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.
Houston’s skyline and LA’s skyline are very similar to each other. Of course, LA has mountains. Sometimes, I have to do a double take because I get confused.
I havent seen any report that Atlanta's traffic is as bad (or even nearly as bad) as LA's. The problems are different. Atlanta has very few roads for a city its size. LA has as many as they can squeeze in but there are just too many cars.
That's what makes it even more crazy you rarely actually see accidents in LA, traffic is owed almost exclusively to population density. Being the most densely populated urban area in the country LA should actually statistically speaking have more traffic than any other city.
DTLA is quite livable and walkable. It's a traditional downtown with everything a downtown has to offer. The number of people living in DTLA is nearly 3x larger than downtown and uptown Dallas combined. It is the major transportation hub with 2 subway lines and 3 lightrail lines. We have 3 supermarkets. Whole Foods is opened till 10pm, Ralphs till 2am.
But as far as a metro area most like LA, I still say none. Maybe San Diego if any though I still find them quite different.
You'll never be able to use facts about Los Angeles to persuade on this forum. People will think what they want to think.
If you tell people that Los Angeles has more heavy rail subway stations than San Francisco and Oakland combined....it doesn't matter. The conditioning is really hard to break.
The truth is no metro area is similar to Los Angeles. The people suggesting San Diego-the mountains in SD are NOTHING compared to the behemoths cutting right through L.A city, which makes it a completely different environment, IMO.
From a seven mile radius out, DTLA is about the same population and density as San Francisco, only with taller buildings (and more heavy rail coverage). From there out, its a more compact, unified metro than the Bay Area.
The part about being served by one airport is incorrect. Atlanta only has one. LA has LAX, John Wayne, Burbank, Long Beach, and (even though its not technically inside the metro area) Ontario. All the aforementioned have extensive domestic service.
Yes, LA is technically served by other much smaller airports That said, most of the airline traffic (a whopping 84 million passengers,easily dwarfing the next biggest airport with only 10 million passengers) in LA goes through LAX for both international and domestic travel, thus those other airports are hardly ever relevant when it comes to LA's connectivity. It's hardly comparable to the more equal divide of airline traffic you see in Dallas (between DFW / Love Field), Houston (between Intercontenential / Hobby) and San Francisco (SFO, Oakland and if you want to stretch it, San Jose).
Quote:
Originally Posted by As Above So Below...
Being car centric and full of sprawl is hardly unique to Atlanta. Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, South Florida, San Diego, and even the Bay Area fit that bill nicely.
San Francisco has one of the densest and most walkable cores in the country. LA's core is no slouch in this area by American standards, but it's not even close to comparable to SF.
Furthermore, San Francisco's metro area is much smaller in land area than Atlanta. There's some suburban sprawl like in very metro area, but it's actually a fairly compact region overall.
Yes, Miami / Dallas / Houston have sprawl, but beyond that, they have nothing else culturally in common with LA. They don't have the entertainment industry infrastructure to the extent LA and Atlanta do (admittingly, Miami has some influence in music specifically, but probably no more so than Atlanta). Miami is also relatively more compact.
San Diego and Phoenix weren't options in the poll, so I'm not sure why they're being mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by As Above So Below...
Now for the difference. Atlanta is largely a center of black culture and the culture of the city reflects this. LA's dominant culture is Mexican and Central American. Something the Texas and other CA metro's reflect better. LA's culture also reflects a large Asian community. Atlanta is less Asian than either Texas metro and much less than the Bay Area.
I take a different perspective on this. The way I see it, Atlanta is most like LA when it comes to cultural dominance of a specific race. While Dallas or Houston do have overall larger Mexican and Central American than Atlanta, you never hear everyone refer to them as Hispanic meccas (nor is it reflected in their economic and political structures the same way as it is in LA or Atlanta).
As far as Asian population, on a percentage basis, Atlanta is actually about the same as Dallas and Houston (1% of the total population).
Quote:
Originally Posted by As Above So Below...
Politically, Atlanta is more liberal than Dallas or Houston. That said, its not near on the level of LA and shouldnt be compared as such. Again only the Bay and San Diego match this.
The question was which city was *most* like LA politically. I will grant you that San Francisco is more liberal in some ways (mainly when it comes to economic and environmental regulations) but when it comes to upward mobility for minorities and its role in the civil rights movement, I'd say Atlanta has it beat. Also, LA is the more business-friendly city in California, like Atlanta is also business-friendly. So I'd say overall, politically, it's most similar to Atlanta.
San Diego though? I don't see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by As Above So Below...
The beach is huge part of the way of life in LA. Atlanta and Dallas dont have beaches and Houston's "beach" is 45 miles away. The beach lifestyle creates a more laid back vibe and people who live in Coastal California spend ample time there. Only the other California metros really match this.
The claim that Atlanta has no beaches is incorrect. Though I grant you that they pale in comparison to what LA has, it still has perfectly fine beaches at Lake Lanier, as well as one on the southside at Lake Spivey.
That said, I'm looking at the broader picture. It's not just about "beach lifestyle," but an overall outdoor lifestyle in general. Atlanta, with its forested environment and hilly terrain, is very competitive when it comes to activities such as hiking, biking, hunting, camping, etc. You can't really do these things in California without traveling 1+ hours outside the city.
Atlanta's pastoral feel (city in a forest) also creates a similarly laid back type of vibe that you abscribe to LA, definitely more so than the concrete jungles of Houston, Dallas and (to a lesser extent) SF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by As Above So Below...
LA has such a huge international feel to the city. Its such a huge magnet for people from all over the world and the diversity is astounding. Of the metros we have been talking about and in order, the Bay Area, Houston, Dallas/Atlanta, and San Diego are the most international. Again, the Bay Area matches LA closest and Atlanta doesnt stand out here.
San Francisco is more international than Atlanta on balance, because of its tech and finance industry, but that's just one area.
That said, I don't understand how you can claim Houston and Dallas are more international. They've never hosted the world olympics, they're not home to the world's busiest airport, nor are they an not an international film/entertainment hub. Atlanta's also home to a more diverse collection of multinational corporations than both Dallas and Houston. Houston doesn't even have a federal reserve bank and couldn't compete for Amazon's HQ2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by As Above So Below...
When we look at where people from LA move. Out of state Dallas, by far, gets more people from LA County than Houston or Atlanta. In state, the Bay Area is a huge recipient of people from LA and Orange County as is San Diego.
IMO, this is a meaningless stat. For starters, it's to be expected that the fastest growing city in the country would have the strongest inflows from places that are slow growth (I.E. California) or shrinking. That's not shocking.
Second, where people migrate to has nothing to do with how similar said city is from the city they left. Atlanta see the strongest inflow from NYC, but I doubt you would agree that Atlanta is most similar to NYC compared to other US cities because of this (I wouldn't say it is).
All of that said, I do appreciate your well-formulates arguments. Like I said before, debate is healthy. I do understand where you're coming from, but I still respectfully disagree with you for thr reasons expressed in my counter arguments. I do think we can agree it's all subjective and no city, while having *SOME* elements similar to LA, is overall most like it.
Yes, LA is technically served by other much smaller airports That said, most of the airline traffic (a whopping 84 million passengers,easily dwarfing the next biggest airport with only 10 million passengers) in LA goes through LAX for both international and domestic travel, thus those other airports are hardly ever relevant when it comes to LA's connectivity. It's hardly comparable to the more equal divide of airline traffic you see in Dallas (between DFW / Love Field), Houston (between Intercontenential / Hobby) and San Francisco (SFO, Oakland and if you want to stretch it, San Jose).
San Francisco has one of the densest and most walkable cores in the country. LA's core is no slouch in this area by American standards, but it's not even close to comparable to SF.
Furthermore, San Francisco's metro area is much smaller in land area than Atlanta. There's some suburban sprawl like in very metro area, but it's actually a fairly compact region overall.
Yes, Miami / Dallas / Houston have sprawl, but beyond that, they have nothing else culturally in common with LA. They don't have the entertainment industry infrastructure to the extent LA and Atlanta do (admittingly, Miami has some influence in music specifically, but probably no more so than Atlanta). Miami is also relatively more compact.
San Diego and Phoenix weren't options in the poll, so I'm not sure why they're being mentioned.
I take a different perspective on this. The way I see it, Atlanta is most like LA when it comes to cultural dominance of a specific race. While Dallas or Houston do have overall larger Mexican and Central American than Atlanta, you never hear everyone refer to them as Hispanic meccas (nor is it reflected in their economic and political structures the same way as it is in LA or Atlanta).
As far as Asian population, on a percentage basis, Atlanta is actually about the same as Dallas and Houston (1% of the total population).
The question was which city was *most* like LA politically. I will grant you that San Francisco is more liberal in some ways (mainly when it comes to economic and environmental regulations) but when it comes to upward mobility for minorities and its role in the civil rights movement, I'd say Atlanta has it beat. Also, LA is the more business-friendly city in California, like Atlanta is also business-friendly. So I'd say overall, politically, it's most similar to Atlanta.
San Diego though? I don't see it.
The claim that Atlanta has no beaches is incorrect. Though I grant you that they pale in comparison to what LA has, it still has perfectly fine beaches at Lake Lanier, as well as one on the southside at Lake Spivey.
That said, I'm looking at the broader picture. It's not just about "beach lifestyle," but an overall outdoor lifestyle in general. Atlanta, with its forested environment and hilly terrain, is very competitive when it comes to activities such as hiking, biking, hunting, camping, etc. You can't really do these things in California without traveling 1+ hours outside the city.
Atlanta's pastoral feel (city in a forest) also creates a similarly laid back type of vibe that you abscribe to LA, definitely more so than the concrete jungles of Houston, Dallas and (to a lesser extent) SF.
San Francisco is more international than Atlanta on balance, because of its tech and finance industry, but that's just one area.
That said, I don't understand how you can claim Houston and Dallas are more international. They've never hosted the world olympics, they're not home to the world's busiest airport, nor are they an not an international film/entertainment hub. Atlanta's also home to a more diverse collection of multinational corporations than both Dallas and Houston. Houston doesn't even have a federal reserve bank and couldn't compete for Amazon's HQ2.
IMO, this is a meaningless stat. For starters, it's to be expected that the fastest growing city in the country would have the strongest inflows from places that are slow growth (I.E. California) or shrinking. That's not shocking.
Second, where people migrate to has nothing to do with how similar said city is from the city they left. Atlanta see the strongest inflow from NYC, but I doubt you would agree that Atlanta is most similar to NYC compared to other US cities because of this (I wouldn't say it is).
All of that said, I do appreciate your well-formulates arguments. Like I said before, debate is healthy. I do understand where you're coming from, but I still respectfully disagree with you for thr reasons expressed in my counter arguments. I do think we can agree it's all subjective and no city, while having *SOME* elements similar to LA, is overall most like it.
I too like a healthy debate. I guess I can keep it going. Ill respond piece by piece.
1) In regards to the airports, thats not accurate actually. Its about an 80/20 split for LAX vs. the other airports. Dallas is the same at about 80/20. With Houston and the Bay Area is the traffic fragmented as a part of the total. 80/20 is still a far cry from just one airport.
2) Youre correct in that Atlanta and LA do have the entertainment industry ties that the others dont have. Same with the media.
3) I see where youre coming from on the race mecca, but Hispanics and African Americans dont have anything culturally in common with each other until they actually live side by side and their cultures start to rub off on each other. I cant place that as a commonality between the two because the races are so different.
4) As far as Asians between the three are concerned, as this is a thread about Metro Areas, I was using metro area stats. Houston is 7.5% Asian, Dallas is 6.4%, and Atlanta is 5%. Then you have to factor in that Houston and Dallas are bigger metro areas too. Personally, having lived in Dallas and spent ample time in Atlanta, Houston by far feels and is the most Asian of the three. That would compare better with LA.
5) If were just comparing Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta, yes Atlanta is the most like LA politically. Ill give you that.
6) Lakes dont count when were comparing beaches because they arent culturally anything similar. Dallas has beaches by that standard too, but its nowhere near the same.
7) Ill be honest, I was kind of hoping youd question me on the "which is most international question". First, I never said Dallas was more international than Atlanta. I did say they were similar. Dallas has a much larger immigrant population but Atlanta has more foreign missions. Id say its probably a tie with maybe an edge to Atlanta. Houston is, however, unquestionably more international than the others. Having the worlds busiest airport and hosting the Olympics do not on their own make a city more international. Its quite a feat to host the Olympics, however Athens has hosted it more than any other city and Id argue that all three cities here are more international than Athens. As far as the airport is concerned, Atlanta has the gift of perfect geography. It can feed traffic flows from any direction. But what makes Houston more international is: 1) Houston many more immigrants from many more countries than Atlanta, 2) Houston has more foreign diplomatic missions than any Atlanta, 3) Houston gets more international visitors (even when excluding Mexico) than Atlanta, 4) When talking about air traffic, more people fly from other countries to Houston than Atlanta (non-connecting, origin and destination only), 5) Houston has more foreign flag carriers than Atlanta, 6) Houston is more diverse than Atlanta. I cannot objectively see how Atlanta can match Houston on being international. Thats not to say Atlanta (or Dallas for that matter) isnt international. It is, just not as much as Houston IMO.
8) I dont see out migration as a meaningless stat. People congregate where they feel at home. For whatever reason, Dallas won out there. I can relate too. I grew up in LA and moved to Dallas before I later moved to Houston. Many of my friends and neighbors there were from LA. I dont know anyone here in Houston from there and Ive been here 3.5 years.
The claim that Atlanta has no beaches is incorrect. Though I grant you that they pale in comparison to what LA has, it still has perfectly fine beaches at Lake Lanier, as well as one on the southside at Lake Spivey.
That said, I'm looking at the broader picture. It's not just about "beach lifestyle," but an overall outdoor lifestyle in general. Atlanta, with its forested environment and hilly terrain, is very competitive when it comes to activities such as hiking, biking, hunting, camping, etc. You can't really do these things in California without traveling 1+ hours outside the city.
Atlanta's pastoral feel (city in a forest) also creates a similarly laid back type of vibe that you abscribe to LA,
lmao, quit trying so hard.
Quote:
definitely more so than the concrete jungles of Houston, Dallas and (to a lesser extent) SF.
los angeles is a bigger concrete jungle than all of them, so....
I too like a healthy debate. I guess I can keep it going. Ill respond piece by piece.
1) In regards to the airports, thats not accurate actually. Its about an 80/20 split for LAX vs. the other airports. Dallas is the same at about 80/20. With Houston and the Bay Area is the traffic fragmented as a part of the total. 80/20 is still a far cry from just one airport.
2) Youre correct in that Atlanta and LA do have the entertainment industry ties that the others dont have. Same with the media.
3) I see where youre coming from on the race mecca, but Hispanics and African Americans dont have anything culturally in common with each other until they actually live side by side and their cultures start to rub off on each other. I cant place that as a commonality between the two because the races are so different.
4) As far as Asians between the three are concerned, as this is a thread about Metro Areas, I was using metro area stats. Houston is 7.5% Asian, Dallas is 6.4%, and Atlanta is 5%. Then you have to factor in that Houston and Dallas are bigger metro areas too. Personally, having lived in Dallas and spent ample time in Atlanta, Houston by far feels and is the most Asian of the three. That would compare better with LA.
5) If were just comparing Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta, yes Atlanta is the most like LA politically. Ill give you that.
6) Lakes dont count when were comparing beaches because they arent culturally anything similar. Dallas has beaches by that standard too, but its nowhere near the same.
7) Ill be honest, I was kind of hoping youd question me on the "which is most international question". First, I never said Dallas was more international than Atlanta. I did say they were similar. Dallas has a much larger immigrant population but Atlanta has more foreign missions. Id say its probably a tie with maybe an edge to Atlanta. Houston is, however, unquestionably more international than the others. Having the worlds busiest airport and hosting the Olympics do not on their own make a city more international. Its quite a feat to host the Olympics, however Athens has hosted it more than any other city and Id argue that all three cities here are more international than Athens. As far as the airport is concerned, Atlanta has the gift of perfect geography. It can feed traffic flows from any direction. But what makes Houston more international is: 1) Houston many more immigrants from many more countries than Atlanta, 2) Houston has more foreign diplomatic missions than any Atlanta, 3) Houston gets more international visitors (even when excluding Mexico) than Atlanta, 4) When talking about air traffic, more people fly from other countries to Houston than Atlanta (non-connecting, origin and destination only), 5) Houston has more foreign flag carriers than Atlanta, 6) Houston is more diverse than Atlanta. I cannot objectively see how Atlanta can match Houston on being international. Thats not to say Atlanta (or Dallas for that matter) isnt international. It is, just not as much as Houston IMO.
8) I dont see out migration as a meaningless stat. People congregate where they feel at home. For whatever reason, Dallas won out there. I can relate too. I grew up in LA and moved to Dallas before I later moved to Houston. Many of my friends and neighbors there were from LA. I dont know anyone here in Houston from there and Ive been here 3.5 years.
Anyway, just my take!
My rebuttals:
1. What differentiates Dallas from LA is the connectivity at their multiple airports. LA technically has just as many pasengers split between them as Dallas (simply because of its sheer size), but Dallas Love has flights that goes to so many other destinations and at a much higher frequency. Your options, on the other hand, are llimited beyond LAX in terms of destinations reached and number of flights to those destinstions.
7. I'll give you the points you made about Houston. But diversity alone isn't enough to deem a city more international. Atlanta definitely beats Houston in the cultural and political categories. Overall though, I said Atlanta and Houston are tied.
8. The reason I think that stat is meaningless is because people migratrle for a number of reasons and "feeling at home" has such a subjective meaning. Just because a ton of New Yorkers are migrating to Atlanta doesn't mean Atlanta's anything like NYC. Furthermore,
7. I'll give you the points you made about Houston. But diversity alone isn't enough to deem a city more international. Atlanta definitely beats Houston in the cultural and political categories. Overall though, I said Atlanta and Houston are tied.
,
I feel like this would be the question "what makes a city international?". Are things like immigrants and diplomatic missions more important? Or perhaps things like media and name recognition is more important? Perhaps its all subjective. While I can certainly see Atlanta being a very international city, in my opinion Houston is just more so.
I feel like this would be the question "what makes a city international?". Are things like immigrants and diplomatic missions more important? Or perhaps things like media and name recognition is more important? Perhaps its all subjective. While I can certainly see Atlanta being a very international city, in my opinion Houston is just more so.
It is subjective.
The below link takes all of those hings into consideration and shows Atlanta and Houston are practically tied. They're both on equal footing when it comes to business activity and information exchanged. But political / cultural influence and the diversity stats you mention earlier are thr differentiators...
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.
