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 can't get away w/ this statement until you back it up with the facts. It is so "New Yorkish" to suggest that everything starts in NYC & is merely "transferred over to la". That certainly is not supported by the fact that television and movies are generated in Los Angeles not New York. It is considered "making it big" to move to LA, buy a home in the Hollywood Hills & become a star. Two example of NYC refugees is nicely illustrated on HBO: "Curb Your Enthusiasm" [Larry David the genus behind "Seinfeld"] chronicles his move to Los Angeles. Also "Entourage" with the premise that 4 young New Yorkers follow their dream by moving to Los Angeles & indulging in the world of sex\ drugs\ money. Los Angeles is where the action is at. New York is like the old patriarch [powerful but stuck in his ways]. The future is California not New York [whether you can accept that or not].
You learn about the world from TV series? ROTFL. That explains a lot of your posts. Also, what's up with the world of drugs, sex, money in LA. Are you saying there is neither in New York City or maybe you say that's all people in LA do?
In your mind, do you see LA equal to NYC (in different ways of course), or do you see LA as much lesser than NYC? Granted, they are very different. I like the idea of our country having two great cities, one in the NE part of the country, and the other in the SW part of the country, with another great city (Chicago) sandwiched between (nicely balanced) with other great/nice cities all around.
I forgot to mention in the OP that I grew up in Chicago (I'm 38 now) and always saw both NYC and LA as equally important in different ways, and that Chicago followed the two (then DC).
I forgot to mention in the OP that I grew up in Chicago (I'm 38 now) and always saw both NYC and LA as equally important in different ways, and that Chicago followed the two (then DC).
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by californio sur
I believe just being the largest city in the nation is not enough to claim superiority. New York is our nation's most impressive city for size & buildings. But the surrounding countryside isn't all that impressive. The Hudson River & Atlantic coastline is ideal for a port and commerce. NYC is the product of human effort & the primate city of the US
But being a man-made environment is not enough in my opinion. New York is a far northern city & has a cold climate for over half the year. Often damp & chilly, it isn't an outdoor city. It's not an area noted for outdoor living & activities because it is not practical. Climate has a direct effect on lifestyle.
Maximum\ minimum yesterday:
New York: 42\ 28
Los Angeles: 75\ 51
There are more things a person can do living in LA than NYC; that is a major factor. More variety in a smaller population overall. Less people and more options makes Los Angeles more than equal to New York.
Wait so what exactly was your answer to the original question?
I think NYC is a bit ahead of everyone else... various threads just in the last one week have shown how far ahead one city truly can be.
Los Angeles is not on the level of New York. Why? Because New York is just simply too dominant. There are only three truely global cities (sometimes 4)...those three cities are New York, London and Tokyo (and sometimes Paris). Those three (or 4) cities are a level above Los Angeles in their importance on a global scale.
I am not knocking Los Angeles down, but it is an exaggeration to rank it up there with New York.
ECONOMICS: New York is arguably the world's financial capital (rivaling London); being a world financial center means you are a command center for the global economy and have an immense global influence. The global capitalist system is more or less centered among three "super" cities, New York, London, and Tokyo. Los Angeles is not even in the ballfield with New York on this level.
POLITICS: New York is also a major political force in the world being home to the United Nations. There is so much international diplomatic meetings occuring in New York. Again, Los Angeles is nowhere near New York on this level.
CULTURE: I don't care what you think, but this is HIGHLY debatable. This category is where Los Angeles competes best with New York.
ARCHITECTURE: Los Angeles is no slouch, but New York is the architectural gem of America with endless architectural landmarks.
LIFESTYLE: I still pull for New York here. The cosmopolitan, bustling environment of New York has attracted many people all over the world.
TOURISM: New York attracts more tourists than Los Angeles.
Los Angeles has a global influence on pop culture and how we live our lives, but cultural globalization in my opinion, is not as drastic as economic globalization. No matter what, the most important things in the world are economic and political issues. The entire world is an interconnected grid with people, goods, services, and capital flowing everywhere, New York is one of the command centers controlling what goes where and how much on a global level. If you go to Africa, Southeast Asia, the Indian subcontinent, Hollywood has a small influence on these locations. But New York's influence can be felt practically EVERYWHERE. In that sense, New York is clearly superior over Los Angeles.
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.