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.
I'm not so sure about that... so I'll go with what I know... (I think you are off on Boston too though)
Bay area is the hub of tech industry is a hub of venture capital industry, it's actually #1 on the planet for both, no regional, or u.s. about it...
SF is also financial hub of the entire western united states. bank of america(now in CLT) Charles Schwabb, Wells Fargo, Barclays, VISA, Franklin Templeteon...
I am not sure about Boston but many might consider it global educational hub.
See, you're talking about industries...niches. And the hub cities I listed have those too...
When we're talking primate cities/hubs, you have to look at 'em as the de-facto capitals of their megaregions. This is why NY, LA, Chicago, Atlanta, Wash DC (national), Dallas, and Miami are in a total different league than San Fran, Houston, Boston, and Philly.
The de-facto capitals/hubs/primate cities will always be important, will always be at the center of things and will always re-invent themselves.
Lets see...a city that looks like a suburb and its suburbs that look like suburbs is all of a sudden an "urban feel"?
Chicago has that urban feel in the city limits and especially its downtown core, LA has that urban feel...nowhere really. Everything in LA is suburban in nature. Just cuz LA decides to cram the houses and make smaller backyards make it more urban?
That's part of the reason I love LA. The cars, the suburban feel, the beaches, no street lights on the highways. I mean does it get anymore beautiful and natural than Malibu and still be close to such a major metro area?
But some people want LA to be something it is not apparently. Or maybe its just Osito who is off his rocker. It is not Chicago or NYC in its urbanity or big city feel. You can live in the middle of Los Angeles and feel like you are in Schaumburg Illinois with all the parking lots and houses with yards. There are probably more people walking around outside right now in the city of Chicago than all of metropolitan Los Angeles for instance, because that is just how lives are lived. This difference should be embraced rather than dismissed. If you want a big city urban feel and you want to ditch the car and walk and take transit everywhere move to NYC or Chicago. If you want to be in a big city and still have all those amenities but feel and live like you are in the suburbs move to LA. Not sure what is so bad about that last option, sounds pretty great to me. Different strokes for different folks.
Last edited by yoyobubba; 09-08-2009 at 06:09 PM..
Lets see...a city that looks like a suburb and its suburbs that look like suburbs is all of a sudden an "urban feel"?
Chicago has that urban feel in the city limits and especially its downtown core, LA has that urban feel...nowhere really. Everything in LA is suburban in nature. Just cuz LA decides to cram the houses and make smaller backyards make it more urban?
LA definitely does have it's more urban parts; downtown (if you think this is suburban then you clearly have no credibility on this subject), Hollywood, Mid Wilshire, Koreatown etc..
Outside of the Loop, River North, and areas near the lake, Chicago actually reminded me of LA in some ways; strip malls with garden style apartments. It definitely has more intense urban parts to it but some of it doesn't look that different than LA, to me at least.
LA definitely does have it's more urban parts; downtown (if you think this is suburban then you clearly have no credibility on this subject), Hollywood, Mid Wilshire, Koreatown etc..
Outside of the Loop, River North, and areas near the lake, Chicago actually reminded me of LA in some ways; strip malls with garden style apartments. It definitely has more intense urban parts to it but some of it doesn't look that different than LA, to me at least.
There is a major difference. LA is dominated by houses and garages. Chicago, not so much. Only outside the city limits.
See, you're talking about industries...niches. And the hub cities I listed have those too...
When we're talking primate cities/hubs, you have to look at 'em as the de-facto capitals of their megaregions. This is why NY, LA, Chicago, Atlanta, Wash DC (national), Dallas, and Miami are in a total different league than San Fran, Houston, Boston, and Philly.
The de-facto capitals/hubs/primate cities will always be important, will always be at the center of things and will always re-invent themselves.
Dallas Miami and Atlanta, while important, do not have the WORLD WIDE importance and influence that the 4 we have all been saying have. They are regional centers in America at most
There is a major difference. LA is dominated by houses and garages. Chicago, not so much. Only outside the city limits.
The majority of people who live in LA live in apartments, not detached single family homes. And the garages are usually behind the apartments in alleyways, similar to Chicago. Not trying to say LA is as urban or as Chicago or anything like that, b/c yes there are lots of single family homes, especially in the Valley. But when I visited Chicago in August, I stayed farther out in Lincoln Square and some of the areas I explored farther away from the downtown core area reminded me somewhat of LA's density and layout.
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.
)