downgrade for me. I pick LA
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.
