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.
Heavy rail, entertainment, nightlife, museums, etc.
Seattle has pretty good nightlife and entertainment for a city of its size. I agree not on par with LA, but pound for pound it's right up there. They are building an almost entirely grade-separated rail system that will be one of the best in the country by 2030 (seriously, look at the $54 Billion rail package just approved). Museums are not great but there are some decent ones.
Seattle has pretty good nightlife and entertainment for a city of its size. I agree not on par with LA, but pound for pound it's right up there. They are building an almost entirely grade-separated rail system that will be one of the best in the country by 2030 (seriously, look at the $54 Billion rail package just approved). Museums are not great but there are some decent ones.
How on Earth is that being funded, and over what period of time? Most cities have difficulty getting $1-2B funded for transit, let alone $54B!
While none of these cities are my first choice in America (Miami is), I would gladly pay whatever the cost to live in San Diego, Seattle, and/or Portland if I had to live in America.
Pretty solid cities, no one will be mistaking them for a Tokyo or Seoul in our lifetimes, or ever for that matter. However, for medium sized (smaller medium at that) places in America, they ain't all too bad at all. Nice perks with a nice standard of living, in cities that have a good present and an even better future.
Los Angeles has affordability woes, but it's still World Class and with many offerings.
SD doesn't even beat Portlandia in offerings or even vibrany. It is the most boring of all these cities, yet really not much cheaper than everywhere in coastal SoCal.
This is what people mean by SD's sunshine tax. You are paying for the location, not any offerings construed by man. You are talking about a one team city, who's only team can not sell tickets and theatend to leave too!
Not sure how Seattle is losing. It's definately #3 on the West Coast.
LA
SF
Seattle
Oakland
Portland
SD
LBC
San Jose
There are a lot of cities, even a few non-coastal ones that I would cede offer more for the money than San Diego, but overrated Portland is not one of them, I have to take a stand here.
As far as COL, a one bedroom in a prime urban area would be about 1800 SD/1500 Portland.
Portland is 80 plus miles inland, San Diego is known worldwide for it's coastline and a downtown right on the bay (not 14 miles inland and hot like Los Angeles). San Diego matches or beats Portland in things they are supposedly so awesome in, like beer, music, comedy, and coffee.
In San Diego, you take light rail to the border to go Tijuana, the fifth largest city in Mexico.
In Portland, you drive across the border to go to Vancouver, Washington.
What is Portland's equivalent to Shelter Island, Balboa Park, La Jolla, Coronado, The Coaster, The Sprinter, Old Town Station or Santa Fe Depot (two intermodal European Style train stations in one city)?
Yes San Diego did lose the Charges, but still has more facilities for major events all over the county.
Please tell me how Portland is winning this, even in all of their "vibrany."
How on Earth is that being funded, and over what period of time? Most cities have difficulty getting $1-2B funded for transit, let alone $54B!
Those totals aren't federal grants but the accumulation of tax revenue over multiple decades. LA just passed the largest transit bill in North America (Measure M) which is expected to raise $120 Billion over the next 4 decades.
In comparison to the Bay Area it's rather lackluster; much lower wages, higher unemployment, and lower growth.
Yet despite all that those places offer people continue to flee them in high numbers. Guess it's clearly not worth it. Facts are facts, despite all the amenities LA offers people flee that metro area at a much higher rate than any of the other metro's on this list. Guess it's really not that great of a value.
Also the SF Bay Area has nothing to do with this thread. There you go with that chip on your shoulder again...lol
Uh, you were the one who brought up the bay area, with your nonsensical comments about migration.
Just because LA's economy is not driven by tech like The Bay does not make it's economy or job market weak. A pretty asinine claim, with out any merit.
More people move to LA than leave, and it's been that way since the founding of the city. So my guess is people are fine with the amenities.
SF by contrast has gone through periods of massive depopulation, LOL. No one has a chip, LA is winning the poll as is expected of the #1 city on the west coast. Know your role and keep the 2nd place trophy, bay kid.
The trend of domestic migration has been from the mega-regions to medium sized metros. New York and Chicago register even higher I think. So I'm not sure what specific claim one can "guess" across the board.
Exactly, it's pretty silly. Especially when immigration adds to the worldly cosmopolitan feel of the city.
Of course he is coming from a region where the primary city is not as diverse or cosmopolitian as NYC/LA.
While none of these cities are my first choice in America (Miami is), I would gladly pay whatever the cost to live in San Diego, Seattle, and/or Portland if I had to live in America.
Pretty solid cities, no one will be mistaking them for a Tokyo or Seoul in our lifetimes, or ever for that matter. However, for medium sized (smaller medium at that) places in America, they ain't all too bad at all. Nice perks with a nice standard of living, in cities that have a good present and an even better future.
Really the way to approach and explore such cities (excluding L.A. of course), and Seattle definitely has a big shoulders vibe that the other two lack. As medium small cities they really shine when you stick to the Metro, historic core, great parks, museums, theater and local haunts if you can get the scoop. All the better when you can walk, bike and transit through much of it in a reasonable time which of course is much harder in huge and spread out cities.
When you go to a city like London or NYC (been to Seoul but never to Hong Kong, but I still give it to Western cities) which are both in a class by themselves and so much beyond just about any place else and try to compare your own or similar smallish metro to them you will always be disappointed. But just as the fabulous, unique and more human scaled neighborhoods of huge cities define themselves as their own a great place to explore without getting overwhelmed, so too do these and other smaller cities exhibit with their own certain charm and cachet all wrapped up in one metro.
Of course when you get off the west coast you can get some similar lifestyles and urban areas for so much less.
Uh, you were the one who brought up the bay area, with your nonsensical comments about migration.
Just because LA's economy is not driven by tech like The Bay does not make it's economy or job market weak. A pretty asinine claim, with out any merit.
More people move to LA than leave, and it's been that way since the founding of the city. So my guess is people are fine with the amenities.
SF by contrast has gone through periods of massive depopulation, LOL. No one has a chip, LA is winning the poll as is expected of the #1 city on the west coast. Know your role and keep the 2nd place trophy, bay kid.
No you were actually:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical
Los Angeles is not San Francisco, LA has never lost population in a census.
You clearly have a chip on your shoulder as you bring it up constantly in threads that have nothing to do with the area. You could have mentioned how Seattle has lost population before, you know one of the other cities actually on this poll, but for some bizarre and obsessive reason you bring up SF.
When you have higher unemployment, much lower wages, and less growth it certainly is weaker IN COMPARISON.
Sure if you only include foreign immigrants, who for LA are mostly uneducated and low-skilled. But AGAIN I was referring to DOMESTIC MIGRATION. Do you know what that is? Apparently not.
2nd place trophy? Um the Bay Area isn't part of this poll LOL. Are you so obsessed with it that you didn't realize it's not actually part of this thread?
Cities that were fully built out by the 1950s ALWAYS lost population in the decades after....households got dramatically smaller.
Growing in that period required a huge increase in households. Not possible in San Francisco, Paris, etc. While shrinking populations were problematic in a way, they were sometimes a sign of the healthiest and most desired cities.
Here in Seattle we shrank through the mid-1980s, but actually added households during that time. We had room to grow within city limits, even with greenfield development. So did LA.
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.
