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.
If money was no object, then I'd live in both, and have homes in NYC, CHI, MIA, and every single other city I can think of and go between all those homes.
Also, I'd own a whole lot of banks and invest in lots of business ventures.
I'd definitely go with San Francisco, for sure. The scenery is a million times better, the urban fabric is better, the weather is milder, and I like the Asian influence.
Seriously. When I first came across this site, people treated LA like it was some third world, cultureless, materialistic, homeless camp with little more than movie stars and Mexicans.
I'd definitely go with San Francisco, for sure. The scenery is a million times better, the urban fabric is better, the weather is milder, and I like the Asian influence.
You must not realize the amount of Asian influence in LA...and calling LA a "sprawling wasteland" when San Francisco sprawls too is just being ugly:
I hate it when someone criticizes one city for being something that the other one is as well.
I'd definitely go with San Francisco, for sure. The scenery is a million times better, the urban fabric is better, the weather is milder, and I like the Asian influence.
95% of the Bay Area looks the same as LA, so if LA is an "ugly, sprawling wasteland" then so is SF. They're both overwhelmingly decentralized, multinodal, Sun Belt sprawl.
This is also why I'm mystified that, even though I love LA, why some forumers on C-D are always playing up downtown LA, transit in LA, and the like. I mean, are you serious? That stuff means nothing in the greater context. It has zero to do with LA's desirability. LA could spend 1,000 years bettering its transit and downtown, and it would mean nothing in the context of why people move to LA.
So let me get this straight: Since LA can never beat NYC at all that New Yorkey stuff like having a great metro/subway, having a thriving downtown, etc, it shouldn't even try?
LA isn't just some sleepy, beachy resort city that exists solely as destination that's desirable to New Yorkers because of its differences with that city. LA may have the beach and the mountains and the weather but beyond that its just a regular big city with regular big city problems. Having a functional metro system and a vibrant downtown are just elements necessary for any big city to thrive. I can assure you that when Angelenos speak excitedly about things like the expanding Metro system and our rejuvenated downtown, its not because we have some misguided desire to turn LA into NY. Its because those elements were just necessary and the city was not living up to its potential without them. Its just practical.
I can appreciate your romantic New York-centric view of LA, but your impression of what this city is doesn't really reflect the day-to-day reality here.
Last edited by DistrictDirt; 05-03-2015 at 11:27 PM..
New Yorkers really like LA, in general, because LA is something different. It's doing it's own thing. If you leave NYC for another U.S. metro, you generally aren't looking for an urban-type city, because, compared to NYC, there are no urban-type cities in North America. All the other major cities will leave you bitterly disappointed. There isn't even a U.S./Canadian city with even 1/10 the high density core as NYC.
This is why LA and Miami are so popular for New Yorkers. They're different. No one wants some cut-rate, budget, scaled down, 1/10 the size and quality urban center. If they wanted urban, they would stay in NYC.
This is also why I'm mystified that, even though I love LA, why some forumers on C-D are always playing up downtown LA, transit in LA, and the like. I mean, are you serious? That stuff means nothing in the greater context. It has zero to do with LA's desirability. LA could spend 1,000 years bettering its transit and downtown, and it would mean nothing in the context of why people move to LA. People want Pacific Palisades, not Boyle Heights.
When you talk about Los Angeles you really need to put an asterisk next to your statements. "Los Angeles" to you really means Holmby Hills, Bel Air, Palisades, Beverly Hills north of Sunset, Malibu and Brentwood.
People generally move to Los Angeles for opportunity, not to hang in a secret garden in the hills and brunch with celebrities. Most of Los Angeles is a gritty, heavily immigrant, working city full of people and families trying to make it work. Hispanic and Asian immigrants also make up by far the largest proportion of newcomers to Los Angeles in the last decade. Most people in LA welcome transit as it help alleviate congestion. And having decent transit is the markings of a successful city. As a native, people are THRILLED about the upcoming investment in transit.
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.
