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.
The East Coast Bias isn’t a thing. It’s just that the past matters in these discussions.
It’s just that people when judging a Cities importance don’t really judge be economy alone. They judge by some importance vs time function.
That’s why if you say Rome is a world class city people would probably nod along but people would probably scoff at Denver being the same despite the latter having a bigger economy.
Sure LA has been hugely influential but for only like 75 years so they don’t put it on the level of London whose cultural inertia of being a world leading metropolis for 300 years puts it a tier ahead. After all LA is 1/2 way around the world from London but is an English speaking city.
We'll agree to disagree, then. The East Coast bias is definitely a thing...
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by murksiderock
We'll agree to disagree, then. The East Coast bias is definitely a thing...
I don't understand how. Seriously.
The East Coast is more populous, with more major cities, and larger economy and heavier influence to the country and globe than the West Coast. It's not biased to say that, it's fact. Four of the top 10 metros in the country are within 400 plus miles from one another. Wall Street, the most major media conglomerates, biotech and life sciences, federal government are all based within that stretch of the coast. The country is still "run" from the East, this is a very unbiased thing to say. Having closer connections to Europe and places like London or Paris, the middle East and Africa etc have nothing to do with "bias", these are simply advantages.
I think the opposite is true, people notice the population growth and migration trends and think to themselves "oh the WC has already caught up to the EC". It has not. Could it in 100 years? We won't be around to see. But it's not biased to call things what they are if we're sticking to the facts. Many people may prefer the QOL out West, but that doesn't make it "equate" to what the East does on a daily basis.
The East Coast is more populous, with more major cities, and larger economy and heavier influence to the country and globe than the West Coast. It's not biased to say that, it's fact. Four of the top 10 metros in the country are within 400 plus miles from one another. Wall Street, the most major media conglomerates, biotech and life sciences, federal government are all based within that stretch of the coast. The country is still "run" from the East, this is a very unbiased thing to say. Having closer connections to Europe and places like London or Paris, the middle East and Africa etc have nothing to do with "bias", these are simply advantages.
I think the opposite is true, people notice the population growth and migration trends and think to themselves "oh the WC has already caught up to the EC". It has not. Could it in 100 years? We won't be around to see. But it's not biased to call things what they are if we're sticking to the facts. Many people may prefer the QOL out West, but that doesn't make it "equate" to what the East does on a daily basis.
You're being misleading again...
The East Coast bias exists when statements are thrown out like "LA isn't urban or walkable". This only comes fr and m East Coast posters, even though the only city on the east, and possibly the only city nationally, that beats LA in this is New York. We've already done the examples of shrinking LA to the same geographical land area as DC, Boston, or Philly, that argument doesn't hold up...
Then predictably, the East Coast bias rears again when the focus is changed to architecture and build. LA doesn't lack the structural build of these other places in the same area, and if the point is that visually the East Coast cities have more traditionally urban architecture, that's a different conversation. But posters don't just come out and say that, you have to run around in circles to see the true intent...
East Coast bias is present when people say San Francisco is more urban than LA, even though at the same area, San Francisco basically is a portion of LA, but posters are hung up on the traditionally East Coast features in SF. Don't act like people on here havent actually said "I prefer SF because it looks more like an East Coast city". Posters have actually said this, even though in function, SF isn't actually "more" urban...
I don't think the West Coast is equal to the East Coast. I don't think LA is equal to NY but I think it's a hell of a lot closer than people think, and I think it is clearly ahead of everyone else on the East Coast. But I havent ever argued otherwise to the specific point you made in the quoted post...
The East Coast bias is present almost any time LA is a topic of conversation, and not just with LA. We'd be here all day listing examples of when East Coast bias is used versus other cities, too. Now I don't disagree with your above statements at all, the nation was developed from the East so all of those things are in the East's favor. But I have never argued otherwise on that point...
The East Coast bias exists when statements are thrown out like "LA isn't urban or walkable". This only comes fr and m East Coast posters, even though the only city on the east, and possibly the only city nationally, that beats LA in this is New York. We've already done the examples of shrinking LA to the same geographical land area as DC, Boston, or Philly, that argument doesn't hold up...
Then predictably, the East Coast bias rears again when the focus is changed to architecture and build. LA doesn't lack the structural build of these other places in the same area, and if the point is that visually the East Coast cities have more traditionally urban architecture, that's a different conversation. But posters don't just come out and say that, you have to run around in circles to see the true intent...
East Coast bias is present when people say San Francisco is more urban than LA, even though at the same area, San Francisco basically is a portion of LA, but posters are hung up on the traditionally East Coast features in SF. Don't act like people on here havent actually said "I prefer SF because it looks more like an East Coast city". Posters have actually said this, even though in function, SF isn't actually "more" urban...
I don't think the West Coast is equal to the East Coast. I don't think LA is equal to NY but I think it's a hell of a lot closer than people think, and I think it is clearly ahead of everyone else on the East Coast. But I havent ever argued otherwise to the specific point you made in the quoted post...
The East Coast bias is present almost any time LA is a topic of conversation, and not just with LA. We'd be here all day listing examples of when East Coast bias is used versus other cities, too. Now I don't disagree with your above statements at all, the nation was developed from the East so all of those things are in the East's favor. But I have never argued otherwise on that point...
LA isn't urban or walkable is much more a legacy of LA's fairly recent past including the way people in LA have portrayed LA itself. I disagree with the statement, but it is not particularly biased. LA is less walkable than its density would have you assume for various reasons, though it is much improved. It's also a legacy of people having different reference points for LA as visitors since the attractions many visitors go to (Getty Center, Getty Villa, LACMA, Disneyland, Griffith Park, Santa Monica Pier, the Broad, etc.) are often some distance away from each other with travel on the freeway, sometimes passing by suburbia and strip malls being the experience. That's not malicious bias--that's just the way things have been built rather than condensing more things in a central area. I'm not against that by the way--I think polynodal metros are great as long as there is better transit which LA is moving towards. It’s not really bias when you can’t expect people who haven’t been there to see the rapid changes that took place since it seems silly to fault someone for not keeping up with what’s changed in a city removed from them.
LA is denser within the same core area, but is arguably less walkable than SF on two counts. There's the easy and facetious one where LA is physically large so when talking about LA, people are mislead by the fact that it encompasses a lot of suburbia in city limits. I think that's a somewhat meaningless argument, though technically true. The other, more meaningful argument is because of the way parts of LA is designed where it's a lot of nodes of urbanity, but sometimes cut-off via things like freeways or suburban tracts and sometimes with fairly slow mass transit in between (though this has steadily changed and I believe will rapidly change in the coming several years). This part has also being meaningfully changed, but you need to be someone who has gone to LA in fairly recent years and stuck around hanging out in the core areas.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 08-20-2019 at 08:28 AM..
The East Coast bias exists when statements are thrown out like "LA isn't urban or walkable". This only comes fr and m East Coast posters, even though the only city on the east, and possibly the only city nationally, that beats LA in this is New York. We've already done the examples of shrinking LA to the same geographical land area as DC, Boston, or Philly, that argument doesn't hold up...
Urban and walkable can very much be mutually exclusive.
Yes, LA is very urban, but it's urbanity is not built around walkability. Places like Houston, Phoenix, Miami or Dallas are all very urban... but they have and always will be car centric metro's. Does, LA have areas that are becoming substantially more walkable and pedestrian friendly, absolutely and I'd be lying if I said otherwise.
That being said, it would be very disingenuous to suggest LA as a whole can compare to the level of consistent walkability old East Coast cities organically have. This is coming from a person who visit's LA on very consistent basis and has immediate family in Vegas (another similar sprawl monster)
So I'd have to respectfully disagree.. there is no bias in saying that while LA is just as urban as any old legacy East Coast city, they are substantially more walkable than LA. Their physical compactness, street layout, architecture styles and reliance/promotion of mass transit emphasizes it.
Urban and walkable can very much be mutually exclusive.
Yes, LA is very urban, but it's urbanity is not built around walkability. Places like Houston, Phoenix, Miami or Dallas are all very urban... but they have and always will be car centric metro's. Does, LA have areas that are becoming substantially more walkable and pedestrian friendly, absolutely and I'd be lying if I said otherwise.
That being said, it would be very disingenuous to suggest LA as a whole can compare to the level of consistent walkability old East Coast cities organically have. This is coming from a person who visit's LA on very consistent basis and has immediate family in Vegas (another similar sprawl monster)
So I'd have to respectfully disagree.. there is no bias in saying that while LA is just as urban as any old legacy East Coast city, they are substantially more walkable than LA. Their physical compactness, street layout, architecture styles and reliance/promotion of mass transit emphasizes it.
LA's urban core, not LA in total, as the point of comparison does make it more walkable than many of the smaller East Coast urban cores which had been particularly ravaged. If the pace of construction in LA keeps going and with the new TOD zonings and large transit projects, then I'd expect it to be overall on par with some of the larger ones within the next several years. Even if the streets aren't usually as narrow, which I agree helps with walkability, you have flatness in that urban core which is mostly in the basin, large lots with often five to eight story heights or occasionally high-rises taking the place of strip malls / gas stations / vacant lots / auto shops / parking lots, and good weather as the exchange for the often wider streets.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 08-20-2019 at 09:20 AM..
Personally I'm not biased against any of these cities, I'm of the sentiment that Chicago is the Best City in the country . New York is Far more Exciting but all that Excitement Comes at a Cost, Chicago is New York at 1/2 the Price...New York for the World But Chicago for the American! Lol. Los Angeles is cool but I'm not a fan of Polycentric Cities I Like my Cities Centralized. But Not a Knock on LA though, Good Luck on it Hosting the Olympics in a few years
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.
