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.
You're a terrible poster. People are entitled to their opinion. There's nothing wrong with voting for what you vote for being there's no wrong answer. The thread was created to see what the majority of people thought and we've gotten that answer. That's that. Just because you like something doesn't mean someone else does and that doesn't make them wrong. You haven't proven anything to anyone with your OPINIONS. If you're arguing about that's factual, then that's fine. But most of what you've posted in here is opinionated and now you're crucifying people because they like New York better? lol. Just stop.
I never said people shouldn't have their opinions but don't get opinions mixed with facts. Its a fact that LA is denser than Boston, also a fact that it's denser than Chicago, another fact that LA has more 20k density + areas than Boston. So tell me how its a fact that Boston qualifies as "world class urban" but LA doesn't.
Why are you doing this only to me? Its ok to have an opinion, I wont bother you if you prefer Boston to SF or LA but I will bother you if you act like you know more about California than I do with only 4 visits. By telling me LA is suburban and subpar to places like Boston is laughable and objectively inaccurate. I've posted facts against those claims and they've posted what? Their P.O.S opinions.
I'd say Flushing or Astoria or almost any neighborhood in Brooklyn has more activity going on than just about any major district of Los Angeles--and the level of activity is far closer to what you would find in major cities abroad.
I dunno. I just spent the last few weeks in Flushing and it's spotty no less than L.A., whichever major districts.
I never said people shouldn't have their opinions but don't get opinions mixed with facts. Its a fact that LA is denser than Boston, also a fact that it's denser than Chicago, another fact that LA has more 20k density + areas than Boston. So tell me how its a fact that Boston qualifies as "world class urban" but LA doesn't.
Why are you doing this only to me? Its ok to have an opinion, I wont bother you if you prefer Boston to SF or LA but I will bother you if you act like you know more about California than I do with only 4 visits. By telling me LA is suburban and subpar to places like Boston is laughable and objectively inaccurate. I've posted facts against those claims and they've posted what? Their P.O.S opinions.
I dunno. I just spent the last few weeks in Flushing and it's spotty no less than L.A., whichever major districts.
Really? You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but what district in LA is comparable to Flushing? I can't think of any LA neighborhood with that kind of everyday street activity.
Downtown Flushing rivals the busiest parts of Manhattan in terms of vibrancy. I don't think really anyplace in the U.S. outside of NYC would top Flushing.
LA is more Urban than Chicago and OVERALL more than SF. NYC is more urban than all three. NYC and Chicago have more urban cores than LA but Chicago tends to drop way off as soon as you leave the Loop.
I would agree with this. LA is, overall, much denser than Chicago, but Chicago has a bigger, denser core.
The problem is that most of Chicago isn't very dense. There are strip malls and suburban-style townhouses right outside the downtown Loop. LA doesn't have lots of high density, but it has medium density seemingly forever.
I ask because you don't sound like an Angeleno, at least none I've ever met.
You don't know anything about LA if you think that line is going to go smoothly.
The chances of it being a full-fledged BRT as it is is pretty slim--likely it'll be some mock express bus line missing a crucial component or two that makes BRT work.
Of course, I'm hoping it simply just gets off the ground and works.
You don't know anything about LA if you think that line is going to go smoothly.
The chances of it being a full-fledged BRT as it is is pretty slim--likely it'll be some mock express bus line missing a crucial component or two that makes BRT work.
Of course, I'm hoping it simply just gets off the ground and works.
When I say BRT, I'm thinking something closer to the Silver Line on the 10 and 110 than the Orange Line in the SFV.
In 50-75 years, I wouldn't be surprised to see a subway eventually put through there. It's absolutely possible to run a subway under the Sepulveda Pass (see the Red Line through the Cahuenga Pass), just right now it is very cost-prohibitive.
I've heard that surface LRT would be impossible due to the grade on the Valley side of the 405.
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.
