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.
Agreed, but if a gun were put to my head and I had to choose, I would say Atlanta with the film/entertainment industry and the traffic that, at times, rivals LA's.
Atlanta does not feel or look like LA, not even close. The film industry doesn't have much to do with the feel of a metro, and the traffic in everyone of those metros listed is awful.
The realistic answer would be San Fran due to the terrain and building style alone. Its not an option, but San Diego would be in the running too.
Downtown LA reminds me of downtown Houston though, a rather desolate canyon of tall buildings. But LA has improved its downtown quite a bit in the last few years.
Atlanta does not feel or look like LA, not even close. The film industry doesn't have much to do with the feel of a metro, and the traffic in everyone of those metros listed is awful.
The realistic answer would be San Fran due to the terrain and building style alone. Its not an option, but San Diego would be in the running too.
Downtown LA reminds me of downtown Houston though, a rather desolate canyon of tall buildings. But LA has improved its downtown quite a bit in the last few years.
Actually, the "realistic answer" is that no city's like LA, as a previous poster stated.
Although that being said, you can find a little bit of LA in just about any city if you want to.
What I mean is the livability with walkability. When I was going to move to LA, I wanted to be in DTLA until everyone asked "why?". I thought it would be cool but then I learned that not much goes on there after 5 for residents. LA doesn't have a bustling downtown urban scene for a "normal" person. Dallas is no Philly but it's downtown scene is decent and growing but uptown is among the best urban livability in the nation in my opinion. Clean, urban, great food everywhere, safe, with outdoor activities included.
What I mean is the livability with walkability. When I was going to move to LA, I wanted to be in DTLA until everyone asked "why?". I thought it would be cool but then I learned that not much goes on there after 5 for residents. LA doesn't have a bustling downtown urban scene for a "normal" person. Dallas is no Philly but it's downtown scene is decent and growing but uptown is among the best urban livability in the nation in my opinion. Clean, urban, great food everywhere, safe, with outdoor activities included.
I gotcha but downtown LA is rapidly changing on that front as well. I've gotta get back out that way really soon.
Absolutely San Francisco. It's polycentric and despite San Francisco itself being much denser than almost everywhere in Los Angeles, the rest of the SF area looks quite a bit like Los Angeles.
The suburban parts of the SF Metro have the same style of homes as well as the years they were built in.
The climate of the two areas are also fairly similar, albeit the SF area being wetter and cooler, but they are still Mediterranean climates.
Both metro areas solidly vote democratic, with the SF area being somewhat more democratic (I'm going by the Los Angeles County-Orange County definition for this and the 4 county definition for San Francisco).
I don't understand why Dallas is winning this poll. Is it because of the perceived sprawl? Believe it or not, the Los Angeles metro area is very dense by American standards, about 2.5 times as dense as the Dallas area. The density of the SF area is similar to Los Angeles metro in density, being in fact a bit less.
The look, feel, density, weather, and politics in Los Angeles is far different than Houston and much closer to San Francisco. I may add that if we are going by strict census definitions of metro areas (which I did), the San Jose metro area may be the closest to Los Angeles out of all these choices imo.
If we take San Francisco out of the equation, LA most resembles the Bay Area. San Fran and LA are themselves so incredibly different.
Outside that, Id probably say LA is more of a combo of San Diego and a Houston/Dallas. Id argue its more like the former as opposed to the later mainly because of cultural differences. I grew up in LA and live in Texas now. They have some similarities in sprawl and layout, but are very different culturally.
I gotcha but downtown LA is rapidly changing on that front as well. I've gotta get back out that way really soon.
Yeah I think LA Live has really changed the downtown area but I'm unsure about livability or true walkability and I do know that it costs about 2x more to live there than in downtown / uptown Dallas so the opportunities you have with a normal $100k job are VASTLY better in/around Dallas.
If we take San Francisco out of the equation, LA most resembles the Bay Area. San Fran and LA are themselves so incredibly different.
Outside that, Id probably say LA is more of a combo of San Diego and a Houston/Dallas. Id argue its more like the former as opposed to the later mainly because of cultural differences. I grew up in LA and live in Texas now. They have some similarities in sprawl and layout, but are very different culturally.
The layout of the Los Angeles area is a world a part from Houston. Los Angeles is a quite compact sprawl. Densities of the Los Angeles area is more than triple Houston (when taking the mountains out of the equation). Most of the Houston area was built after the 70's and 80's, while suburban Los Angeles County was mostly built in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. The California Ranch house is very characteristic of Los Angeles and all other California metro areas, there's not much of that in Houston. Overall, Houston's suburbs are much newer, by about 30-40 years.
Despite the core urban area, the San Francisco area is the closest to Los Angeles by far.
Actually, the "realistic answer" is that no city's like LA, as a previous poster stated.
Although that being said, you can find a little bit of LA in just about any city if you want to.
I am well aware of that.... There is no realistic answer for most of these threads, but OUT OF THAT LIST (as I said before), San Fran would be the closest.
The layout of the Los Angeles area is a world a part from Houston. Los Angeles is a quite compact sprawl. Densities of the Los Angeles area is more than triple Houston (when taking the mountains out of the equation). Most of the Houston area was built after the 70's and 80's, while suburban Los Angeles County was mostly built in the 40's, 50's, and 60's. The California Ranch house is very characteristic of Los Angeles and all other California metro areas, there's not much of that in Houston. Overall, Houston's suburbs are much newer, by about 30-40 years.
Despite the core urban area, the San Francisco area is the closest to Los Angeles by far.
Los Angeles only became so much more dense in the last 30 years or so as land value skyrocketed. Los Angeles was the author of the layout that Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, and other cities adopted. The main difference is that it was the first to do it and the land value is so much higher than the other three.
You can say LA doesnt have many commonalities with a place like Houston or Dallas, but the inverse cannot be said because those cities were, in many ways, built with LA as a model.
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.
