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.
No not quite because of density. LA lacks the infrastructure, it lacks the high income, it lacks the prestigious name brand, it lacks the education attainment rate, and it lacks the healthy economy. LA belonging with these other 4 cities would the equal to saying Tampa belongs with Baltimore and Saint Louis historically. All LA has in common with these cities are the expensive real estate costs, walking in Back Bay and walking in Wilshire alone will show you these cities are of different classes
The average Los Angeleno makes $20,000 less than the average New Yorkers, San Franciscans, and Washingtonians and $11,000 less than the average Bostonian while paying equal or higher real estate and tax expenditures. The Average Los Angeleno has less than a third of a chance of being educated while Washington, Boston, San Francisco, and New York are thought of the most educated and literate cities. Average Bostonians, Washingtonians, New Yorkers, and San Franciscans walk, transit, or find a way to avoid the automobile while the average Los Angeleno is stuck in hours of traffic. The average Bostonian, Washingtonian, San Franciscan, and New Yorker have jobs while higher numbers of Los Angelenos are unemployed seeking employment.
LA is not a bad city but it doesn't belong
I see your point. A bit arbitrary, but I get what you're saying.
However, I don't get what you mean by a lack of a "prestigious name brand". Los Angeles is one of the entertainment capitals of the globe. A great deal of how everyone views the US is created and exported from Hollywood. It's the second largest metro in the nation, one of the most diverse areas in the entire world, the place is spilling over with culture and influence. These aren't things to sneeze at.
Quote:
Average Bostonians, Washingtonians, New Yorkers, and San Franciscans walk, transit, or find a way to avoid the automobile while the average Los Angeleno is stuck in hours of traffic
Now, I thought this wasn't about being biased against sprawled cities? I must have been gone the day everyone in the world reached the consensus that dense cities are the best cities.
Exclude that argument, because everyone can't agree that this would knock LA down a tier.
I'm sure the OP referred to super star in a different way than what your thinking. He's speaking of cities that get a lot of praise for what various reasons they may compared to the rest that get mostly negative or mixed results on this forum.
Of course LA is known more world wide than Boston and is 100 times more glamorous than Boston can ever be. However, all the glamour in the world and brand name popularity doesn't stop LA from what it really is, which is a city far behind these other 4 on even the more basic things.
Basic things such as what exactly? ...A denser city? Well, it developed differently. Europe and Asia both pummel the U.S. in dense cities but what is more important is what is there.
Wait is it education? Because in that case Boston must beat everywhere in the world?
So how about everything else again?
Prestigious brand name, a city where you can travel the world and get a good response of. LA has a mixed opinion both here in the states and abroad. Its a city that people have strong feelings of, whether hatred or fanfare. It's often rated as one of the most hated cities in the country and world but at the same time also seen as a desirable place by many others. The opinion people hold of LA is mixed which is more than what you can say for a place like Boston, which generally has a good opinion both here and overseas.
Of course no one is sneezing at LA but you have to step back and relate yourself which is more important in a city, an asset to pursue an outstanding quality of life or live someplace glamorously known as America's culture exporter.
People who have the wealth can do whatever they want in LA, much more so than in Boston actually. People who want the wealth and lifestyle go there also and bring the stats down.
Don't even mention diversity or the other usual crapola talked about on these forums, LA suburbs crush Boston in diversity.
LA has a better artist/restaurant/music/film scene than Boston also. Is that even debatable?
Boston is a great city, no doubt. It has things LA doesn't. But LA is simply a force to be reckoned with, it's a monster.
Prestigious brand name, a city where you can travel the world and get a good response of. LA has a mixed opinion both here in the states and abroad. Its a city that people have strong feelings of, whether hatred or fanfare. It's often rated as one of the most hated cities in the country and world but at the same time also seen as a desirable place by many others. The opinion people hold of LA is mixed which is more than what you can say for a place like Boston, which generally has a good opinion both here and overseas.
Well, you can say that, but I've heard different, and I'm sure others have as well. Something like this will very from person to person.
There's always jokes and parodies of world tourists in Los Angeles. I've never heard the same for Boston. In fact, even down south (where I'm from) the city most people have visited and know things about out west is Los Angeles, and on the east coast it's New York, DC, and Philadelphia. Boston doesn't really register with most people I've met down here.
Quote:
Of course no one is sneezing at LA but you have to step back and relate yourself which is more important in a city, an asset to pursue an outstanding quality of life or live someplace glamorously known as America's culture exporter.
Well that was my earlier point that these things vary from person to person. You have your own set of criteria of what makes a top tier city, but the next person might have completely different requirements.
I know that for a lot of people, the natural beauty and great weather of Los Angeles is what would put it a tier above a city like Boston.
You know, that's true. Except for those who are into sports, Boston is an afterthought for most of the nation, sort of an east-coast SF without the spectacular views, lots of snobs.... unless you live in New England it's probably not going to make your list for a day trip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairobi
Well, you can say that, but I've heard different, and I'm sure others have as well. Something like this will very from person to person.
There's always jokes and parodies of world tourists in Los Angeles. I've never heard the same for Boston. In fact, even down south (where I'm from) the city most people have visited and know things about out west is Los Angeles, and on the east coast it's New York, DC, and Philadelphia. Boston doesn't really register with most people I've met down here.
Well that was my earlier point that these things vary from person to person. You have your own set of criteria of what makes a top tier city, but the next person might have completely different requirements.
I know that for a lot of people, the natural beauty and great weather of Los Angeles is what would put it a tier above a city like Boston.
You know, that's true. Except for those who are into sports, Boston is an afterthought for most of the nation, sort of an east-coast SF without the spectacular views, lots of snobs.... unless you live in New England it's probably not going to make your list for a day trip.
Now don't get me wrong; people definitely know of how Boston is relevant to American history, but I just don't to many people for whom it registers as a big time city.
This quote applies to all the "superstar" cities in this thread IMO. I'll take Philly, both the good and bad anyday. You guys can have the expensive real estate and prestigious name brand
"A Bostonian who lived in Philly for six years, John Patrick Dougherty, wrote, "Between Boston and Philadelphia, which city do I prefer? Hands down, Philadelphia. Boston may well be Hollywood's vision of a hip, fabulous place to live. It's clean, it's comfortable, has nice old architecture, and they have it gussied-up to give the tourists a cute city experience. And like any Hollywood set, much of it feels disgustingly fake to me. It provides culture on a mass-production scale that is easily digestable. Nothing much feels organic or bohemian....there are no rumblings of something new bubbling up. Yes, it's brainy and the economy is very strong, but Boston is perhaps the least 'edgy' city I have ever lived in—a shame when our country is overrun by a monotony of sameness and the cities seem the last bastion of creativity."
Proud to be provincial. Way to GO! I remember thinking that way when I lived up there. Too bad about those 2011 Red Sox, seemed like a good team, from a good city...
BTW I heard a rumor that the city that is what you describe... it's actually called New York City.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexor67
You see the reason Boston isn't as hated as most other cities both on this forum and real life is because those that do know of it respect it for what it offers. No one here in Boston cares where our city ranks in this world or if people in this world are aware of our city.
Boston's mission is to improve its quality of life and both experience in the city and stats will lead you to say its succeeded. Boston for the most part is low crime, quality infrastructure, quality amenities, progressive, high income, low poverty, and respected in business. Having a very diverse economy helps. People in Boston don't care about the world outside of our city, no one is throwing a tantrum that Tokyo is more relevant or that Paris is more desirable. We continue to improve our own city. Whats important to us Bostonians is our quality of life.
No Doubt. Congrats. I hope that's enough of a consolation prize. Philly was once the capital of the USA, you know. lol. Hope that's enough to compensate for the Sox' collapse. I was so sure this years WS would be a Sox-Phillies deal. That pesky NYC again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexor67
No need to complain just the last 10 years Boston has seen more championships than any other city and a championship in every professional level sport.
Sorry, I should have explained. I was basing my rankings on a combination of income and education rankings. I believed DC/SF/Bos all have slightly higher education levels (as measured by college graduates).
NYC wins on the super rich (Thank you Wall Street!) and scores high on mean income, but I believe SF/DC/Bos have higher median incomes. Having a hard time finding a hard source on that. Old: //www.city-data.com/forum/gener...household.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by noah5
Overall, New York is clearly the most "superstar". Although LA seems poor compared to these other cities, saying "I live in LA" probably has more cachet/superstar status to the average american than saying "I live in Washington" or "I live in Boston".
IMO, its depends on how you define "superstar." LA is clearly more glamorous/hip. But, Boston/DC probably carry more cache with the Ivy League/Charlie Rose watching/Economist-reading crowd. NYC does well on both.
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.
