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.
Now that I think about it, what's wrong with the South Bay? Torrance, Hawthorne, Gardena(I think), Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, El Segundo, etc, what's wrong with these cities?
It's funny how they separated South Los Angeles, and South East Los Angeles, don't they both make up ONE South Central Los Angeles? I heard The Harbor Freeway(110 Freeway) separates East South Central, and West South Central.
Well that isn't necessarily an "official map." You won't see South Central ever used in official city documents now either. South Central is now officially known by the city as "South Los Angeles." All part of an effort to distance the poor reputation of the "South Central" name from the area.
Now that I think about it, what's wrong with the South Bay? Torrance, Hawthorne, Gardena(I think), Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, Palos Verdes, Hermosa Beach, Lawndale, El Segundo, etc, what's wrong with these cities?
Plenty if you include Hawthorne, Lomita and Lawndale and maybe Gardena. These small communities are inland a little ways from the ocean and are not at all attractive. Boring apartment buildings for miles and crime problems. The beach cities are what make the South Bay popular.
Plenty if you include Hawthorne, Lomita and Lawndale and maybe Gardena. These small communities are inland a little ways from the ocean and are not at all attractive. Boring apartment buildings for miles and crime problems. The beach cities are what make the South Bay popular.
You'll still live in proximity to the attractive fun areas. I'm sure the appartment buildings in these areas are alright.
You'll still live in proximity to the attractive fun areas. I'm sure the appartment buildings in these areas are alright.
Not all of them. Some are in poor neighborhoods with crime\ gangs and run down apartment buildings. On the other side of the 405 freeway away from the beach and toward South LA the area is blighted in places.
It's also excessively muggy, ugly, boring. It is the boonies.
Believe it or not, the Valley (and I have lived in Tarzana most of my life) is getting a cultural scene and a nightlife now, but it seems to me that the reason there has not been much of a nightlife historically is because of the enormous power of the homeowners here. Along my stretch of Ventura Blvd. in Tarzana-Woodland Hills, music club after music club has opened and been shut down by the fearful property owners who, let's face it, have reason to protect the value of what is theirs.
But what is really exciting to me is the grass-roots artistic impetus that is just beginning to spring up all over the place presently, from garage bands to the San Fernando Valley Symphony to dance academies and art schools, etc., fueled by ordinary people, CSUN, private startup businesses, and the numerous community colleges and high schools that dot the landscape. I have always felt that the most stimulating stage of cultural development is that foundational stage when it is nascent. I definitely get the feeling somehow that something is in the air besides the smog. And nightclubs? There are already a few in this neck of the woods, and there may be more, if the homeowners truly get a reason to believe that they can be contained in a new district and their investments will be safe.
Based on the OP criteria of cultural and global influence, Los Angeles would be the choice based on the facts. For which one I would live, I would choose San Diego. I can always hop on a train to LA if I get bored and want to experience their culture for a day or so.
Valley City=SFV=San Fernando Valley. In this thread we will pretend Valley City exists and successfully seceded from the Angel City.
Stats (more or less accurate)
Los Angeles - City of Angels
Population: 3.83 million
Valley City - City in the Valley?
Population: 1.76 million
San Diego - Americas Finest City
Population: 1.35 million
It's hard to include other stats just because it was hard for me to find accurate and/or up to date info for Valley City. Competition is based on culture, global influence, and just whatever you think makes one better then the other!
*photos from WikiCommons
Two things to nitpick
If Valley City were its own city, wouldn't it have a population closer to 1.4 million? 1.76 covers the whole valley (I'm taking wikipedia's word on this), but you'd have to subtract Burbank, Glendale, etc. which are already their own incorporated cities.
And you'd have to subtract the Valley City population from Los Angeles. So instead of 3.83 million, we'd be talking ~2.43 million.
Still, I'd pick Los Angeles. The Valley is nice (I have a friend with a nice house in Woodland Hills), but the Basin is where the action is.
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.
Something's happening--really?
