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.
Based on what criteria? On THIS site, we compare objective criteria, not just personal opinions.
NY is the largest metro economy in the world; LA is the third largest. It's pretty obvious the two cities are close to each other. To deny it is, well, typical actually.
This discussion always seems to ignore the obvious: lifestyle. Some dismiss it as cliché, but the presence of the millions who decided to populate mountains susceptible to wildfire and a flood plain with no deep water port is telling. The examples are well-documented and sometimes trite: the mere possibility of being able to ski and surf the same day, the benign climate and the blurring of the distinction of indoor/outdoor, etc. But for whatever reasons, they are conveniently ignored whenever this subject is broached, which is even more inane when the substituted criteria includes arguments claiming my daily life is somehow diminished because the aggregate numbers of this MSA’s GDP of is lower than another’s... That might be relevant if I were to get paid to do statistical regression analyses for the census bureau. But I live my life here.
Leaving the aside the amazing, yet inexplicably overlooked, quality and quantity of things to be found in LA and its environs, there is the appeal of Los Angeles’ geographical context. All the subjective expressions of desirability (rather than of opportunity) can be reduced to the questions: what does living in a given place offer a person? What can the average person afford do on a weekend? What’s within a half-day’s drive? You know, things we all do to mark time and make memories.
Located within a 250-300 miles radius around Los Angeles are easily accessible destinations including, but not limited to: Catalina Island, San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, Orange County Beaches, San Diego/La Jolla, Las Vegas, Palm Springs, Joshua Tree National Park, Mojave Desert National Reserve, Colorado River, Death Valley, Kings Canyon National Park, Ancient Bristlecone Pine Forrest, Sequoia National Park, Mono Lake, Bishop/Mammoth Lakes, Yosemite National Park, Monterey, Carmel, Big Sur, Cambia, Carrizo Plane National Monument, Moro Bay/Moro Rock, Paso Robles wine county, Channel Island National Park, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Malibu, Santa Monica Mountains…. You can get on the road shortly after daybreak and arrive at any these places for lunch. I’ve been to almost all of these places within the last 18 months without even eating any vacation time. If Mexico ever regains its sanity, you can add Ensenada, Rosarito, San Felipe and the Sea of Cortez. If a specific events compels me to visit NY (which I do love) I can leave my house less than an hour before my flight and get to Long Beach airport for a non-stop. But why would I fly to Niagara Falls when I can drive to Yosemite?
That’s six National Parks. If you truly hate nature, debauch away in Vegas. A little further away is the Grand Canyon, San Francisco, Lake Tahoe, Napa, Sonoma, the Redwoods, Mt Shasta, Lassen National Park and all the wonders of Northern CA, but I’ve leave the convenient access to the Nor Cal treasures for the Bay Area to boost. There’s an active volcano, the world oldest trees and biggest trees, the world’s largest and most agriculturally productive valley, the best wines, the best pot, the country’s lowest deserts and tallest mountains…
Now, what’s interesting within the same distance of NY? Mostly, relatively less interesting cities. This is not to say there’s nothing to visit, its just… not the same. I suspect that’s why so many New Yorkers proudly claim they never leave the city; limited local destinations. Unless you get on an plane, there’s little compelling travel for leisure. This sentiment is as much an admission of the relatively uninteresting character of its region, at least as compared to the West, as it is a testament to the treasures to be found within the city. Many intentionally confuse these the two, but those of us “out here” know better.
Now, what’s interesting within the same distance of NY? Mostly, relatively less interesting cities. This is not to say there’s nothing to visit, its just… not the same. I suspect that’s why so many New Yorkers proudly claim they never leave the city; limited local destinations. Unless you get on an plane, there’s little compelling travel for leisure. This sentiment is as much an admission of the relatively uninteresting character of its region, at least as compared to the West, as it is a testament to the treasures to be found within the city. Many intentionally confuse these the two, but those of us “out here” know better.
I agree with what you say in terms of the natural beauty around Los Angeles, but I think you're selling New York way short. The other cities in the northeast are places that New Yorkers go to sometimes. There are beautiful natural surroundings (beautiful natural lakes) around New York as well (though I think California has a greater diversity of these things).
I agree with what you say in terms of the natural beauty around Los Angeles, but I think you're selling New York way short. The other cities in the northeast are places that New Yorkers go to sometimes. There are beautiful natural surroundings (beautiful natural lakes) around New York as well (though I think California has a greater diversity of these things).
I probably am selling it short, but its just a matter of how much. Year-round access to most if not all of these places is available to basically anybody in the area with a job. And most of these places aren't just pleasant; they're awe-inspiring. What amuses me is this regional advantage is always carved out of this discussion, as if simply recognizing it is unfair.
Now, what’s interesting within the same distance of NY? Mostly, relatively less interesting cities. This is not to say there’s nothing to visit, its just… not the same. I suspect that’s why so many New Yorkers proudly claim they never leave the city; limited local destinations. Unless you get on an plane, there’s little compelling travel for leisure. This sentiment is as much an admission of the relatively uninteresting character of its region, at least as compared to the West, as it is a testament to the treasures to be found within the city. Many intentionally confuse these the two, but those of us “out here” know better.
Well, you had me up until here. You have a great perspective and make a great claim for the West Coast, but you're selling NY wayyyy short. What's close?
New England towns, cities, nature
Adirondacks (incl. my favorite mountain communities in the states)
The Catskills
Finger Lakes (incl. wine region)
Jersey Coast (awesome boardwalks and warmer water for swimming)
Long Island and the Hamptons
Canada (incl. Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto)
Great Lakes - Some of the largest fresh water lakes in the world
Amazingly urban cities with some of the best history in the US
I don't have time to make a list as thorough as yours, but to assume people don't leave NYC because there isn't much around (or because a choice few say they don't leave) is short-sighted to say the least. Perhaps you were joking, as you seem pretty intelligent in the rest of your post.
I probably am selling it short, but its just a matter of how much. Year-round access to most if not all of these places is available to basically anybody in the area with a job. And most of these places aren't just pleasant; they're awe-inspiring. What amuses me is this regional advantage is always carved out of this discussion, as if simply recognizing it is unfair.
Well, I was saying "way short" so I meant by "way" much. There's also something to be said for seasons as it changes the natural landscape around you very dramatically while you stay in place (this is also not optional, so there's something to be said against this as well). The Adirondacks are actually really untouched and unspoiled.
Also, I'm from the West Coast originally and now live in New York, if that helps you understand my perspective.
Well, you had me up until here. You have a great perspective and make a great claim for the West Coast, but you're selling NY wayyyy short. What's close?
New England towns, cities, nature
Adirondacks (incl. my favorite mountain communities in the states)
The Catskills
Finger Lakes (incl. wine region)
Jersey Coast (awesome boardwalks and warmer water for swimming)
Long Island and the Hamptons
Canada (incl. Montreal, Quebec City, Toronto)
Great Lakes - Some of the largest fresh water lakes in the world
Amazingly urban cities with some of the best history in the US
I don't have time to make a list as thorough as yours, but to assume people don't leave NYC because there isn't much around (or because a choice few say they don't leave) is short-sighted to say the least. Perhaps you were joking, as you seem pretty intelligent in the rest of your post.
Thanks for the kind words. Again, I'd never claim there's nothing of interest in the region. The history there is undeniable and I’m not going to dismiss the beautiful natural areas. But there is a qualitative difference in the local geography, and California’s draws countless people from all over the globe for that specific reason. My point was directed specifically to those who proudly claim they never leave NY. There is no LA equivalent to that person, and I refuse to believe its because of the qualities of the respective cities. Big Sur commands one’s attendance, and you’d be a fool to ignore it. The Catskills? Wonderful, I’d probably be more inclined to remain local and go to the Met as well.
Thanks for the kind words. Again, I'd never claim there's nothing of interest in the region. The history there is undeniable and I’m not going to dismiss the beautiful natural areas. But there is a qualitative difference in the local geography, and California’s draws countless people from all over the globe for that specific reason. My point was directed specifically to those who proudly claim they never leave NY. There is no LA equivalent to that person, and I refuse to believe its because of the qualities of the respective cities. Big Sur commands one’s attendance, and you’d be a fool to ignore it. The Catskills? Wonderful, I’d probably be more inclined to remain local and go to the Met as well.
The area around the finger lakes has indeniable beauty, and honestly i would think there is no one with an unbiased eye who could claim otherwise.
I think Cali is absolutely beautiful but some of the context in your post is quite silly to be honest. There are places of amzing natural well within a short drive of NYC. It may not look like CA but it doesnt have to
Last edited by kidphilly; 10-03-2011 at 03:32 PM..
The area around the finger has indeniable beauty, and honestly i would think there is no one with an unbiased eye who could claim otherwise.
I think Cali is absolutely beautiful but some of the context in your post is quite silly to be honest. There are places of amzing natural well within a short drive of NYC. It may not look like CA but it doesnt have to
In that case, LA's literary scene is the same as NY's. Its all subjective, right?
In that case, LA's literary scene is the same as NY's. Its all subjective, right?
Yes but my point is there are beutiful areas, your assertation is they do not exist. Not saying equal or moreso
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.
