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 vs Toronto
Los Angeles 254 56.44%
Toronto 196 43.56%
Voters: 450. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-05-2011, 09:14 PM
 
Location: Denver
14,140 posts, read 19,618,787 times
Reputation: 8760

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dub King View Post
That's not what I think. I'm well aware of the fact that L.A. is overcrowded, resulting in world-famous traffic and smog. L.A. is also underdeveloped, those transit lines that will connect the city that everyone talks about, they don't exist yet. The lack of high-rises and the inferior transit system make L.A. a less-impressive 'city' as compared to Toronto.
You're digging yourself a hole.
Is Madrid less of a city because it has almost no high rises?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-05-2011, 11:54 PM
 
Location: Aurora, Colorado
5,435 posts, read 8,079,739 times
Reputation: 4472
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dub King View Post
That's not what I think. I'm well aware of the fact that L.A. is overcrowded, resulting in world-famous traffic and smog. L.A. is also underdeveloped, those transit lines that will connect the city that everyone talks about, they don't exist yet. The lack of high-rises and the inferior transit system make L.A. a less-impressive 'city' as compared to Toronto.
Honestly. Why is it that some Philly posters always have to jump in on a thread and Downplay LA?

LA is more of a city that Toronto is. And now LA is Apparently underdeveloped? Please go on Google maps and show me an area of LA that is underdeveloped. LA is a suburban styled city, but for the most part is not suburban. And more buildings does not = a more impressive city. In that case, Toronto is WAY more impressive than Paris, London, Moscow, San Fransisco...even Chicago! But LA is the larger and more important, more globally reconized city. Some people need to give credit where credit is Due!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2011, 02:35 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
286 posts, read 348,640 times
Reputation: 233
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mezter View Post
Honestly. Why is it that some Philly posters always have to jump in on a thread and Downplay LA?
Dont forget these are just the underdogs barking up to the pack leaders
The day we don't have dogs like this barking up to LA, then I would worry
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2011, 05:33 AM
 
57 posts, read 80,861 times
Reputation: 33
If L.A. had even half of Madrid's culture, history, and pubic transit options it would be the #2 city in the USA. Sadly L.A. does not have these things yet and struggles to convince people it is the nation's second city but that title still belongs to Chicago.

Last edited by spaghetti monster; 11-06-2011 at 05:47 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2011, 05:52 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,628,010 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaghetti monster View Post
If L.A. had even half of Madrid's culture, history, and pubic transit options it would be the #2 city in the USA. Sadly L.A. does not have these things yet and struggles to convince people it is the nation's second city but that title still belongs to Chicago.
Whatever you say, Dub King.

Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 11-06-2011 at 06:02 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2011, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Denver
14,140 posts, read 19,618,787 times
Reputation: 8760
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaghetti monster View Post
If L.A. had even half of Madrid's culture, history, and pubic transit options it would be the #2 city in the USA. Sadly L.A. does not have these things yet and struggles to convince people it is the nation's second city but that title still belongs to Chicago.
No, that title belongs to LA easily, and I never come to LA's defense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2011, 04:42 PM
 
Location: Aurora, Colorado
5,435 posts, read 8,079,739 times
Reputation: 4472
Quote:
Originally Posted by spaghetti monster View Post
If L.A. had even half of Madrid's culture, history, and pubic transit options it would be the #2 city in the USA. Sadly L.A. does not have these things yet and struggles to convince people it is the nation's second city but that title still belongs to Chicago.
Please. LA is easily and Noticably the second largest city in the USA. Chicago is only roughly 10mil people. LA has about 17mil (i think). LA is the second most important city in the USA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2011, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Wisconsin
260 posts, read 324,276 times
Reputation: 169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mezter View Post
Please. LA is easily and Noticably the second largest city in the USA. Chicago is only roughly 10mil people. LA has about 17mil (i think). LA is the second most important city in the USA.
Chicago is an Alpha+ city while Los Angeles is just an Alpha city. In that case Chicago is the second most important city in the USA. Plus, Chicago has a better transportation which is more comparable to other world cities than LA's is.
However LA is the entertainment capital of the USA, so in that regard it wins.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2011, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
286 posts, read 348,640 times
Reputation: 233
^^^
LA kicked Chicago's ass out of 2nd spot back in the 80"s so GET OVER IT
As far as transportation you should the read this very enlightning post
from one of the CDC's mods

http://www.city-data.com/forum/21593549-post1.html



_
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-06-2011, 05:29 PM
 
Location: BMORE!
7,631 posts, read 6,047,225 times
Reputation: 3527
Quote:
Originally Posted by blainnyc View Post
Chicago is an Alpha+ city while Los Angeles is just an Alpha city. In that case Chicago is the second most important city in the USA. Plus, Chicago has a better transportation which is more comparable to other world cities than LA's is.
However LA is the entertainment capital of the USA, so in that regard it wins.
Chicago has all that and LA is still more important...so what does that say about Chicago?
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

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. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

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