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.
NYC existing as a city divided by five administrative boroughs spread out over 300 square miles can never be used as evidence of it being "multi nodal" or "disjointed", but the neighborhoods and districts of Los Angeles must always be put under a microscope for their imperfections in continuity and used as proof that its a balkanized non-city.
There is a big difference how these 'nodes' came about. NYC started out centralized and the additional nodes are just a spill over, and were created because the CBD cannot handle everything. Other centralized US cities like Chicago, Boston, Philly, SF would've also developed additional nodes if they had extra millions of people move in. In contrast, LA started as multi-nodal, but it didn't have the population to support all these nodes. As a result, most of them are underutilized and feel less 'city'. There are great cities in the world that have a similar multinodal layout like LA, such as Tokyo, but they have huge population to support all of that, so that each node feels like a big dense walkable downtown area by itself. A multi nodal layout is definitely a lot harder form factor to pull off if your goal is not to make it look like a giant endless sprawl.
Seoul should definitely do something about their sewers though. The smell in some areas is real. Also, there is a lot more happening in NYC, as Seoul residential areas are mostly bland commieblocks and don't have much going on even in daytime. I think the lack of purchasing power plays a big role here. NYC definitely has more areas with activity, as the population can afford/support more stuff. Seoul reminded me of a poorer version of Tokyo with cheaper good food. Seoul metro is also not better than NYC. While it is much cleaner, it is a lot smaller and has very big coverage gaps and is still undergoing big expansion.
Tokyo is probably the only city that is legitimately better (and probably the best in the world), if we're talking about amenities and transportation. If New York could accomplish what JR East company did with Kanto region it would've been crazy.
I feel like some East Asian cities have a different attitude towards sewer treatment. In Taipei, I sometimes can't tell if the smell is from the sewer or sulphuric water from hot springs--I prefer to pretend it's the latter most of the time. No such excuse for Seoul though.
Seoul does have a lot of bland architecture, but that's somewhat slowly changing. I think that poster's reference to getting all kinds of interesting things open very late at night that's not nightlife or delis/convenience stores though is a nice feature of Seoul and some East Asian (though less so Japanese) cities. I remember moving from Taipei to NYC and being a bit disappointed that the dining options after a night out were a lot more limited and there were no 24 hour cafes and bookstores to loiter around if I couldn't sleep. I think what where Seoul doesn't do as well in comparison to NYC and Tokyo aside from having lot more nondescript high-rises are the the greater prominence of extremely wide avenues dedicated to car traffic and also, even in comparison to Tokyo, the lesser prevalence of a variety of eateries from elsewhere. Seoul is very much Korean food (albeit with a lot of internal variety within that segment or some adopted takes on things like Italian, more accurately Italian-American food and very similar to some of the "native" Italian food in Japan and Taiwan), some Japanese and Chinese food, a lot of American fast food of sorts, and a very, very light amount of everything else. NYC is fantastic at that last point, and Tokyo is very much better than Seoul in that respect.
Seoul Metropolitan Subway is likely to have longer system length by the end of next year, and more if you count Korail's frequent services. I think what's the larger difference though is the regional transit connections which are speedy and spread pretty wide and pretty cheaply. This would be what I would hope a good S-Bahn system in NYC (and much of how Japanese cities with their commuter rail currently operate) would do. A S-Bahn system using the current Metrolink system with some adjustments and expansions in LA would also be fantastic.
If we're going pound for pound and in relation to the urban area and population, there are several systems that I put over NYC's. NYC is very big though and I think on a user-level, it's a lot about what one personally can get to rather than some randomized set of "average" people's can get to. I think Paris's system of both the subway and RER along with other modes is also a kind of dark horse candidate as it's really good if you can excuse how dirty it is, though NYC's system is also often not all that ****-and-span.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gantz
There is a big difference how these 'nodes' came about. NYC started out centralized and the additional nodes are just a spill over, and were created because the CBD cannot handle everything. Other centralized US cities like Chicago, Boston, Philly, SF would've also developed additional nodes if they had extra millions of people move in. In contrast, LA started as multi-nodal, but it didn't have the population to support all these nodes. As a result, most of them are underutilized and feel less 'city'. There are great cities in the world that have a similar multinodal layout like LA, such as Tokyo, but they have huge population to support all of that, so that each node feels like a big dense walkable downtown area by itself.
Yea! LA also once had a massive rail system connecting the nodes and often with a lot of pasture and farms in between. I'll say that also as part of this is that LA saw a lot of growth when the US put an incredible amount of funding in road infrastructure and CA and LA laws towards laws limiting development and expanding parking which also decimated a lot of the former central nodes for a while. If not for that, the multi-nodal layout of LA could have probably worked out pretty well for mass transit.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 08-15-2022 at 01:47 PM..
Yea, a lot of East Asian cities have a different attitude towards sewer treatment. In Taipei, I sometimes can't tell if the smell is from the sewer or sulphuric water from hot springs--I prefer to pretend it's the latter most of the time. No such excuse for Seoul though.
Seoul does have a lot of bland architecture, but that's somewhat slowly changing. I think that poster's reference to getting all kinds of interesting things open very late at night that's not just nightlife or delis/convenience stores though is a nice feature of Seoul and some East Asian (though less so Japanese) cities. I remember moving from Taipei to NYC and being a bit disappointed that the dining options after a night out were a lot more limited and there were no 24 hour cafes and bookstores to loiter around if I couldn't sleep. I think what where Seoul doesn't do as well in comparison to NYC and Tokyo aside from having lot more nondescript high-rises are the the greater prominence of extremely wide avenues dedicated to car traffic and also, even in comparison to Tokyo, the lesser prevalence of a variety of eateries from elsewhere. Seoul is very much Korean food (albeit with a lot of internal variety within that segment or some adopted takes on things like Italian, more accurately Italian-American food and very similar to some of the "native" Italian food in Japan and Taiwan), some Japanese and Chinese food, a lot of American fast food of sorts, and a very, very light amount of everything else. NYC is fantastic at that last point, and Tokyo is very much better than Seoul in that respect.
Seoul does have pretty good American BBQ though, believe it or not. Probably the only place in Asia (or maybe even the world) that can do American BBQ right. Probably has to do with the huge American military presence for decades there, and the fact that Korean cuisine is fairly meat heavy like American, unlike Japanese or Chinese.
Quote:
Seoul Metropolitan Subway is likely to have longer system length by the end of next year, and more if you count Korail's frequent services. I think what's the larger difference though is the regional transit connections which are speedy and spread pretty wide and pretty cheaply. This would be what I would hope a good S-Bahn system in NYC (and much of how Japanese cities with their commuter rail currently operate) would do.
If we're going pound for pound and in relation to the urban area and population, there are several systems that I put over NYC's.
Seoul Metro kind of combines NYC's subway and suburban rail though, but it is much smaller. And there are even gaps in coverage in Seoul itself that they are trying to rectify now. Of course as a tourist you wouldn't realize it, since most tourist neighborhoods are covered. Also, once you go outside of Seoul (not Incheon or Busan) things can get pretty dire. I had to travel to the East of the country and things got rather difficult. I had to do 2 train transfers and then take a commuter bus, and this is considering the geographic distances in Korea are relatively small. Most of Korea doesn't have any rail at all. You pretty much have to go everywhere by car or bus.
Yea! LA also once had a massive rail system connecting the nodes and often with a lot of pasture and farms in between. I'll say that also as part of this is that LA saw a lot of growth when the US put an incredible amount of funding in road infrastructure and CA and LA laws towards laws limiting development and expanding parking which also decimated a lot of the former central nodes for a while. If not for that, the multi-nodal layout of LA could have probably worked out pretty well for mass transit.
I think as city population becomes bigger, the multi nodal layout is a superior form of an urban city, however it is by far the most difficult one to pull off. I think the trick is to not only have these nodes connected by subway, but also the nodes must be rail hubs themselves, to get the required population pull, and not get either diffused completely or too centralized in one area. Tokyo, of course, solves this with connecting most of the hubs with a circular line.
People in Los Angeles are more religious than people in New York City, whether they are politically conservative or liberal. Also, people in Los Angeles are quite chatty and cheerful, which makes grocery shopping and other activities rather pleasant, especially if you are a sociable person.
Unfortunately, Los Angeles severely lacks colonial charm in its general vicinity. Most of the rural countryside around Los Angeles looks like it belongs in a Third World country. The outlying areas of New York City are much more bucolic and upscale.
New York City has a much longer, more storied history. There are plenty of towns in short driving distance from Manhattan that are home to families who have lived in the same community for 400 years. A lot of buildings that were erected during the early periods of Los Angeles history have been demolished for the sake of population growth. Therefore, much of the history in Los Angeles has been overwritten.
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.
