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.
LOL I hate to break it to you but BART is currently being expanded into SJ, but more importantly, ride sharing is the future of mass transit. LA is super late to the transit party as eell.
Yeah, I know they are just now getting ready to bring the BART to San Jose. The fact that it isn't in place now just illustrates that San Jose is barely even considered part of the area (despite the fact that the 49ers play there).
L.A. had the biggest interurban rail system in the world in the 1920's, not sure how they are rating as being "super late to the transit game." I hope you're not implying that the Bay Area is somehow ahead of everything in ride share just because the companies are incorporated there....guarantee there are more ride share cars on the roads in metro L.A., I've been picked up in a driverless Uber before too, in Pittsburgh. Don't think that would happen in San Francisco.
Yeah, I know they are just now getting ready to bring the BART to San Jose. The fact that it isn't in place now just illustrates that San Jose is barely even considered part of the area (despite the fact that the 49ers play there).
L.A. had the biggest interurban rail system in the world in the 1920's, not sure how they are rating as being "super late to the transit game." I hope you're not implying that the Bay Area is somehow ahead of everything in ride share just because the companies are incorporated there....guarantee there are more ride share cars on the roads in metro L.A., I've been picked up in a driverless Uber before too, in Pittsburgh. Don't think that would happen in San Francisco.
Caltrain has 92 runs every weekday with express and local service and connecting light rail on both ends, electrification currently underway, and a plan to further extend within SF to be connecting with BART within the city. It’s ridiculous to say it’s not part of the Bay Area as it’s better connected to the urban core of SF than anywhere in Orange County or the Inland Empire is to downtown LA.
Of course, it could do better and it’s ridiculous that electrification and a connecting stop to BART is taking so long, but it’s also ridiculous to say San Jose is barely considered part of the Bay Area. There has to be some kind of reasonable middle ground between the boosterism of some Bay Area posters and the detractors in LA.
LA is somewhat late to the transit game in some sense as the 1920s network isn’t the backbone of the transit in LA today as that history was interrupted. Politics and pearl clutching on the part of some greater LA residents, not Bay Area residents, really limited the possibilities for the system that was building in the 90s. Thank goodness the area was able to overcome that and will probably have a system comparable to that of the Bay Area in absolute size/reach within a decade though in a metro that is quite a bit bigger.
Just for the jollies, my belief is that if LA had never cleared Bunker Hill, but instead, kept its dense collection of late 19th and early 20th century mid-rise buildings and had punted the skyscrapers to the Civic Center or modern day South Park, Bunker Hill with its dense layout, historic architecture, location, and original Pershing Square (not whatever it is now) would probably be among the preeminent best urban neighborhoods in the country rather than just another part of the rather staid Financial district. Too bad
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-14-2018 at 09:30 AM..
It’s ridiculous to say it’s not part of the Bay Area as it’s better connected to the urban core of SF than anywhere in Orange County or the Inland Empire is to downtown LA.
Of course, it could do better and it’s ridiculous that electrification and a connecting stop to BART is taking so long, but it’s also ridiculous to say San Jose is barely considered part of the Bay Area.
I spent a week in San Francisco around 2010 once. I asked people in the city if there was any reason for me to go to San Jose during my trip (as a tourist in the Bay Area). Not one person I asked could think of a reason for me to go down there. Kind of weird for the largest city in the region.
I spent a week in San Francisco around 2010 once. I asked people in the city if there was any reason for me to go to San Jose during my trip (as a tourist in the Bay Area). Not one person I asked could think of a reason for me to go down there. Kind of weird for the largest city in the region.
That’s fine, there are no major tourist attractions there especially compared to in SF proper. That’s not a rubric for how connected it is or if it’s part of the metropolitan area. I’m not going to send a tourist to Palms, Century City or Glendale when asking about what to do on a LA trip, but those are fairly urban parts of the metro and no one is going to say they aren’t part of or are barely part of Greater Los Angeles.
I went on a work trip to San Jose and SF a couple years ago and took Caltrain. It’s pretty straightforward and it’s not cow pastures on the way in between as there were plenty of people getting on and off on the way.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-14-2018 at 09:47 AM..
Just for the jollies, my belief is that if LA had never cleared Bunker Hill, but instead, kept its dense collection of late 19th and early 20th century mid-rise buildings and had punted the skyscrapers to the Civic Center or modern day South Park, Bunker Hill with its dense layout, historic architecture, location, and original Pershing Square (not whatever it is now) would probably be among the preeminent best urban neighborhoods in the country rather than just another part of the rather staid Financial district. Too bad
Maybe if it looked like it did at the turn of the century but by the 1950's it didn't. Far from it. By then many of the homes were already gone. What was left was a rundown flophouse here next to an open field there. Far from rows of dense apt and beautiful victorian homes. I actually live on Bunker Hill and love it. I can step out of my place and have a great lunch or dinner, get a hair cut, walk to a great park, go to church, enjoy free weekend outdoor concerts, have the world renowed Music Center and museums at my feet. And with the Grand Avenue Project starting construction soon and a future Metro stop which will open in about a year and a half, I'd say Bunker Hill is more than a 'staid Financial district'.
Maybe if it looked like it did at the turn of the century but by the 1950's it didn't. Far from it. By then many of the homes were already gone. What was left was a rundown flophouse here next to an open field there. Far from rows of dense apt and beautiful victorian homes. I actually live on Bunker Hill and love it. I can step out of my place and have a great lunch or dinner, get a hair cut, walk to a great park, go to church, enjoy free weekend outdoor concerts, have the world renowed Music Center and museums at my feet. And with the Grand Avenue Project starting construction soon and a future Metro stop which will open in about a year and a half, I'd say Bunker Hill is more than a 'staid Financial district'.
Structurally, it was about the same in the 50s as it was pre WWII, the difference was that the people living there were no longer the wealthy. It was blighted the way that many urban neighborhoods seemed blighted. A rough analogy is the repeated calls in the mid 20th century to bulldoze over much of Greenwich Village for freeways and modern development as there were deadbeats, poors, prostitutes and minorities living there. The dense apartments and Victorian homes (though now divvied into multiple dwellings) still existed, but the wealthy had mostlu moved out. If the dense historic neighborhood had been allowed to continue existing, then the modern turnaround of LA’s downtown would have been that much better. There were ample places in downtown to build a skyscraper district and wish Bunker Hill was not it.
I’m glad the area has improved so much since its 80s and 90s nadir, but I still think there was a loss of what could have been. Imagine a dense historic Victorian neighborhood on a hill (they also lopped off much of the hill itself for Bunker Hill’s current iteration) with a view of skyscrapers that were densely placed in Financial District proper and South Park. I think that’s what Bunker Hill could have been. I believe it would have been hands down the most impressive urban neighborhood in the city.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-14-2018 at 12:43 PM..
Public transit as we know it is changing past simple subway lines....in that sense, LA is super late.
Quote:
And let's be honest here,what is Los Angeles really missing ?
Honestly the ultimate answer might hurt some feelings but since you ask, highly educated, upwardly mobile people with ambition. LA has a widespread nasty grit about it that I could never put up with.
Quote:
Once DTLA and public transportation gets better,where looking at a damn near perfect city.
Like, have you ever been to LA? See below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Haha oh really? Tell us about all these classy LA places then?
Cities With a Median Household Income Under $50,000
Los Angeles Metro Area: 33
San Francisco Metro Area: 8
Total Population of Cities With a Median Household Income Under $50,000
Los Angeles Metro Area: 1,547,031
San Francisco Metro Area: 89,710
Los Angeles Metro Area:
Median Household Income and Population
Bell, CA $38,823...35,127
Bell Gardens, CA $37,183...47,805
Commerce, CA $42,335...12,997
Compton, CA $45,406...97,740
Cudahy, CA $39,058...24,106
East Los Angeles, CA $41,193...124,191
East Rancho Dominguez, CA $45,854...15,887
El Monte, CA $40,654...115,665
Florence-Graham, CA $34,758...63,390
Hawaiian Gardens, CA $45,089...14,468
Hawthorne, CA $45,089...86,938
Huntington Park, CA $35,629...58,921
Inglewood, CA $44,377...111,012
Laguna Woods, CA $39,201...16,347
Lake Los Angeles, CA $39,201...11,609
Lancaster, CA $47,684...159,651
Lennox, CA $39,177...29,963
Littlerock, CA $31,919...1,786
Lynwood, CA $43,848...71,233
Maywood, CA $36,696...27,672
Midway City, CA $43,019...9,235
Montebello, CA $47,518...63,416
Paramount, CA $46,364...54,941
Rosemead, CA $45,510...54,507
South El Monte, CA $42,460...20,566
South Gate, CA $45,522...95,219
Stanton, CA $43,332...38,594
Sun Village, CA $44,151...12,044
Vernon, CA $38,333...101
West Athens, CA $40,756...7,921
Westmont, CA $29,202...32,147
Willowbrook, CA $38,070...22,035
And this doesnt even address the hundreds of thousands of people in LA proper who fall below this threshold.
San Francisco Metro Area:
Median Household Income and Population
Ashland, CA $47,437...24,288
Bay Point, CA $47,336...23,131
Bethel Island, CA $35,814...2,191
Marin City, CA $40,517...3,115
North Richmond, CA $40,511...4,039
Point Reyes Station, CA $31,005...574
Rollingwood, CA $49,035...2,381
San Pablo, CA $45,505...29,991
Honestly, the Bay Area can't even comprehend the scope of 'dumpiness' found in LA. I think I'd cry.
ijs, throwing stones from glass houses doesnt always work out. LOL
Until you address this^ Im not even remotely interested in anything else you have to say.
Y-A-W-N-S
Weather: I prefer the Bay Area's climates.
Entertainment: anyone who is unable to sufficiently entertain themselves in either of these 2 world cities, is a bit
Beaches: we have much better regional parks-I like trees.
Mountains: they are really desolate looking. Sorry.
Sports : we have every sport.
Multiple city centers; DT SF crushes all of your 'city centers' combined.
Outdoor activity: nope
Nice palm trees: we have more biodiversity than LA as well.
Beautiful women: our men are much hotter, sorry.
Quote:
No other city in America can offer the experience of visiting the mountains & beaches in the same day.
San Diego? Vancouver?
LOL and how many grueling hours in nasty traffic driving through miles and miles of ghetto does one have to endure to accomplish this task?
Quote:
No other city can offer that So - Cal weather"
You can have it because the weather in Oakland is basically perfect for me.
Quote:
Many think it's the best city in the world and nothing should be wrong with that~
Yeah and many gag at that assertion and nothing should be wrong with that either.
That’s fine, there are no major tourist attractions there especially compared to in SF proper. That’s not a rubric for how connected it is or if it’s part of the metropolitan area. I’m not going to send a tourist to Palms, Century City or Glendale when asking about what to do on a LA trip, but those are fairly urban parts of the metro and no one is going to say they aren’t part of or are barely part of Greater Los Angeles.
You could much more credibly send a tourist to Palms (near a major movie studio, adjacent to Culver City, there is a metro rail stop), Century City (great central location, known for Die Hard, Annenberg, ), or Glendale (Galeria mall, Verdugo Mountains, Roslin Art Gallery, Porto's Bakery, MONA) than you could San Jose, though.
San Jose is a million + California coast city. Let that sink in. Shouldn't there be at least SOME tourist attractions there?
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.
