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.
I'm in complete agreement with you. But at the same time, paying a high % of your income for a very basic place (i.e. cheaply built apartment with few or no amenities), as many Angelenos do (and Bay Areans as well), creates a lot of stress. In a place like L.A. the high housing costs aren't really an option or self imposed. There a given for all but the top 10% income earners (or maybe the top 20%), as another poster said.
The city is your amenities, isn't it? I prefer a condo with few amenities than a lot of them. The reason is simple: I don't want to pay for the amenities I don't need. If I need a gym, I sign up a gym club, which will have much better equipment. If I want a pool, I go to a real pool to swim, instead of those tiny 20 feet ones in the building. Yes, they cost money, but the "amenities" too, although indirectly. Nobody is offering anything for free.
I don't know why people keep complaining the high cost of living in Los Angeles. It is definitely not a cheap city, but for a city like LA with what it offers, is it really unreasonably expensive? I live in Toronto where the entire Dec-Apr is not suitable for any outdoor activity, and the condos in good locations are sold at $650/sf, with the high end ones $800-1000/sf. I doubt LA is much more expensive, and wages are lower here and we don't allow mortgage interest to be deductible. Exactly which cities with LA's offerings are cheaper than LA? I fail to see. Freezing Boston is expensive. Tiny Seattle is not much cheaper either.
I don't know why people are obsessed with houses. It is stupid for a childless couple to live on space more of than 1000sf - you end up paying for so much space you don't need, just for the show (unless one is rich then it doesn't matter). It seems normal for a family of four to want to have 2000-2500sf when half of the space is seldom used.
To a large extent, it is the want of big living space that reduces one's quality of life. If families are content with 2-3 bedroom apartments, there wouldn't be so much "struggle" as if the city is completely unaffordable.
Exactly. I would rather live in an area I like that has great weather, lots to do, amazing scenery vs a place that high humidity, more narrow minded people ,etc.
To answer your question he is one half of a gay couple, so why someone needs a 4 bedroom house is beyond me, when it's just two people.
Nothing wrong with desiring a house, but not everyone needs a large home, especially when it's jus two people. I know a gay couple who just bought a house in the Valley last year, they make combined into the six figures.
And good luck telling a cop to FO, how ridiculous to think just because you own a house vs. renting that you can do whatever you want. You tell your good ole boy southern cop to FO and you won't care for the response.
And if you were foolish enough to rent such a small place for $2K a month because you had to live in the heart of West Hollywood that's on you. You could have found a bigger place for less money in areas that are also nice.
Just admit you have very high tastes, you could live what most people consider a comfortable lifestyle here, you want a McMansion, and the only way to get that is to go back home.
Perhaps if you step back and knock off the New Yawk attitude about the heartland you'd at least see why people tend to value different things. I see why you as a city dweller your whole life would think it's great to go from NYC to LA, but most other people in the heartland would say if you want to deal living stacked on top of each other, driving in traffic and dealing with crime, then have at it hoss, go buck wild. Some people would rather deal with the good ol' boys than some sarcastic yuppie hipster.
It isn't about having high tastes either. It's about getting more for your buck elsewhere in places with a better value, places that aren't distorted by the sheer number of people flooding in inflating the market. The luster of hills, mountains and beaches starts to dwindle, even for natives who vote with their feet and move in droves. So no amount of Dr. House level sarcasm is going to change that.
I know you need to justify your choices but why disparage the heartland to do it?
You, specifically AJT123, demonstrate a seemingly uncontrollable impulse to lump others with you disagree into one lumpy mass.
Yes he does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJT123
I have never blatantly insulted anyone, EVER. If someone gets nasty, I'll respond back, however. I've been called so many names (most of the time when I make a valid point) I've lost count.
So now I'm a racist? What comments are you speaking of? Because I think it's BULLSH!T that hard earned tax dollars go towards illegals? Or like how the illegal who murdered that poor girl in SF, who was just let back out onto the street even though he had a violent past and had been deported FIVE times prior? Just bc SF is a sanctuary city?
Wrong, you get quite rude the minute someone has a different viewpoint.
I even said to you that when you go back to TN if anyone asks you can say "we didn't really care for it out there and felt the same way after a year", you responded "I'm not going back with my tail between my legs!"
I didn't say you were. You're overly dramatic. I simply said if anyone questions why you came home(because people do this) that's all. You turned it into you being a failure, I didn't say that. I simply said you can tell people you didn't care for it, nothing wrong with that.
One time when you complained about the traffic, I said you do realize you add to the problem when you move here, and you got nasty.
You're too quick with the insults the minute someone doesn't agree with you, you got nasty when people pointed out that when you said you have done everything there is to do in LA in a year....simply not true.
You have a very limited experience in LA and only lived here a year if that.
Many on here are either natives or long term residents, so they're going to question what you say, because a lot of it is exaggerated at best.
Perhaps if you step back and knock off the New Yawk attitude about the heartland you'd at least see why people tend to value different things. I see why you as a city dweller your whole life would think it's great to go from NYC to LA, but most other people in the heartland would say if you want to deal living stacked on top of each other, driving in traffic and dealing with crime, then have at it hoss, go buck wild. Some people would rather deal with the good ol' boys than some sarcastic yuppie hipster.
It isn't about having high tastes either. It's about getting more for your buck elsewhere in places with a better value, places that aren't distorted by the sheer number of people flooding in inflating the market. The luster of hills, mountains and beaches starts to dwindle, even for natives who vote with their feet and move in droves. So no amount of Dr. House level sarcasm is going to change that.
I know you need to justify your choices but why disparage the heartland to do it?
your so-called "better value" is nothing but house price, I suppose?
I live on the top floor which means nobody is above me. I walk to work and almost everything else. And there is very low crime to speak of. Yet it is a big city, not in the middle of nowhere where you see nothing but cookie cutter houses just like your own and the nearest decent restaurant is 7 miles away.
It is fine to live in the heartland, but don't pretend you got the better deal. You just bought something cheaper.
Perhaps if you step back and knock off the New Yawk attitude about the heartland you'd at least see why people tend to value different things. I see why you as a city dweller your whole life would think it's great to go from NYC to LA, but most other people in the heartland would say if you want to deal living stacked on top of each other, driving in traffic and dealing with crime, then have at it hoss, go buck wild. Some people would rather deal with the good ol' boys than some sarcastic yuppie hipster.
It isn't about having high tastes either. It's about getting more for your buck elsewhere in places with a better value, places that aren't distorted by the sheer number of people flooding in inflating the market. The luster of hills, mountains and beaches starts to dwindle, even for natives who vote with their feet and move in droves. So no amount of Dr. House level sarcasm is going to change that.
I know you need to justify your choices but why disparage the heartland to do it?
Why the hell should those of us who have lived here long enough to know better be expected to suffer the self-entitled whining of newbies who somehow failed to appreciate such plainly obvious realities like the size of the population actually inhabiting the region?
I even said to you that when you go back to TN if anyone asks you can say "we didn't really care for it out there and felt the same way after a year", you responded "I'm not going back with my tail between my legs!"
.
Baloney.
Actually you (or whomever it was) said, "At least you gave it a shot," which I somewhat resented. That implies that I came out here and couldn't make it and am leaving defeated, which couldn't be further from the truth.
I choose not to live here anymore; I was world's happier back east.
I simply said, "Oh, I'm not defeated or anything," because, as usual, I was replying to a comment that was cloaked in condescension and passive-aggressive attitude.
Actually you (or whomever it was) said, "At least you gave it a shot," which I somewhat resented. That implies that I came out here and couldn't make it and am leaving defeated, which couldn't be further from the truth.
I choose not to live here anymore; I was world's happier back east.
I simply said, "Oh, I'm not defeated or anything," because, as usual, I was replying to a comment that was cloaked in condescension and passive-aggressive attitude.
The fact you chose to resent that comment should tell you something.
Actually you (or whomever it was) said, "At least you gave it a shot," which I somewhat resented. That implies that I came out here and couldn't make it and am leaving defeated, which couldn't be further from the truth.
I choose not to live here anymore; I was world's happier back east.
I simply said, "Oh, I'm not defeated or anything," because, as usual, I was replying to a comment that was cloaked in condescension and passive-aggressive attitude.
Have you lived anywhere else besides knoxville? just wondering.
The city is your amenities, isn't it? I prefer a condo with few amenities than a lot of them. The reason is simple: I don't want to pay for the amenities I don't need. If I need a gym, I sign up a gym club, which will have much better equipment. If I want a pool, I go to a real pool to swim, instead of those tiny 20 feet ones in the building. Yes, they cost money, but the "amenities" too, although indirectly. Nobody is offering anything for free.
I don't know why people keep complaining the high cost of living in Los Angeles. It is definitely not a cheap city, but for a city like LA with what it offers, is it really unreasonably expensive? I live in Toronto where the entire Dec-Apr is not suitable for any outdoor activity, and the condos in good locations are sold at $650/sf, with the high end ones $800-1000/sf. I doubt LA is much more expensive, and wages are lower here and we don't allow mortgage interest to be deductible. Exactly which cities with LA's offerings are cheaper than LA? I fail to see. Freezing Boston is expensive. Tiny Seattle is not much cheaper either.
I don't know why people are obsessed with houses. It is stupid for a childless couple to live on space more of than 1000sf - you end up paying for so much space you don't need, just for the show (unless one is rich then it doesn't matter). It seems normal for a family of four to want to have 2000-2500sf when half of the space is seldom used.
To a large extent, it is the want of big living space that reduces one's quality of life. If families are content with 2-3 bedroom apartments, there wouldn't be so much "struggle" as if the city is completely unaffordable.
Great post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiolibre99
Perhaps if you step back and knock off the New Yawk attitude about the heartland you'd at least see why people tend to value different things. I see why you as a city dweller your whole life would think it's great to go from NYC to LA, but most other people in the heartland would say if you want to deal living stacked on top of each other, driving in traffic and dealing with crime, then have at it hoss, go buck wild. Some people would rather deal with the good ol' boys than some sarcastic yuppie hipster.
It isn't about having high tastes either. It's about getting more for your buck elsewhere in places with a better value, places that aren't distorted by the sheer number of people flooding in inflating the market. The luster of hills, mountains and beaches starts to dwindle, even for natives who vote with their feet and move in droves. So no amount of Dr. House level sarcasm is going to change that.
I know you need to justify your choices but why disparage the heartland to do it?
Huh? I was born in NYC, was back there last October and wouldn't live there again. It cost just $28 to go over two bridges to see a family member in NJ. LA is definitely expensive, but NY costs way more. I find it at this stage in the game too busy for me.
As Botticelli pointed out so well, Boston is expensive(and you freeze most of the year), as is Seattle.
BTW, I have lived in 5 states so not just NYC and LA. Lived in the PNW (Portland, OR) for two years and came back to CA.
I lived in the south as well. Didn't care for the high humidity.
I also didn't care for strangers in casual conversation bringing up religion and politics. I lost count of the times my mouth dropped open by people you barely know or have had your first conversation and they're asking questions "what church do you got to?", or comments on other races or politics.
I was used to LA where you make small talk with strangers, it amazed me how these hot button items would come up in the most casual conversation. You don't know someone well you stick to neutral subjects, I found many people just assumed you shared their views, when you gave them no indication you do.
My favorite one was(and I have posted this before on CD) when a neighbor who I had talked to only a few times tells me she is 7th Day Adventist and how she drove by the Catholic church and it had no "aura", now I'm not even a practicing Catholic, but that's not the point, totally inappropriate.
I used to just shake my head and say "this wouldn't happen in LA".
Actually you (or whomever it was) said, "At least you gave it a shot," which I somewhat resented. That implies that I came out here and couldn't make it and am leaving defeated, which couldn't be further from the truth.
I choose not to live here anymore; I was world's happier back east.
I simply said, "Oh, I'm not defeated or anything," because, as usual, I was replying to a comment that was cloaked in condescension and passive-aggressive attitude.
LOL....you completely overreact.
I hope for your sake you get to leave real soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nslander
The fact you chose to resent that comment should tell you something.
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.
. You tell your good ole boy southern cop to FO and you won't care for the response.
