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 is basically broken up in to the East Side/Valley and Westside. All of which are hell to travel between due to LA's terrible traffic. In addition we have a worthless public transit system. My office is 16 miles away (commuting valley-west side) and it takes 1hr-1.5hrs depending on traffic each way. What ends up happening is friends etc isolate themselves to their little neighborhood, making the entire reason of living in a big city like LA pointless if you ask me.
I'm looking forward to trying out a true city lifestyle, walking/biking to work and having the grocery store/restaurants all in walking distance from my place. Even though I grew up in LA I've always played hockey, so I figure I'll meet people playing rec hockey.
The valley is not exactly famous for being transit friendly. In Toronto, if one lives in Markham and works in downtown Toronto, which is a distance of 18 miles, it takes an hour and 15-30 minutes one way too (A friend of mine does that every day). We hardly see each other because I don't have a car and getting to her place takes forever.
Even within the city of Toronto, it takes an hour and 15 minutes from my place to Steeles/Warden by transit one way. Without a car, i would say that area is pretty isolated from people living downtown.
Toronto is only walkable south of Bloor and in some areas near Bloor/Danforth/Yonge st. The vast majority of the city is not walkable at all.
LA is not walkable to you because you are not living in a walkable neighbourhood. If you live in places such as Koreantown, downtown, Santa Monica, Sawtelle, downtown Pasadena, parts of Westwood/West Hollywood etc, you could have a totally walkable life. Contrary to the belief that LA is just a huge car dependent smog filled wasteland, the city has many livable and walkable neighbourhoods. I know someone who live in Westwood for 5 years without owning a car.
You can't first select to live in Van Nuys or Bel Air and then complain about the area being transit inaccessible.
In the end, Toronto/GTA is not that much more walkable than Los Angeles to be honest. In either city you can have a highly walkable lifestyle and a completely car dependent one. In LA it is at least cheap to have a car.
Last edited by botticelli; 12-30-2013 at 08:03 AM..
OP i used to live in the Los Angeles area when i was younger, i been to Toronto many times, Los Angeles is nothing like Toronto dont be expecting things you would expect in LA, in LA you go to a store start talking and next thing you know your going to the beach everyday with that person, in toronto its way more harder to make friends, in LA i felt like everyone i knew was trying to become a actress or musician, in toronto people work at a office, in LA the whole city is nothing but asians, hispanics and blacks and whites here and there, in toronto is pretty much all Indian asian and white, no blacks or hispanics out there.
You have made a lot of generalizations that are grossly exaggerated.
Yeah.
I live in Sherman Oaks which is one of the most walkable areas. (the busiest part of Ventura Blvd).
No where in LA is there something like Kensington Market or a place where a high rise connects directly to an underground shopping mall attached to a subway system etc. LA is hands down the most car reliant city in the world, its also known to have the worst traffic in the world. (nothing compares)
Even Venice and Santa Monica's shop/people density is nothing compared to another city. This all results in car reliance aka unavoidable exposure to hours wasted in traffic.
I guess the Fairfax district/the Grove would be walkable but its basically a fake marketplace built by the guys who build Westfield malls, would feel like living in Disneyland.
Anyway, I'm checking out TO next week. I guess I'll let you all know if it lives up to expectations.
^ no, LA is nowhere close to being the most car reliant city in the US, not to mention in the world. Houston, Dallas, Miami, Phoenix, Atlanta, for example, are probably all more car reliant than LA. Last time I stayed in LA, I relied purely on transit. Stayed at Pasadena and visited multiple places via LRT and buses.
LA has many totally walkable areas. Koreantown for example. Santa Monica near Wilshire/3rd, West Hollywood etc.
Do people in Toronto spend less time on average than Los Angelenos? Not at all. We spend 24 minutes more than people in LA in commuting. Yes, Toronto has a highly walkable downtown core (I live in it with a walk score of 99), but the vast majority of the city is not walkable at all. I doubt that 10% of Toronto's 2.8M people live in walkable neighhourhoods. Less than 5% in GTA.
You are probably dissatisfied with the low walkability in LA, but let me assure this, things in GTA is not that much better. LA county actually has a higher density as the GTHA (950 vs 840), the latter being a much smaller area.
[LA country: 10 million people on 10,500 km2 of land, GTHA: 6 million on 7,125 km2)
Real walkable cities are in Europe and Asia. North American cities just don't have the density (except Manhattan). I don't know why some people imagine Toronto to be a highly dense and compact urban area with little sprawl like a European city when in fact it is just a typical North American city just like Los Angeles. We have equal amount of giant desperate flat suburbs just like LA - the skyscrapers in downtown and along Yonge street can hardly offset those utterly pathetic suburbs such as Scarborough, vast majority of North York and Etobicoke, Markham, Richmond Hill, Brampton, Vaughan, Oakville, Ajax etc.
Last edited by botticelli; 12-30-2013 at 09:04 PM..
You completely missed his point, botticelli. Toronto's downtown (not just the core) is completely walkable; that is a huge area. Even outside of that, almost anywhere on King St, College, Danforth, St. Clair, Eglinton, etc. are all entirely walkable; those areas represent a large chunk of the city's population. In addition, areas like North York City Centre, Scarborough, etc. have very good transit access and may even be walkable without transit (esp. NYCC). We're not talking about ease of access to your friend's house in the suburbs. If you live in any of these areas, most other urban areas in the city are a short transit ride away.
Also, one has to keep in mind that Toronto's walkable areas are not only livable, but *desirable*. The OP didn't mention anything about wanting to live in Brampton or other places in the metropolitan areas, so there's no need to bring those areas into this comparison. Suburbs are suburbs.
It is easy to forget how handy the PATH network is (as OP said, there's nothing like it in LA), or how nice the islands are, or the fact that the Rogers Centre and Air Canada Centre are all walking distance from most places in the downtown core, but those are all big factors. LA just doesn't place as much of an emphasis on its downtown, or many of the other walkable areas as Toronto does. Especially if you live in downtown Toronto, you have a huge array of dining, entertainment, employment, recreation, etc. options at your disposal. You would never be able to find such a diverse array of options, all within walking distance, in LA.
Well it stills sounds good..Although regarding RRSPs..
"Canadian Law,
Canada generally does not tax contributions to or accumulations in an RRSP. Under the Convention, Canada generally will impose a withholding tax of 25 percent on distributions to non-residents. The withholding tax for periodic payments, such as an RRIF which has been annuitized is 15%. An election may be filed under Sec 217 if the tax calculated on the return is less than the withholding tax." I would not be considered a resident for 3 years, correct? So would I be taxed on any RRSP contributions..?
I own a home in LA. It's not all that great.
LA is basically broken up in to the East Side/Valley and Westside. All of which are hell to travel between due to LA's terrible traffic. In addition we have a worthless public transit system. My office is 16 miles away (commuting valley-west side) and it takes 1hr-1.5hrs depending on traffic each way. What ends up happening is friends etc isolate themselves to their little neighborhood, making the entire reason of living in a big city like LA pointless if you ask me.
I'm looking forward to trying out a true city lifestyle, walking/biking to work and having the grocery store/restaurants all in walking distance from my place. Even though I grew up in LA I've always played hockey, so I figure I'll meet people playing rec hockey.
You will be considered Canadian resident FOR TAX RETURN PURPOSES even if you are in Canada ON TEMPORARY VISA. As long as you spend in Canada at least 183 days IN A CALENDAR YEAR, you're considered a resident and will be taxed as a resident.
Residency for tax purposes is different from residency for immigration purposes. For tax purposes, on working visa, you'll be treated as a Canadian citizen/Permanent Resident.
You completely missed his point, botticelli. Toronto's downtown (not just the core) is completely walkable; that is a huge area. Even outside of that, almost anywhere on King St, College, Danforth, St. Clair, Eglinton, etc. are all entirely walkable; those areas represent a large chunk of the city's population. In addition, areas like North York City Centre, Scarborough, etc. have very good transit access and may even be walkable without transit (esp. NYCC). We're not talking about ease of access to your friend's house in the suburbs. If you live in any of these areas, most other urban areas in the city are a short transit ride away.
Also, one has to keep in mind that Toronto's walkable areas are not only livable, but *desirable*. The OP didn't mention anything about wanting to live in Brampton or other places in the metropolitan areas, so there's no need to bring those areas into this comparison. Suburbs are suburbs.
It is easy to forget how handy the PATH network is (as OP said, there's nothing like it in LA), or how nice the islands are, or the fact that the Rogers Centre and Air Canada Centre are all walking distance from most places in the downtown core, but those are all big factors. LA just doesn't place as much of an emphasis on its downtown, or many of the other walkable areas as Toronto does. Especially if you live in downtown Toronto, you have a huge array of dining, entertainment, employment, recreation, etc. options at your disposal. You would never be able to find such a diverse array of options, all within walking distance, in LA.
every time I disagree with you, I am automatically "missing the point". What point am I missing here?
I never denied there are many walkable neighbourhoods in Toronto - but can you say most Torontonians live in walkable nabes? Hardly. If your neighbourhood walkable?
I also pointed out that there are many lively and walkable area in Los Angeles too -- I doubt you spent enough time there to know about them, did you? Speaking of being desirable, aren't places like Santa Monica, west Hollywood, Westwood desirable? the housing prices seem to prove that. You want to make people believe that Toronto neighbourhoods are simply more desirable than LA ones, really? I am accused of putting down Toronto all the time, but your putting down Los Angeles among other American cities seem not to be a problem - rather, it seems preferable to describe them as unlivable crime infested hell.
PATH exists only because the city is too cold --- LA doesn't need that. isn't that obvious?
My take is the walkable areas in LA are far apart, you have bubbles of walkable neighbourhoods. You live WEHO but you will drive to Santa Monica, or downtown, or anywhere for that matter.
People just don't walk in LA like they do in Toronto either.
Well it stills sounds good..Although regarding RRSPs..
"Canadian Law,
Canada generally does not tax contributions to or accumulations in an RRSP. Under the Convention, Canada generally will impose a withholding tax of 25 percent on distributions to non-residents. The withholding tax for periodic payments, such as an RRIF which has been annuitized is 15%. An election may be filed under Sec 217 if the tax calculated on the return is less than the withholding tax."
I would not be considered a resident for 3 years, correct? So would I be taxed on any RRSP contributions..?
To clarify in addition to what movingwiththewind wrote -- the withholding issues you quote are for RRSP distributions to non-residents, not contributions. If you have a SIN (i.e. Canadian SSN) and have a Canadian job, you will be allowed to contribute to an RRSP, and those contributions will yield a tax deduction (i.e. will be deducted in the calculation of taxable income), regardless of whether or not you are considered a Canadian resident for tax purposes. Your tax status will only become relevant when you actually withdraw the money.
Regarding double taxation etc. -- the US and Canada obviously have a tax treaty in effect. At the federal level, income is taxed where it is earned. This means all your earnings from a 'regular' Canadian job (i.e. a job where you mostly work in the same place and do not constantly move all around the US and Canada for extended periods of time) will be taxed on the Canadian tax return, and exactly $0 from that job will be taxed on your 1040. However, that tax treaty does not automatically extend to states and provinces. Therefore, if you are still considered a California resident for tax purposes (in addition to Ontario, where your regular home will be), you may still need to pay CA taxes on Canadian income, but you would get a foreign tax credit when calculating Canada (federal/Ontario) taxes payable. I don't know the California tax code but I doubt you will still be considered a California resident after your move.
Finding a CA/CPA that has some experience with Canada/US taxes will greatly simplify your job and won't cost a lot. If your employer regularly hires US residents he can probably suggest you one.
My take is the walkable areas in LA are far apart, you have bubbles of walkable neighbourhoods. You live WEHO but you will drive to Santa Monica, or downtown, or anywhere for that matter.
People just don't walk in LA like they do in Toronto either.
that's true. but do people walk from Yonge/Eglinton to downtown? No either. Outside downtown, walkable neighbourhoods in Toronto are small, sparadic and far apart too. We are better in the sense our downtown is bigger and more livable though. Outside downtown, not so much.
WEHO and SM are different two cities from the city of Los Angeles. Within LA, you can still take transit to many places if you want. Most people just don't like it since even a 21 year old student most likely owns a car. How many 21 student can afford driving here?
I would much prefer driving to Finch/Midland to try some good restaurants or York University to visit my friend than taking the TTC for 1-1.5 hours, unfortunately cost of driving is too high even to worth having a car.
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.
