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.
What on earth are you talking about? Fly to a natural setting? To me LA has the best of both worlds. Urban with tons of 'natural attractions '. If someone wants an urban lifestyle, don't act like LA doesn't have that because it certainly does.
Well it's a good thing you at least said for yourself, because it would have been total garbage if you declared that as if it's something factual. LA is third rate city for urbanity at best, even by US standards. It's more or less Miami on larger scale. They have both improved a bunch since the 20th century, but to say they can compete with Chicago in this is laughable. Almost as bad as if one were to say Chicago can compete in nature because of Lake Michigan, urban parks, forests etc.
There are only about 6 cities probably in the United States that can be considered "truly" urban and Chicago happens to be one of them. And let's not get carried away and pretend as if LA's natural attraction is top-teir or even mostly attractive/usable for every single person. So yeah, good thing you added that "To me" part.
Los Angeles weather is unique and special. You can get Chicago cost of living in many other cities but you can't get Los Angeles weather in many other cities. This is why it's more expensive to live in Los Angeles than Chicago.
Well it's a good thing you at least said for yourself, because it would have been total garbage if you declared that as if it's something factual. LA is third rate city for urbanity at best, even by US standards. It's more or less Miami on larger scale. They have both improved a bunch since the 20th century, but to say they can compete with Chicago in this is laughable. Almost as bad as if one were to say Chicago can compete in nature because of Lake Michigan, urban parks, forests etc.
There are only about 6 cities probably in the United States that can be considered "truly" urban and Chicago happens to be one of them. And let's not get carried away and pretend as if LA's natural attraction is top-teir or even mostly attractive/usable for every single person. So yeah, good thing you added that "To me" part.
Who said anything about competing with Chicago? The thing is Chicago's weather is nothing like LA'S and never will be, but you can definitely live a true urban life in Los Angeles. In Los Angeles you can have both, Chicago you simply cannot.
Oh good, now I have an excuse to directly respond.
Yes, it's not the same thing, but neither are the urban offerings of LA compared to Chicago. That's the point I've been getting at. There are nature offerings, even around Chicago. They might be very lacking to LA, but who are you or anybody else to judge if one actually prefers a much superior urban lifestyle to lacking nature? Is a person not allowed to have different priorities and preferences around here?
You are really exaggerating the hassels of air travel also (2 hr screening wth?). As a guy that travels from Tampa to NYC regularly, it's usually 3 to 3.5 hours tops for me even with airport time. We are talking about over a thousand miles worth of distance covered there. If one can't appreciate that, then we really do live in a rather spoiled generation. And much like in a train, being in a plane is also much better than a car (if your actually the type that thinks and comes prepared) because it actually gives you the option to do stuff with your hands. Where's in a car your stuck there with just audio, the longer the worse.
Every city has made and will keep making improvements in such things, but the fact remains that LA is still in no way comparable to Chicago in this. It might be impressive if you're comparing it to a place like Dallas or whatever but it's very much lacking to the traditional urban cities. In fact, it's a good bet cities like Dallas closing more of the gap on LA than it doing so against the traditional ones I would say.
This was the type of posts I had a problem with the last time. What exactly do you mean by "more to offer than Chicago" here? Please do elaborate, excluding nature attractions of course. By more to offer do you mean anything that can done in a typical suburban town? Because it has more areas of strip mall land, it has more to offer? Is that the argument here? If one extended a place like Orlando for it to be greater in size than LA and Chicago, will it have more offer by your line of logic?
So yes, you will have to explain what you mean here. Last time, I remember seeing nonsensical stuff like LA being so much superior in things like Latio population and cluture or something. Ok...and Chicago totally destroys LA in the African-American category, so I didn't get where you were going with it. Talk about random nitpicking.
You only do your own reputation harm by defending a poster like that. But if we are playing this game, let's do so with both eyes open.
All this time the argument from the pro LA camp has been that LA is not much more expensive than Chicago. You talk about Chicago's COL being dragged down because of dangerous hoods. Ok, even if LA's crime rates could be trusted, there are also enough stats to that tell us LA is one the most poverty stricken cities in the country after adjusting it's income compared to the COL. So how much of LA's COL itself is being dragged down by such low income minority neighborhoods with a poor quality of life? Two can play at this game buddy.
I'm really not going to bother trying to debate with you, no offense. You have a very typical eastern city bias that has a very narrowly defined definition of "urban", which is very common on C-D/F.
Nothing wrong with that, but I find its pointless to try to carry on a debate on these things. No one is going to change the other, because the way that we see the world is so different.
I'm really not going to bother trying to debate with you, no offense. You have a very typical eastern city bias that has a very narrowly defined definition of "urban", which is very common on C-D/F.
Nothing wrong with that, but I find its pointless to try to carry on a debate on these things. No one is going to change the other, because the way that we see the world is so different.
To be fair, s/he is using the global definition of urban. The kind of sprawl you find in LA is uniquely American.
To be fair, s/he is using the global definition of urban. The kind of sprawl you find in LA is uniquely American.
specifically? Its been shown that as far as population density, LAs urbanized area density is actually higher than not only Chicagos, but also, just about ever other urbanized area in the country.
specifically? Its been shown that as far as population density, LAs urbanized area density is actually higher than not only Chicagos, but also, just about ever other urbanized area in the country.
And how does that translate to walk ability? The answer is that it doesn't. The denser East Coast cities are less car dependent.
And how does that translate to walk ability? The answer is that it doesn't. The denser East Coast cities are less car dependent.
Can you not walk in LA?. Do people not walk to markets, coffee shops, libraries, restaurants, post offices, parks or public transportation in LA. Indeed we do.
Can you not walk in LA?. Do people not walk to markets, coffee shops, libraries, restaurants, post offices, parks or public transportation in LA. Indeed we do.
L.A. deserves credit for their improvements to mass transit, but it can't compete with the older urban cores east of the Mississippi. It's apples and oranges, really. Chicago isn't a mass transit paradise, but the CTA does a damn good job of moving hundreds of thousands of people per day.
L.A. deserves credit for their improvements to mass transit, but it can't compete with the older urban cores east of the Mississippi. It's apples and oranges, really. Chicago isn't a mass transit paradise, but the CTA does a damn good job of moving hundreds of thousands of people per day.
You are right, newer urban centers in the west and south do not have that kind of infrastructure, that affect how they are perceived, and yes it is apples and oranges. But nonetheless older urban cores have certain "baggage" that western and southern cities don't have, that can affect its "progressive/hip" index.
For example, older urban cores became large and established in an era before 60s civil rights, and have a residential pattern and layout that have a lingering reflection of race relations before that era (even if it is just traces today). Cities where people make a fresh start after the 60s, and have a higher % of transplants from elsewhere don't have that baggage, even if they also don't have the urban fabric and transit.
But just like LA and other western and southern cities have made progress in what they lack, northern/eastern/midwest cities have made progress moving beyond their past.
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.
