Times Square (NYC) vs LA Live (LA) (best, America, better)
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.
You cannot compare something as historical as TS to something like L.A. Live. Apples to Oranges.
Besides, L.A. Live is NOT the Times Square of the west. L.A. Live is the L.A. Live of the west. When it's finished it's going to be something completely different. You can't compare the 2 as L.A. Live is NOT attempting to emulate TS.
That's a silly retort. Coney Island's heyday is long since past and the city is doing absolutely nothing to change that (shame on the city). And it's ridiculous to bring up the beaches in NYC to the beaches of LA. Venice is as popular as it is for a reason.
Anyhow, as other posts have mentioned, this is a silly comparison. LA Live is not an iconic must-visit portion of the city. It's nice and all, but it's not something people go simply to have been there. As someone mentioned before, Hollywood Boulevard seems like a more apt comparison since it is a place that does actually draw tourists. Like Times Square, it was also once incredibly (wonderfully) seedy, but has been cleaned up quite a bit. It's busy at all hours and features a variety of buskers, great nightclubs, landmarks, and more and more crapfest-bougie stores opening.
or like comparing the LA Lakers to the New York Knicks
Or like comparing the Giants to the ........uh.......well damn
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.