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.
To your first point, anybody on here will tell you I've sounded the drums for years on here about how we massively underrate LA on here. I've been saying that for years on this website, me and a handful of others, trust me. This board has many smart and fun people and it's always cool learning new things from people, but as a group I think we forget sometimes that we represent maybe, 5% of the American public and opinions? This site attracts intellectuals who are specifically in to analyzing data about cities as acutely as we can, to the point of obsession on some things that really aren't that big of a deal...
I say that to say, trust me on this, LA being underrated on here, and NY not being viewed as a peer to LA, is a City-Data thing. Generally speaking, most Americans very much place them within the same tier of two. Because I'm a similar personality as my fellow posters attracted to boards like this, if you press me and force me to rank them, I would put NY ahead of LA, but that's only because NY had a huge head start on development as a power and thus has some legacy signifiers that attest to that. That's if you force me to rank them as we do on here; In no way, shape, or form, do I think NY has some massive gap ahead of LA or is unattainable. And the typical American doesn't think about having to rank them in an order, we recognize NY/LA as our two dominant cities, then there's everywhere else...
The CD narrative that LA isn't a peer to NY is mainly a smart-dumb envy comment, by truly smart posters who place too much emphasis on a specific built form and can't fathom how in just barely 100 years, LA usurped all the former competition for NY; much of that narrative is very directly from that, and I've always called that on exactly what it is. People on here get sensitive when their city has been overtaken...
Thank you, that was very interesting, I was always wondering if that's only a CD thing or does average really think of LA as more of a peer to Chicago rather than NYC. I feel like CD values urbanity so much that it sometimes conflates it with stature and recognition.
Agree with you on the part that if forced, you would rank NY ahead of LA, I would, too, so would most of the people even outside of CD. On the other hand, though, I have a feeling that more people where I live have a more favorable view of LA than NY. It feels more exotic, more different. What I wanted to point out is just that there is no some huge, enormous, giant gap between them.
I still don't know how to double quote on here lol so to answer to a guy below who mentioned a "wow effect", I don't see how that has anything to do with stature and importance, you can get that effect in Venice or Santorini due to their natural beauty plus old architecture or say in an East Asian city like Nagoya or Chongqing due to their modernistic/futuristic look, but that doesn't make them any more relevant.
I will reply to your other comment later, I'm in a hurry now.
That old thread also shed light on the fact that many foreigners don't place NY in some category by itself from anybody else, particularly Easterners. Everybody with a curiosity for this knows NY is one of the greatest cities in the world. Only here and other Western publications with Western interests sometimes seem to have this idea that NY is the one city in the world standing away from everyone else...
and while I can't speak for London having never been, a few people said something similar about London, that it isn't just by itself, and that thread also revealed that many, if not most, foreigners would place London ahead of NY if forced to rank, which is completely different than the American ideology pushed in our media that NY and London are basically interchangeably 1 and 2. Those people expounded though, and mentioned that the reason most people would lean London is because of its longer age and deeper impact on the globe, its reputation is older and broader. Made complete sense to me to hear people mention that there are many great cities on the planet, and the US has several of the best, but other nations have their own NY, LA, etc...
Regarding your last point, we are Westerners, so we are culturally interconnected, thus there is a heavy lean on all things European here. It's like that in certain segments of American society for sure, but definitely this board fetishizes Europe. And I think most people recognize that Paris is a global power, but there have been people over the years to point out our fetishization of European cities in here, particularly in the context of placing specific and certain US cities as lesser than certain European ones...
So you're not the first, we've heard that said before, too!
Lastly, I know I can't be the only guy on here who remembers that damn thread. One of my lasting impressions though, of many from it, was the people familiar with Eastern cultures and societies pointing out how full of ourselves many Westerners are and how we view ourselves and perspective sometimes, and how dismissive we tend to be towards other cities or societies or cultures we may not be as intertwined with. And there's nothing more American than self-glorification and vanity, that one tickled me because its true of us as a people to the core!
Reagarding your first 2 paragraphs, yeah, London and NY might be the 2 poster childs for a big, wordly city. When people here want to say how some place is kind of big or bigger than someone might expect, they usually say "Well, it ain't New York, but..." The 2nd most used city for that is London, after that you may use Tokyo and maaaaybe Paris, but Paris more in a sense of there's beautiful things to see (for which you could also use Rome), for example I'm taking my friends to a place where I'm originally from, I would say "There is a lot to see there...it ain't Paris, but there's stuff."
But there's also this, when people want to say that someone lives in a little more well off neighborhood, they will say "This is the Beverly Hills of [...] or this is the Hollywood of [...], not any NY or London neighborhood.
Additionally, California as a state has no peers, sorry Texas, sorry Florida or whatever, but no way. And LA is the image people here have about Cali.
As for your 2 last paragraphs...I agree there is some weird fetish here going on about Europe, seems like most of the people think everywhere looks like Venice, Paris and Rome or a combination of those...I agree our cities on average have more charm to them than American or, as a matter of fact, anywhere else in the world, but it's not all sitting in a cafe bar below an Eiffel Tower, reading newspapers and eating a croissant. That's the tourist spots. Much like 99.9% of the US is not Times Square or Hollywood.
Again, our cities might be more "charming" and urban (which CD especially appreciates), but e.g., economically, most are behind when comparing cities of the same population.
Also, it would be fun if someone from East Asia (or any other part of the world) could chime in about the average perception there. Is LA even more iconic there?
I would like if someone could find that thread you are mentioning and post a link here. Sounds interesting.
Doesnt matter. Chicago-Milwaukee is a full 2 million more people than the Bay Area, yet the Bay Area GDP is still $200B+ more than Chicago-Milwakee.
So yeah...
The analogy that poster was trying to use is absurd anyway. The distance between the San Francisco MSA's built in area and the San Jose MSA's is just an imaginary line.
This is about right. Maybe slightly closer to Chicago than NY, but LA is pretty equidistant because Chicago isn't all that close to LA...
LA is about as close to NY as any city has been to NY since maybe Chicago of the late 19th/early 20th city. I'm not sure when NY last had a 1:1 peer but its unbelievable the ground LA has covered in basically 120 years...
Exactly. LA was a small town, while SF was a thriving bustling city. LA wasnt top 5 largest city in California not too long ago, so to see it explode in population is crazy. However I still feel like Chicago is more of a pier to LA than NYC because NYC has too rich of history and an urban intensity that's unrivaled and one of 2 US cities to have tracts over 100k ppsm (other being San Francisco). LA isnt a top 10 urban city in America and that hurts its image but it's a young city so it's only natural
Exactly. LA was a small town, while SF was a thriving bustling city. LA wasnt top 5 largest city in California not too long ago, so to see it explode in population is crazy. However I still feel like Chicago is more of a pier to LA than NYC because NYC has too rich of history and an urban intensity that's unrivaled and one of 2 US cities to have tracts over 100k ppsm (other being San Francisco). LA isnt a top 10 urban city in America and that hurts its image but it's a young city so it's only natural
LA is arguably a Top 5 urban city in the US and without a doubt is Top 10, stop it. This absurd assertion that there's a bunch of cities more urban than LA is unfounded when you really compare cities...
NY is a given. I think Chicago is a possible, though I'm not convinced Chi is fir sure more urban. Chi has one tract over 200k, one over 100k, and then the rest of the city is very comparable to LA, do you wanna add up populations?
Nowhere else is definitively more urban than LA unless you favor the CD logic that a specific built form locks you in. You can fit the entire of cities of Boston, DC, SF into just one of the most urban parts of LA, and those parts of LA are denser with more people in lesser square mileage than all of them...
You can fit the entire city of Philadelphia in the combination of Central/South LA and the result is the same as the other cities...
LA and Boston reach the same level of peak densities. SF has higher peak densities but again is smaller than Central LA. And DC and Philky are just smaller period not even close to the peak densities of LA...
Philly is the only city of these I've never actually been to, been to all the others. It's always funny watching CD rationalize how the city with the strongest argument almost across the board (LA), is less urban than the group of cities with the weaker argument. Funny too, because when you are actually in all these cities, it never actually occurs that you think "damn this place is more urban than LA", unless you have stubborn biases you're unwilling to shake; it isn't based on actual reality...
I get why you use CSA, rather than MSA, when posting, though, as San Francisco doesn't come in ahead of Chicago, when using MSA. Without the help of San Jose, San Fran isn't ranked as high. And, now, we know.
When referencing San Francisco, many of these publications are speaking about the entire SF region (which frankly, is fine), whereas Chicago it's just a metro area. Apples and oranges, really. But again, the SF region is a powerhouse and contiguous.
Exactly. LA was a small town, while SF was a thriving bustling city. LA wasnt top 5 largest city in California not too long ago, so to see it explode in population is crazy. However I still feel like Chicago is more of a pier to LA than NYC because NYC has too rich of history and an urban intensity that's unrivaled and one of 2 US cities to have tracts over 100k ppsm (other being San Francisco). LA isnt a top 10 urban city in America and that hurts its image but it's a young city so it's only natural
Even if we use the most generic criteria-population density in U.S. cities over 500,000 Los Angeles would be 8th.
Pretty impressive for a 469 sq mi city to be literally neck and neck with Seattle (an 84 sq mi city whose urbanity is typically never called into question).
LA is arguably a Top 5 urban city in the US and without a doubt is Top 10, stop it. This absurd assertion that there's a bunch of cities more urban than LA is unfounded when you really compare cities...
NY is a given. I think Chicago is a possible, though I'm not convinced Chi is fir sure more urban. Chi has one tract over 200k, one over 100k, and then the rest of the city is very comparable to LA, do you wanna add up populations?
Nowhere else is definitively more urban than LA unless you favor the CD logic that a specific built form locks you in. You can fit the entire of cities of Boston, DC, SF into just one of the most urban parts of LA, and those parts of LA are denser with more people in lesser square mileage than all of them...
You can fit the entire city of Philadelphia in the combination of Central/South LA and the result is the same as the other cities...
LA and Boston reach the same level of peak densities. SF has higher peak densities but again is smaller than Central LA. And DC and Philky are just smaller period not even close to the peak densities of LA...
Philly is the only city of these I've never actually been to, been to all the others. It's always funny watching CD rationalize how the city with the strongest argument almost across the board (LA), is less urban than the group of cities with the weaker argument. Funny too, because when you are actually in all these cities, it never actually occurs that you think "damn this place is more urban than LA", unless you have stubborn biases you're unwilling to shake; it isn't based on actual reality...
LA has lower ridership numbers than Chicago Transit and even Boston and SF in absolute numbers despite being much larger.
LA has lower ridership numbers than Chicago Transit and even Boston and SF in absolute numbers despite being much larger.
That's because LA is less centralized with a lesser developed transit system than those two. Still, when you're in LA, you still see massive amounts of people on the street in the core and the subways and light rail can be packed. The fact it has lower ridership is not discernible when you have actual feet on the ground...
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.
