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.
That's mostly true, but some of the downtowns of some of these cities (such as Philly and San Francisco) aren't really revitalized — they never declined to a seriously down state. Sure, both were grittier at some point but never to the point of having empty lots and vacant storefronts.
It seems like Los Angeles was hit by white flight harder than most cities and saw some very extreme disinvestment in the central city, so much that it became more financially practical to demolish buildings and use the lot for parking (though LA historically had more parking than most cities). Even to this day most of the upper levels along Broadway, Hill, Main, etc are still completely vacant, though that is certainly changes at a pretty speedy pace because of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance.
Diversity for the sake of diversity is stupid. Diversity #'s is the single most overrated metric on this forum and many of the cities touted for their diversity, their own diversity is low income and high crime making their metros worse, not better. If they are high earning and educated, sure, that's great, they are adding to the community. But to brag that you are diverse and they are mostly living the slum life and half not even citizens? Please. Esp when these stats are used to put it over another city. What's so great about it after a certain point? What's so great about it when they aren't even integrated and outright hate each other with gang on gang violence? You get to eat some watered down immigrant food that isn't even the same stuff they eat in their home countries most of the time? Most people won't even bother to learn a second language, much less truly explore a different culture. I'd much rather be in less diverse cities such as Minneapolis and Boston for instance and even Atlanta than Houston or Miami. Why? B/C I find the cities better. All the 3 cities are still diverse enough. Somewhere like Portland is far more accepting of diversity than many of the places touted despite their statistical lack of it. There is no "sweet spot" # of diversity statistics. Having more of a certain population by no means makes a city better.
What exactly do you know about Houston's diversity an how they interact with each other?
Also, how can you say what Portland is or isn't tolerant of when they're never even put to the test? And Boston has actually had a reputation as quite a racist city.
I actually agree with you that token diversity is stupid but what you followed that up with was nothing more than a misinformed, opinionated rant.
It seems like Los Angeles was hit by white flight harder than most cities and saw some very extreme disinvestment in the central city, so much that it became more financially practical to demolish buildings and use the lot for parking (though LA historically had more parking than most cities). Even to this day most of the upper levels along Broadway, Hill, Main, etc are still completely vacant, though that is certainly changes at a pretty speedy pace because of the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance.
What do you think happened in Washington, DC?
"Remember when crack was going on? White people were looking at DC from Virginia with binoculars and sh*t. 'Well that looks dangerous. Not yet.'"
-Dave Chappelle
"You can't mess with me. I know people in Washington! In a city that's 82 percent black, I gotta know somebody!"
-Fred Sanford
And at least Los Angeles never lost population. In some cities, pretty much everyone was trying to get out at some point in time. The "disinvestment" in L.A. does not even compare to the disinvestment in Baltimore City.
Few people on this thread have spoken about one of the most important characteristics of Los Angeles: The use of the outdoor environment as essentially an "extension" of their homes. The climate, beaches, mountains, hills, etc. impact Angelenos, and make L.A. very outdoor-oriented.
Yeah, we can talk about density or urban environment or whatever, but through the lens of how the city utilizes the environment as an extension of urban ammenities, I'd say Denver comes closest to L.A.
"Remember when crack was going on? White people were looking at DC from Virginia with binoculars and sh*t. 'Well that looks dangerous. Not yet.'"
-Dave Chappelle
"You can't mess with me. I know people in Washington! In a city that's 82 percent black, I gotta know somebody!"
-Fred Sanford
And at least Los Angeles never lost population. In some cities, pretty much everyone was trying to get out at some point in time. The "disinvestment" in L.A. does not even compare to the disinvestment in Baltimore City.
That's true - Los Angeles did see a great deal of population influx even through the white flight, in fact to the point of overcrowding in some areas. LA benefited from its enormous municipal boundaries because the flight was largely from one part of the city to the other (Westside, San Fernando Valley) though obviously some was lost to Orange County and other independent cities.
"Remember when crack was going on? White people were looking at DC from Virginia with binoculars and sh*t. 'Well that looks dangerous. Not yet.'"
-Dave Chappelle
"You can't mess with me. I know people in Washington! In a city that's 82 percent black, I gotta know somebody!"
-Fred Sanford
And at least Los Angeles never lost population. In some cities, pretty much everyone was trying to get out at some point in time. The "disinvestment" in L.A. does not even compare to the disinvestment in Baltimore City.
It was only 10 years ago DC was "murder capital" — more violent than Detroit. It did have high job centralization and gentrified nice section.
"Yeah, we're not big trend-followers here in D.C.," said Williams, puffing out his chest slightly. "We have our own way of doing things. Our murder rate has always been high. Just because folks over in L.A. or Miami start settling down, that doesn't mean we will here."
What exactly do you know about Houston's diversity an how they interact with each other?
Also, how can you say what Portland is or isn't tolerant of when they're never even put to the test? And Boston has actually had a reputation as quite a racist city.
I actually agree with you that token diversity is stupid but what you followed that up with was nothing more than a misinformed, opinionated rant.
I'm not talking about Houston specfically, I'm talking about the whole diversity argument. Miami was actually more in my mind, though, I'm not talking specifically about Miami either, nor does it matter. When cities get to a level of diversity and acceptance, having MORE and MORE diversity doesn't often help, it usually hurts.
Also I didn't know opinions were not allowed on this forum. I was stating my opinion and selection of cities and saying the fact once city is statistically more diverse than another has no bearing in my selection. It's not just diversity, it's arguments about more # of buildings as well. As if another 100 skyscrapers really puts one city over the other. It's the same type of logic posted every day on this forum.
I'm not talking about Houston, I'm talking about the whole diversity argument. When cities get to a level of diversity and acceptance, having MORE and MORE diversity doesn't often help, it usually hurts.
Also I didn't know opinions were not allowed on this forum. I was stating my opinion and selection of cities and saying the fact once city is statistically more diverse than another has no bearing in my selection. It's not just diversity, it's arguments about more # of buildings as well. As if another 100 skyscrapers really puts one city over the other. It's the same type of logic posted every day on this forum.
I think the diversity of Los Angeles is generally a great boon for the city and something that sets it apart from most other US cities for sure.
Diversity for the sake of diversity is stupid. Diversity #'s is the single most overrated metric on this forum and many of the cities touted for their diversity, their own diversity is low income and high crime making their metros worse, not better. If they are high earning and educated, sure, that's great, they are adding to the community. But to brag that you are diverse and they are mostly living the slum life and half not even citizens? Please. Esp when these stats are used to put it over another city. What's so great about it after a certain point? What's so great about it when they aren't even integrated and outright hate each other with gang on gang violence? You get to eat some watered down immigrant food that isn't even the same stuff they eat in their home countries most of the time? Most people won't even bother to learn a second language, much less truly explore a different culture. I'd much rather be in less diverse cities such as Minneapolis and Boston for instance and even Atlanta than Houston or Miami. Why? B/C I find the cities better. All the 3 cities are still diverse enough. Somewhere like Portland is far more accepting of diversity than many of the places touted despite their statistical lack of it. There is no "sweet spot" # of diversity statistics. Having more of a certain population by no means makes a city better.
Not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth and a $100 gift card to Urban Outfitters in their hand. That's why they come here, to seek a better life for themselves. USA, USA? I personally would much rather live in a diverse city over a homogenous one. It isn't always utopia, but its the way things should be. And yeah, the food tends to be way better in diverse cities. It's a great social experiment, all in all.
It's funny, you have posters bragging about how many sq feet of corporate office space their city has, or how many tall buildings it has clustered in its dead-after-5pm downtown, and you attack diversity of all metrics? Ok.
Not everyone is born with a silver spoon in their mouth and a $100 gift card to Urban Outfitters in their hand. That's why they come here, to seek a better life for themselves. USA, USA? I personally would much rather live in a diverse city over a homogenous one. It isn't always utopia, but its the way things should be. And yeah, the food tends to be way better in diverse cities. It's a great social experiment, all in all.
It's funny, you have posters bragging about how many sq feet of corporate office space their city has, or how many tall buildings it has clustered in its dead-after-5pm downtown, and you attack diversity of all metrics? Ok.
Probably because diversity is not a strong point for the city he lives in now.
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.
