Are there any neighborhoods that you would consider a west coast version of any NYC neighborhood?

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Why not have a huge global, cosmopolitan, concentration of people, with culture, entertainment, economic activity and maximizing efficient use of urban space with keeping the 3-story stucco courtyard apartment building common to LA?

A city doesn't need to look like New York to be a major city.

LA does its own thing. It can and is working on expanding light rail. It can and is working on revitalization of downtown. New York is New York. Los Angeles is Los Angeles.

You can't wish your home town to be something its not.

IMO, I think L.A. isn't fully mature yet. It's younger than Chicago and NYC. L.A. still needs good public transit and now it's focusing attention of revitalizing it's downtown. L.A. still feels like a concrete jungle. Graffiti, brick walls, streets, sidewalks, people, echoing sounds of sirens, cars, construction.

IDK why.. I love it.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

IMO, I think L.A. isn't fully mature yet. It's younger than Chicago and NYC. L.A. still needs good public transit and now it's focusing attention of revitalizing it's downtown. L.A. still feels like a concrete jungle. Graffiti, brick walls, streets, sidewalks, people, echoing sounds of sirens, cars, construction.

IDK why.. I love it.

Chicago became BIG before LA got BIG, but as far as becoming a city or any size they are actually about the same. And LA was a village before Chicago was a village.

Olvera Street/El Pueblo is older than anything than in Chicago.

LA has all kinds of early 20th-1920s century buildings in downtown, Hollywood, Chicago just has way more. LA actually had one of the most extensive public transportation in the country back then. The Pacfic-Electric/Red Car.

New Yorks different obviously - as it is on the east coast. Where all the cities (Boston, Philly Baltimore, D.C.) are the oldest in the country for the most part.

[Nihilove]

Even the worst LA has to offer doesn't begin to rival the Bronx or Brooklyn.


Sorry, but things just aren't so simple.
You seem to want to believe that New York is some hell on earth while LA is paradise. I don't want to burst your bubble, but this is nonsense.
LA has many, many extremely poor districts- ranging from the barrios of East LA to South Central to Skid Row. Hang out by the section 8 housing in Westlake near MacArthur Park and tell me about paradise.

You can't easily compare them to NY's neighborhoods because well...it's not NY. It's LA. It's a different animal.
LA's sprawl means that neighborhoods not only look and feel different, but in my humble opinion, are easier to ignore and pretend they don't exist.

I'm from New York, born and raised, and have been out here for four years.
I'm constantly discovering new areas and hidden things about this massive city. But one thing I'm often struck by is the decay and poverty in many areas that are largely ignored. I've seen things here that you don't see often in New York anymore- i.e.-SKID ROW.
Is there one in New York? Well, it used to be called the Bowery, but now it's a trendy, expensive stretch of cafes and clubs.
For all it's glamour and sunshine, LA to me personally has a grittiness and authenticity I find less and less in New York whenever I visit.

Bottom line is, things aren't so simple. So maybe it's best not to make vast generalizations.

[quixotic59]

Originally Posted by Nihilove

Even the worst LA has to offer doesn't begin to rival the Bronx or Brooklyn.


Sorry, but things just aren't so simple.
You seem to want to believe that New York is some hell on earth while LA is paradise. I don't want to burst your bubble, but this is nonsense.
LA has many, many extremely poor districts- ranging from the barrios of East LA to South Central to Skid Row. Hang out by the section 8 housing in Westlake near MacArthur Park and tell me about paradise.

You can't easily compare them to NY's neighborhoods because well...it's not NY. It's LA. It's a different animal.
LA's sprawl means that neighborhoods not only look and feel different, but in my humble opinion, are easier to ignore and pretend they don't exist.

I'm from New York, born and raised, and have been out here for four years.
I'm constantly discovering new areas and hidden things about this massive city. But one thing I'm often struck by is the decay and poverty in many areas that are largely ignored. I've seen things here that you don't see often in New York anymore- i.e.-SKID ROW.
Is there one in New York? Well, it used to be called the Bowery, but now it's a trendy, expensive stretch of cafes and clubs.
For all it's glamour and sunshine, LA to me personally has a grittiness and authenticity I find less and less in New York whenever I visit.

Bottom line is, things aren't so simple. So maybe it's best not to make vast generalizations.

I never said Los Angeles was paradise, although at certain times and certain neighborhoods it may appear to be.
However, having driven through both cities and seen their best and worst, I repeat, there are areas of Brooklyn and the Bronx that can only be compared to, possibly, certain sections of Detroit or some South American slums.
As previously stated by others, New York City is OLD. That plays a big factor. As for Skid Row, our mayor is very adept at pushing out the poor and middle calss so his cronies can engage in "development". However, this holds true primarily for Manhattan. The outer boroughs are still subject to economic neglect and blight.
Few cities are as good at hiding or ignoring the economically diadvantaged as New York City.
Also, it is the sprawl that, in my opinion, gives Los Angeles the advantage. You can experience so many different climates and topographies in relatively close proximity. This without the weather extremes we are subjected to in NYC.

[Nihilove]

Originally Posted by quixotic59

I never said Los Angeles was paradise, although at certain times and certain neighborhoods it may appear to be.
However, having driven through both cities and seen their best and worst, I repeat, there are areas of Brooklyn and the Bronx that can only be compared to, possibly, certain sections of Detroit or some South American slums.
As previously stated by others, New York City is OLD. That plays a big factor. As for Skid Row, our mayor is very adept at pushing out the poor and middle calss so his cronies can engage in "development". However, this holds true primarily for Manhattan. The outer boroughs are still subject to economic neglect and blight.
Few cities are as good at hiding or ignoring the economically diadvantaged as New York City.
Also, it is the sprawl that, in my opinion, gives Los Angeles the advantage. You can experience so many different climates and topographies in relatively close proximity. This without the weather extremes we are subjected to in NYC.

Alright, fair enough.
I agree and am very aware of New York's callousness towards the poor, as well as the poverty under the surface.
While I'm sure you're aware of it, I still think you're downplaying this other side of LA. It's own history of segregation leads for huge class disparity.
As far as what's really "worse", it's impossible to be truly objective about it. Both cities have extreme wealth and extreme poverty, they just manifest in different ways.

[SalParadise]

There is no question that Skid Row in downtown LA is 100% a filthy dump. A scar on our civic skin. The area actually had a shot at getting cleaned up until the ACLU and affordable housing advocates squashed it.

And I say that as a generally liberal person with family members who are card carrying ACLU members.