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.
To be fair West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Pasadena are pretty famous and different cities.
Disneyland, Malibu, Santa Monica Pier, and the new Sofi Stadium are all also Not in L.A city limits . Like an earlier poster said, that's perhaps why LA doesn't give off that immediate "Wow factor" like Chicago does. To Experience the Best of LA seems you have to hit it's Suburbs. A lot can be said about the City, But L.A has arguably a very exciting Metropolitan Area
I heard someone say that the actual City of Los Angeles itself is meh, It's it's Metro Area and Surroundings that make the City Shine and give it all it's power
The surrounding areas are great but the city itself is the main event
Disneyland, Malibu, Santa Monica Pier, and the new Sofi Stadium are all also Not in L.A city limits . Like an earlier poster said, that's perhaps why LA doesn't give off that immediate "Wow factor" like Chicago does. To Experience the Best of LA seems you have to hit it's Suburbs. A lot can be said about the City, But L.A has arguably a very exciting Metropolitan Area
I think the best parts of LA are in the surrounding areas. Definitely nothing wrong with that. A lot of people go to LA and end up loving the beach cities like Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Huntington Beach etc. LA is such a massive sprawling metro -- a place like Irvine, CA is part of the entire MSA and is often picked as one of the best places to live in the entire country. I think that's where LA is most different from almost every metro in the U.S.
Honestly the closest comparison I can think of to it would be a place like Dallas/Houston but neither come up to the stature of LA metro.
To answer the thread question, LA is undoubtedly closer to NYC in Stature if we're taking everything into account. It holds up well against most cities in the country just given the sheer size just like NYC would.
Seattle is not even close to being in this grouping, like not even remotely close....
And is this a researched list or your own measurement...?
Also, New York and London are ahead of Toyko and Seoul.
Ahead in which way? In terms of infrastructure, Tokyo and Seoul are light years ahead of NYC and London. In terms of GDP, Tokyo > NYC. Seoul > London.
In terms of food, Tokyo, NYC, Seoul are world-class but London doesn't really have that great food.
NYC has a great skyline (my 2nd favorite behind Hong Kong) but the sheer massive number of highrises in Tokyo/Seoul make Manhattan feel quite small. My jaw dropped when I saw nothing but highrises on the bus ride from Incheon to city center Seoul. Imagine looking out the window and seeing 40+ miles of nonstop highrises the entire way.
In terms of the OP question, I would say LA is closer to NYC than Chicago. Everyone I know who lives outside of the US knows LA but not all of them know Chicago. Chicago has the superior skyline (2nd best in the US) but LA has superior food, weather, night life, GDP, etc.
Ahead in which way? In terms of infrastructure, Tokyo and Seoul are light years ahead of NYC and London. In terms of GDP, Tokyo > NYC. Seoul > London.
In terms of food, Tokyo, NYC, Seoul are world-class but London doesn't really have that great food.
NYC has a great skyline (my 2nd favorite behind Hong Kong) but the sheer massive number of highrises in Tokyo/Seoul make Manhattan feel quite small. My jaw dropped when I saw nothing but highrises on the bus ride from Incheon to city center Seoul. Imagine looking out the window and seeing 40+ miles of nonstop highrises the entire way.
In terms of the OP question, I would say LA is closer to NYC than Chicago. Everyone I know who lives outside of the US knows LA but not all of them know Chicago. Chicago has the superior skyline (2nd best in the US) but LA has superior food, weather, night life, GDP, etc.
You're link is on numbers of high-rises and not even about level of skyscrapers. But to use high-rise count or skyscrapers. Does NOT help LA be closer to NYC. The General or City vs City forums are not to even include non-North American cities. That link on high-rises even drops NYC to number 8. Actually you are better using another new thread in a world or Asia forum to give a USA dropping fast in high-rise living and therefore world stature with GDP. Even for Global clout? High-rises has nothing to do with it for placement of a US or any world city.
I think we all know the US has a much lower interest in high-rise living at this time still. So I am confused even more then usual. If you want LA closer to NYC then numbers of high-rises is not a way.
Chicago is just Chicago. Anyone that visits literally visits the north side and downtown.
Exactly. And that's why any visitor to Chicago can see it all over a long weekend. Unlike LA, which takes way more time to cover. And I'll take, Santa Monica, Venice, Pasadena, Los Feliz, Redondo, Manhattan, etc. over any of Chicago's urban neighborhoods like Wicker Park, Lakeview, Wrigleyville, among others. Just way more variety and different vibes going on in LA than anywhere in Chicago.
Exactly. And that's why any visitor to Chicago can see it all over a long weekend. Unlike LA, which takes way more time to cover. And I'll take, Santa Monica, Venice, Pasadena, Los Feliz, Redondo, Manhattan, etc. over any of Chicago's urban neighborhoods like Wicker Park, Lakeview, Wrigleyville, among others. Just way more variety and different vibes going on in LA than anywhere in Chicago.
So which do people like more, or perhaps Which makes a city seem more important, Everything Super Concentrated in One Area.. Or Everything Spread All over the place with a dose of High Traffic.
And BTW You Can't "See it All" in Chicago in just One long weekend lol
So which do people like more, or perhaps Which makes a city seem more important, Everything Super Concentrated in One Area.. Or Everything Spread All over the place with a dose of High Traffic.
And BTW You Can't "See it All" in Chicago in just One long weekend lol
Usually the most important/biggest cites are multi-nodal not hyper centralized
So which do people like more, or perhaps Which makes a city seem more important, Everything Super Concentrated in One Area.. Or Everything Spread All over the place with a dose of High Traffic.
And BTW You Can't "See it All" in Chicago in just One long weekend lol
I don't know, what did I miss outside of downtown and the north side? I went to a White Sox game on the south side but didn't bother exploring the area. Was I wrong? Good question on whether people like things concentrated or not. It doesn't matter to me. I'm more interested in what there is to see than where things are located.
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.
