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.
These cities are big time rivals, rather it has to do w/ sports (Lakers v Celtics, Dodgers v Red Sox) or everything else in between. However what city do you perfer when it comes to urban living, culture, life style, etc.
Oh please! Boston is nothing to LA!
Plus East Coast chicks are fugly as hell compared to West Coast & Southern girls.
If Boston had won the NBA championship I would have knocked it but to be honest I think Boston is a great American city [a bit more like San Francisco than Los Angeles, however]. I hope to visit Boston perhaps this year when I am in NYC.
I live in metro LA so I have definite biases and feel right at home in a highly ethnic-diverse city.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,034,220 times
Reputation: 4047
I'm just going to do the city stats on this since the OP didn't clarify if MSA/CSA is allowed in comparison, because they said what "city" we prefer.
Los Angeles (Racial Diversity):
White: 49.5%
Black: 9.9%
American Indian: 0.6%
Asian: 10.4%
Native Hawaiian: 0.2%
Some other race: 26.5%
Two or more races: 2.9%
Boston (Racial Diversity):
White: 56.3%
Black: 23.5%
American Indian: 0.4%
Asian: 8.2%
Native Hawaiian: 0.1%
Some other race: 8.5%
Two or more races: 3.1%
Here for all the skyline buffs out there (like me):
Skyscrapers: Los Angeles: 506 Boston: 231
For sports crazies
Teams: Los Angeles: NBA: 2 NFL: 0 MLB: 2 NHL: 2
Boston: NBA: 1 NFL: 1 MLB: 1 NHL: 1
Championships: Los Angeles: NBA: 17 (Lakers 17, Clippers 0) NFL: 0 (no teams in the city presently) MLB: 7 (Dodgers 6, Angels 1) NHL: 1 (Kings 0, Ducks 1)
Boston: NBA: 17 NFL: 3 MLB: 7 NHL: 5
But for real though, Boston had that game won until the last quarter, they gave it away so easily... that was a bad game for both teams but a good win for LA. (I supported LA, so I'm content with the aftermath)
Los Angeles MSA:
White: 52.21%
Black: 7.60%
American Indian: 0.87%
Asian: 10.39%
Hispanic: 40.3%
Boston MSA:
White: 82.5%
Black: 7.8%
American Indian: 0.5%
Asian: 6.3%
Hispanic: 9.3%
For white it's including Hispanic whites.
Lol, I already know 18Montclair & Lifeshadower will have this covered in addition they'll probably add in the CSA estimates to make up for my laziness since I'm going to bed. So I have nothing to worry about, the info will be out regardless of me doing it or not.
Championships: Los Angeles: NBA: 17 (Lakers 17, Clippers 0) NFL: 0 (no teams in the city presently) MLB: 7 (Dodgers 6, Angels 1) NHL: 1 (Kings 0, Ducks 1)
Boston: NBA: 17 NFL: 3 MLB: 7 NHL: 5
thanks for the posting the various stats.
just want to make a few quick corrections, though:
the lakers have won 16 championships, not 17. and since 5 of those titles were earned while the team was based in minneapolis, only 11 of the titles should count for the city and region of los angeles.
also, the los angeles rams (now based in st. louis) and los angeles raiders (now in oakland) each won 1 nfl championship while in LA (1951 and 1983, respectively). those two titles should be added to the city's championship tally even though the teams are no longer based in the city - after all, while the rams and raiders franchises can claim all of the various titles won in different locales, the cities of st. louis and oakland cannot claim the LA rams' 1951 nfl championship or the LA raiders' 1983 super bowl title.
similarly, the city and region of los angeles cannot claim the dodgers' first world series title, which was captured in 1955 when the team was still based in brooklyn. the following 5 world series titles were all won after the dodgers moved to los angeles, though.
and for what it's worth, the LA galaxy of major league soccer have won two championships, while the new england revolution have none. i know we're only discussing the "big 4" sports leagues, but i thought it was worth mentioning.
Yeah, kinda have to agree that I wonder about this thread, well, at least at first glance. I don't really like knocking any thread unless its premise is absurd--Pluto vs. Amarillo or some such--but I think the idea that there's some big rivalry between these two cities is questionable to say the least. (The SOX and the DODGERS have a big rivalry? That's news to me.)
But maybe this comparison works if we get away from the questionable premise that these two cities have a big rivalry. My first reaction was that you'd have a better comparison between LA and NYC (aside from the fact that it has already been done to death) because those two cities are closer in size than LA and Boston, but NYC and LA are built differently, so you could discuss the question of whether you prefer the densely built, older-style city or the new Sun Belt kind of city.
I don't know, though. Maybe the difference in size between LA and Boston could be part of the basis for comparison. Not only can people discuss densely built old city vs. Sun Belt city, but they can also discuss the pros and cons of a giant megalopolis of a city with mega doses of both the good and bad points of urban living vs. more of a typically-sized basic big city which has a more manageable scale than a giant city, and happens to be a city that packs a punch in terms of amenities but still not to the degree of a huge city like LA.
So, this could be make for an interesting comparison after all, but one problem may be getting people to read past the opening premise that Boston and LA have a big rivalry, which they really don't except from time to time when their teams both make the NBA finals.
while boston is a terrific city, i chose los angeles for a variety of reasons.
LA is much larger, which means it has a broader range of urban and outdoor/recreational amenities spread throughout the metropolitan area. no matter where you live in the region, there's always something to do, which is not necessarily the case in other metros where almost all of the top entertainment, culture, shopping, and recreation options are focused in the core central city.
another important factor for me is that the population of the LA area is far more diverse. this diversity has infiltrated almost every corner of the region, which means that the local culture tends to be more progressive and open-minded in both the city and the suburbs.
another consequence of LA's multiethnic population is that the region arguably has the best ethnic food scene in the nation in terms of quality, variety, and, due to close proximity to california's prolific agricultural regions, fresh produce throughout the year. even in the non-ethnic/immigrant cuisines, LA is a culinary standout that attracts many highly regarded and cutting-edge chefs, although boston is no slouch in that regard as well.
obviously LA, and california in general, has one of the most stunning and varied landscape/topography in the nation. there aren't many places outside of the west coast with mountains (real mountains, not just hills or sand dunes) immediately adjacent to the ocean, with the desert not too far away as well. although i absolutely love the changing leaves of autumn in new england and the beaches outside of boston, in general i prefer the more dramatic landscape of southern california, which provides car buffs with an amazing array of twisty/scenic roads for cruising in the canyons, mountains, coastline, and desert.
what else...LA has best looking girls in the nation (subjective, i know), and most importantly to me, far superior year-round weather - almost always sunny, dry, and mild or warm with low humidity. even better, the region is mostly devoid of mosquitoes, gnats, and other annoying bugs that thrive in humid climates such as the east coast.
in a nutshell, while boston is a very nice place to live or visit, in my opinion it simply can't match up with a behemoth like LA that has more to do and a more pleasant climate in which to enjoy oneself.
I've made that same argument numerous times for the sprawly Sunbelt cities. And it's a TRUE argument.
And LA is nothing to Boston. I don't understand what he's talking about in terms of "rivalry" beyond Celtics-Lakers...because I've never heard of it.
Quote:
Plus East Coast chicks are fugly as hell compared to West Coast & Southern girls.
They definitely aren't. There are fantastic looking girls all over the country, regardless of region...all of them have their own distinct styles. There are hot chicks in the East, West, South...just like there are butt chicks in the East, West, South.
But, I've come to expect ridiculous comments from you ever since you hinted that you actually believe Obama is a sleeper-cell Muslim.
Does the rivalry really extend outside of basketball?
I prefer certain parts of LA to Boston because of the weather and the amenities to be found.
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.
