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.
So I guess the only aspect that L.A. Live might have that is better than Times Square is that the local population goes and hangs out there. It isn't infested with tourists and I don't think it really ever will be. L.A. Live is not really a tourist destination, but more of a place Angelenos can go and spend an evening at a show at Nokia Theater, grab a bight to eat before a game at Staples Center, bowl, watch movies, etc....
I really don't think this comparison makes any sense anyhow. Times Square is huge, famous, and for a total different purpose than L.A. Live.
At first I thought it was a good idea, since it's really difficult to walk through Times Square to get anywhere. You have to walk a snail's pace with all the tourists if you're going anywhere in that area. I avoid it, but sometimes you just can't if you're going to the theatre or something. But at the same time, I play ice hockey on the west side, so because of this, it's going to take longer to get there with all the detours. I'd rather just allow cars back in the area. I don't want TS to turn trashy.
Yeah, I just found out about this. I must say, I'm not a fan. Times Square did not develop as a car-free zone, and the fact that it is a major INTERSECTION is what made it so important in the first place. When you take away the traffic and try to turn it into a traditional "square," that just doesn't work.
EDIT: They tried something like this in Chicago in the 1980s. It didn't work for the Windy City, either.
Yeah, I just found out about this. I must say, I'm not a fan. Times Square did not develop as a car-free zone, and the fact that it is a major INTERSECTION is what made it so important in the first place. When you take away the traffic and try to turn it into a traditional "square," that just doesn't work.
EDIT: They tried something like this in Chicago in the 1980s. It didn't work for the Windy City, either.
I dont think most people going times square drive. Especially when you the buses, taxis, subways, commuter rail, and a main bus terminal in the area i dont think its a problem.
I've only seen Times Square once and I chose it because its bigger and looks like it has more to offer than L.A. Live however when I go to Los Angeles L.A. Live is definitely somewhere I would like to go because it looks really nice.
Hmm I agree.. Times square has a lot of history to it.. And
it wasn't planned out.. It was created throughout the years, naturally. But seriously times square is crazy, looks and is hella ****in crowded.. All the signs nd everything looks messy and unorganized... It looks as if the city decided to place this here and there just because. Shibuya, and L.A. Live look clean, simple and organized. All u see in times square is tourist taking pics near flashy signs and an area to see and be seen.. But that's bout it to me. And the only pedestrian idea??? I think it a good idea but take out the plastic park chairs.. U don't need tables nd chairs in times square.
Or it could be like comparing the Giants and Jets to the............
Oh, wait. LA doesn't have an NFL team.
Or it could be USC vs hmm, CUNY??? or perhaps SUNY??LOL. Or LA hosting 7 Super Bowls, and NY 0. Or the Jets and Giants playing in NJ!!! NJ?!?!? They OWE NJ a team!!! No but seriously, Times Square wins this one easily. Like others have said before me, Times Square has been here MUCH, MUCH longer then LA Live. It's like comparing a little plant sprout to a Giant Sequoia Tree. I do like how LA Live is developing though, it looks like it's gonna have a bright future. It looks like a REALLY fun area. But it's no where near Times Squares level.
Or it could be USC vs hmm, CUNY??? or perhaps SUNY??LOL. Or LA hosting 7 Super Bowls, and NY 0. Or the Jets and Giants playing in NJ!!! NJ?!?!? They OWE NJ a team!!! No but seriously, Times Square wins this one easily. Like others have said before me, Times Square has been here MUCH, MUCH longer then LA Live. It's like comparing a little plant sprout to a Giant Sequoia Tree. I do like how LA Live is developing though, it looks like it's gonna have a bright future. It looks like a REALLY fun area. But it's no where near Times Squares level.
I really don't care about college football. LOL. In all seriousness...............
This would have been a better comparison of Time Square to something in Tokyo or HOng Kong.
Last edited by UrbanLover; 11-04-2009 at 05:58 AM..
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,053,483 times
Reputation: 4047
Times Square New York City.
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.
, CUNY??? or perhaps SUNY??LOL. Or LA hosting 7 Super Bowls, and NY 0. Or the Jets and Giants playing in NJ!!! NJ?!?!? They OWE NJ a team!!! No but seriously, Times Square wins this one easily. Like others have said before me, Times Square has been here MUCH, MUCH longer then LA Live. It's like comparing a little plant sprout to a Giant Sequoia Tree. I do like how LA Live is developing though, it looks like it's gonna have a bright future. It looks like a REALLY fun area. But it's no where near Times Squares level.
