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.
^^^
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
LA is apparently a less car centric city because of all the bus coverage. Bus coverage however is not exactly as fast or as reliable as train service. To get around LA,a car is a necessity, in Chicago the "L" would be enough. I'm not here to boost Chicago. I think they are virtually equal in importance, just in different ways.
L.A. isnt a major financial center, so it doesn't do well in those rankings. It still has the third largest metro economy in the world (and save the per capita arguments. L.A.'s gdp per capita is better than than Tokyo's, I doubt any EC booster would argue that LA is more important). Biggest port in the US, largest manufacturing city in the US, arguably the most diverse metropolitain area on Earth, and (thanks in large part to the entertainment business) a cultural mover and shaker rivaled only by NYC and London. "You doth protest too much"--that's what I think of when I see people placing Toronto and even Chicago ahead of L.A. in importance, no offense to those fine cities. And for God's sakes, enough with the public transport! You'd swear there were orgasmstrons in every train the way you carry on about the public transport. Sheesh.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 11-06-2011 at 06:37 PM..
L.A. isnt a major financial center, so it doesn't do well in those rankings. It still has the third largest metro economy in the world (and save the per capita arguments. L.A.'s gdp per capita is better than than Tokyo's, I doubt any EC booster would argue that LA is more important). Biggest port in the US, largest manufacturing city in the US, arguably the most diverse metropolitain area on Earth, and (thanks in large part to the entertainment business) a cultural mover and shaker rivaled only by NYC and London. "You doth protest too much"--that's what I think of when I see people placing Toronto and even Chicago ahead of L.A. in importance, no offense to those fine cities. And for God's sakes, enough with the public transport! You'd swear there were orgasmstrons in every train the way you carry on about the public transport. Sheesh.
LA is apparently a less car centric city because of all the bus coverage. Bus coverage however is not exactly as fast or as reliable as train service. To get around LA,a car is a necessity, in Chicago the "L" would be enough. I'm not here to boost Chicago. I think they are virtually equal in importance, just in different ways.
I agree, I think Chicago is a great urban center
no one city can be absolutely number one in every single cathegory
I think that the main reason why Los Angeles is considered the US second city is because it's larger GDP, population and for being a center of media, music and cinema, but no doubt there are niches where Chicago is superior to Los Angeles
LA is better without even trying. For LA to be the 2nd most important city without trying to kiss NYC's butt (Chicago, Boston, Philly, DC, SF...pucker up) is impressive in and of itself.
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.
