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.
Location: Los Angeles-213.323.310.818/San Diego-619.858.760
705 posts, read 3,297,061 times
Reputation: 445
Advertisements
^^ how can you make such a statement without explaining yourself?
that type of attitude is exactly what ppl dont want in a city. with all the input that has been given you should have an idea of what youre looking for. I will add that public transit is very doable in Los Angeles as I did it for several months. Personally, I would much rather get off of work and head to my car without having to worry about catching the next train or bus.
With a car, life is much easier(IMO; more expensive but you'll get anywhere in half the time.
To bad L.A. doesn't have good public transportation this would be much easier. Is it considerable savings using public transit?
Thanks for all the thoughts so far! anybody else?
If you plan VERY well you can get a life where you don't need to use a car much in Los Angeles. It isn't NEARLY as close as Chicago and NYC in ease of use though. A few Los Angeles posters do or at least have used public transportation as there main way of getting around and said it was fine. Ask them how they like it. They key is that you have to live in the correct community that is PT friendly. For example, the San Fernando Valley area would not be a public transit paradise. Places like Silver Lake or Hollywood or Pasadena are on rail lines and can take you to a few spots and bus connections are readily available. Where you run into problems is this scenario: "You meet someone and eventually become friends. They invite you to a Super Bowl party but they live in the Hollywood Hills, essentially a giant hill with cliff side homes. Buses and other forms of PT can't make it into the hills so you can't get to your friend's house." or "You work in downtown Los Angeles but need to go to an affiliate branch in Irvine, CA because your boss said so. Orange County bus service only runs on the hour so it takes you 3.5 hours to travel by train and bus, by what is a 50 minute drive."
Basically, it probably is easier to go "car lite" in LA instead of car free. You could live on a rail line and commute to work every day on it, but when you need to deviate to the areas where public transportation is sparse, you are out of luck. Perhaps rent cars when you need to or join Zip Car Sharing.
Try living on a rail line. There are lots of financial jobs in downtown where most the rail lines meet, so it is the easiest place to get to. There is extensive bus routes to downtown also.
Additional maps are here including the extensive bus system for connections. Metro Rapid Bus routes are very easy and fast. Metro Maps
Other operators are the Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, Foothill Transit, LADOT Dash/Commuter Express, and Culver City Bus. These are all the most popular.
Weather aside, Chicago sounds the best for you. Why? Your dollar will go much further here than LA or NYC, which is what is important, right? Nightlife and sports? Dont get much better than Chicago, youll absolutely LOVE it.
If you plan VERY well you can get a life where you don't need to use a car much in Los Angeles. It isn't NEARLY as close as Chicago and NYC in ease of use though. A few Los Angeles posters do or at least have used public transportation as there main way of getting around and said it was fine. Ask them how they like it. They key is that you have to live in the correct community that is PT friendly. For example, the San Fernando Valley area would not be a public transit paradise. Places like Silver Lake or Hollywood or Pasadena are on rail lines and can take you to a few spots and bus connections are readily available. Where you run into problems is this scenario: "You meet someone and eventually become friends. They invite you to a Super Bowl party but they live in the Hollywood Hills, essentially a giant hill with cliff side homes. Buses and other forms of PT can't make it into the hills so you can't get to your friend's house." or "You work in downtown Los Angeles but need to go to an affiliate branch in Irvine, CA because your boss said so. Orange County bus service only runs on the hour so it takes you 3.5 hours to travel by train and bus, by what is a 50 minute drive."
Basically, it probably is easier to go "car lite" in LA instead of car free. You could live on a rail line and commute to work every day on it, but when you need to deviate to the areas where public transportation is sparse, you are out of luck. Perhaps rent cars when you need to or join Zip Car Sharing.
Try living on a rail line. There are lots of financial jobs in downtown where most the rail lines meet, so it is the easiest place to get to. There is extensive bus routes to downtown also.
Additional maps are here including the extensive bus system for connections. Metro Rapid Bus routes are very easy and fast. Metro Maps
Other operators are the Santa Monica Big Blue Bus, Foothill Transit, LADOT Dash/Commuter Express, and Culver City Bus. These are all the most popular.
are you serious, how can you compare that with this http://nyver.com/repository/map/subwaymap_full_775.gif (broken link)
As an Angeleno I would recommend New York City for the reasons others have posted. Climate would be the only plus for you in LA since transportation is horrible. Don't know about job opportunities in your field but I think both Chicago & New York would be fine as well as LA.
I would start out in New York City and then transfer to Chicago if you find it isn't your forte. If you are young, full of energy, and just starting out, I think that New York would be a great place to live, you may not want to spend the rest of your life there, but I think you'd enjoy it, especially if you have a finance background, when starting your career. Not to mention, I think it is good for people to get out of their region of the country for a bit, yeah, Chicago might be easier for you, as a Midwesterner to melt into, but I'm all for new experiences, and if I could go back to a younger day, I would have picked up and moved away from Chicago (I grew up here) to a completely new region of the US, even if it was just for a few years, I think that the experience would have been enriching and beneficial.
Both cities have plenty of opportunities in finance.
If you're form Michigan and really want a new experience, L.A. will offer you that more than the other 2. But if you really want an urban lifestyle which it sounds like you do coming from a small town, NYC is for you.
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.
