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.
This thread is still alive? LA wins, unfortunately, hands down, in every aspect of the argument. Violence, numbers, influence on popular culture, etc., LA's got Chicago beat, regardless of your criterion or definition of 'capital.' What really blew me away about gangs in Los Angeles is how they have a presence in damn near every part of the city, even the upper scale neighborhoods. Granted, the gangs on the Westside, beach cities, San Fernando Valley, may be a bit watered down compared to other, more infamous sections of the city, but they have a presence nonetheless. Gang life has such a rich history/culture and permeates itself into so many different aspects of the city that there really is no argument. Obviously it's cooled down since the 80's & 90's, but it's still a war zone in certain areas of the city. LA really put gang culture on the map. The only people that really talk GD's & Vice Lords are people from the midwest; I've heard they have a presence in the South as well. Both of which are areas that are pretty much irrelevant, to anything, really. Los Angeles, end of argument
I didn't read through this entire thread, so I may be repeating things, but I would think LA would definitely be considered more of a gang capital than Chicago. In LA, the gangs (or at least gang culture) are definitely more pervasive. I remember when I visited a friend in LA, whether it be around Santa Monica or just around the strip malls you would see lots of low-riders and large groups (I don't want to say they were official gangs though).
In Chicago, partly due to our weather and the fact that we are largely a public transportation city (and a city of neighborhoods), you don't see gangs around nearly as much. For example, if you are downtown or many parts of the North Side (even some nicer neighborhoods in the South and West sides), you wouldn't think Chicago had any gangs.
I just don't think we have the same magnitude of gangs as LA, and especially not if you are talking about metro level. Gang culture is really bad in certain pockets of our city, but like I said, I don't think they are nearly as pervasive as LA.
This thread is still alive? LA wins, unfortunately, hands down, in every aspect of the argument. Violence, numbers, influence on popular culture, etc., LA's got Chicago beat, regardless of your criterion or definition of 'capital.' What really blew me away about gangs in Los Angeles is how they have a presence in damn near every part of the city, even the upper scale neighborhoods. Granted, the gangs on the Westside, beach cities, San Fernando Valley, may be a bit watered down compared to other, more infamous sections of the city, but they have a presence nonetheless. Gang life has such a rich history/culture and permeates itself into so many different aspects of the city that there really is no argument. Obviously it's cooled down since the 80's & 90's, but it's still a war zone in certain areas of the city. LA really put gang culture on the map. The only people that really talk GD's & Vice Lords are people from the midwest; I've heard they have a presence in the South as well. Both of which are areas that are pretty much irrelevant, to anything, really. Los Angeles, end of argument
Chicago may have more gang members per capita than Los Angeles, and have more crime these days, but that doesn't make it the gang capital any more than NYC having a much larger population makes it America's capital.
LA is where these big international gangs started that are known all over the world, that are emulated all over the world. Los Angeles is home to MS-13, known as probably the most dangerous street gang the world has, that spread and flourished in Central America and other US cities, 18th street did the same thing to a lesser extent. Both of those gangs started in the Pico-Union district of Los Angeles. The Crips started in South Central, Bloods and Pirus started in LA's most infamous suburb the city of Compton. Bloods and Crips are known and emulated worldwide, people trying to start "Blood" and "Crip" sets all over the world, and some of them grew roots like those in NYC. LA taught the world how to gang bang, didn't invent gangster rap, but we codified it. Movies about our gangs and our gang culture spread all over with people taking example from it.
I call LA the cultural capital of gangs in the world, and probably the de facto capital in general. I'm sure the gangs run deeper in Teguicalpa and San Salvador, but where did those gangs start?
The End of Gangs | PSMag.com • BY SAM QUINONES • December 29, 2014 • 6:00 AM
Quote:
Los Angeles gave America the modern street gang. Groups like the Crips and MS-13 have spread from coast to coast, and even abroad. But on Southern California’s streets they have been vanishing. Has L.A. figured out how to stop the epidemic it set loose on the world?
Haven't read the article yet, but I'm anticipating some explanation about good police work. Which is BS. The truth is that this whole city is gentrifying. Not just Downtown, not just Hollywood- the whole damn city.
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.
