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.
I think it was maybe one poster who said DTLA is better than DTSF. I think what most people have been saying instead is that DTLA has been rapidly improving. DTLA is also quite large in terms of what's considered its physical boundaries so there's a lot of variation in neighborhoods you might be talking about. The fashion district is definitely one of the grittier and industrial parts of downtown.
What's really going to be interesting is what downtown LA looks like a couple years after the current slate of under construction rail projects are completed. By that point, most of the remaining parking lots in DTLA will likely be gone and tens of thousands of additional residents will have been added and all of this linked by rail to pretty much every other major business district in the area. Hopefully by then, LA's Measure H will have done something in helping reduce the issue of homelessness.
If I didn't say it earlier, I'll say it now-DTLA is better than DTSF.
Union Station, The Broad, a pair of 1000+ foot skyscrapers, both with phenomenal observation decks/restaurants/bars, Historic Core with the old Theatres....just a few things that SF doesn't really have an answer to.
Youre bragging about a bunch of greasy looking areas. Hollywood is a dump no matter how famous it is. How bizarre rhat you would mention that area. lol.
And the foot traffic in DT SF trounces everywhere between here and Chicago so not sure why you bring up another losing point. Lmao.
Or is that you have lower standards than me?
Which places has INCHES of garbage piled up on park benches? Hint...not Hollywood. Go down Hollywood Boulevard on ANY summer day between Western and Highland....what would San Francisco's answer to that be, re: "foot traffic"?
If I didn't say it earlier, I'll say it now-DTLA is better than DTSF.
Union Station, The Broad, a pair of 1000+ foot skyscrapers, both with phenomenal observation decks/restaurants/bars, Historic Core with the old Theatres....just a few things that SF doesn't really have an answer to.
Sure, you might like it more, but I think if you tried to take a random sample of people who aren't from either and asked which looked more fun or vibrant, then most people would pick downtown SF. Downtown SF, to be comparable to what people usually consider downtown LA, wouldn't be just the financial district but how it runs into several of the adjacent neighborhoods. When you put that into consideration, then you get some nice hills and a waterfront all covered with urbanity without being hemmed in by freeways or almost ever walking across a parking lot. Downtown LA's vastly improved, and is going to do so at a phenomenal rate, but I think you're overdoing it.
And dont blame LAs thirdworlish squalor on Mexicans, it's the fault of poor leadership that turns a blind eye to massive blight.
San Francisco is one of he dirtiest cities in the country with one of the highest homeless population and highest property crime. Calling LA third world is rich considering the state of much of downtown SF.
Sure, you might like it more, but I think if you tried to take a random sample of people who aren't from either and asked which looked more fun or vibrant, then most people would pick downtown SF. Downtown SF, to be comparable to what people usually consider downtown LA, wouldn't be just the financial district but how it runs into several of the adjacent neighborhoods. When you put that into consideration, then you get some nice hills and a waterfront all covered with urbanity without being hemmed in by freeways or almost ever walking across a parking lot. Downtown LA's vastly improved, and is going to do so at a phenomenal rate, but I think you're overdoing it.
I think DTLA is much more interesting than DTSF, maybe not in the past, but certainly now. When you visit DTLA the energy and up-beat vibe of the place is palpable. From the ever changing Arts District, to the Old Bank District, Little Tokyo, The Historic Core, LA Live, South Park, the bustling Garment District, etc. So much of that has to do with the thousands of people who have moved there and more moving there every day from all over the country, even from San Francisco. Ten years ago it was unimaginable to see anyone walking there dog downtown. Now you see it everywhere. If any place signifies the popularity and change taking place in DTLA it's the Historic Grand Central Market.
Over the past few years the New York Times has written several articles reporting on the incredible transformation of DTLA. Including stories on the thousands of New Yorker's, many of them artists, who have moved to the City of Angeles in search of a new beginning.
Last edited by Angelino19; 01-19-2018 at 07:18 PM..
San Francisco is one of he dirtiest cities in the country with one of the highest homeless population and highest property crime. Calling LA third world is rich considering the state of much of downtown SF.
That is another cliche bay area personality trait. Bragging about SF, and calling LA third world. Even though downtown SF is the world's largest open air insane asylum, and SF has a higher violent crime rate than LA.
SF thinks they are downtown Chicago, where the streets are so clean you could eat a 3 course meal, in a tuxedo, on the sidewalk.
There is a downtown like that in the bay. Just so happens it is in San Jose and not anywhere near SF or Oakland.
Greater LA, it's not even close. Bay Area is too small to compare to a metro with 18.6 million people. In 100 years LA has gone from a metro with less than 1 million to 2nd largest population cluster in the US.
Compare Bay Area to mid sized niche metros. Boston, DC, Seattle. Sub 10 million metros with a specific industry guiding the region.
L.A. metro is 13 mil. 18 is combing the inland Empire and Oxnard which is its own metros. Everything you can do in L.A. you can do in the Bay. The Bay beats L.A. in every magazine I've ever read. Quality beats size every time especially when the Bay and L.A. are both some of the biggest metros in the world. If only size mattered then Karachi smashes NYC, SF and LA. That being said SF Bay beats L.A. every time on every travel site and magazine and even on this post created by an L.A. guy�� city over suburbs
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.
