Does LA feel like the 2nd biggest city in America to you? (Los Angeles: townhouse, job market)

[joshd9124]

Originally Posted by trancedout

This "talent" argument is a bit strange....LA is a bigger worldwide destination than NYC in my opinion.

In what way? NY is the most cosmo American city and attracts more international tourists annually than LA by a wide margin.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by joshd9124

I visited LA for the first time last Spring I'm from NY I spent most of my time on the Westside so i'm not expert on the city but I liked it was cool, it def does feel like America's 2nd city culturally. As far as a a big city feel I didnt really feel that too much it def feel huge but not in the traditon urban way, I guess since I'm from NY I'm used to the great walkability which much of LA doesn't really have one of the draw backs of it imo is that it was designed for the automobile since when it was developing urban planners at the time thought the cities of the future would be built around the car and LA was the model city for that. Now were seeing that the city should be built around the pedestrian but besides this flaw out of all the American cities Ive been to I def think LA is the 2nd best, as far as global cities it's not up there with NYC, Paris, London, and Tokyo these are the four most powerful and important cities in the world but LA is still a top 10 leading global city. I think in the annual global city index it's ranked number like 6 or 7 actually.

The more traditionally urban parts of LA are not on the Westside, which is pretty car-oriented outside of a few select areas like Westwood, Santa Monica, DT Culver City and Beverly Hills.

[BarcelonaFan]

I agree with a previous poster who said that if anyone doubts the grandiosity of LA should drive down Wilshire from Santa Monica to DTLA. That would shatter any image of LA not being as urban or grand as NYC and Chicago.

[PA Born]

Originally Posted by trancedout

There is a level of international in LA that Chicago doesn't come close to, although on paper, it should.

So many people from Australia, Japan, Europe, Latin America, that went to LA because they wanted to. In Chicago, it's more because they had family already there, usually true with the Mexicans and Indians (from India).

Chicago's has a large international presence, but in a different way. Established ethnic neighborhoods (Polish, Russian, Greek) are not the same as having a truly international vibe the way you have in LA.

Also, it seems like absolutely everyone is from the midwest there, and the narrow provincial interests of beer, food, and sports gets old after awhile.

I still think Chicago is a great city and I spent over a year there, but there was nothing interesting about it. If you're a guy into style (beyond the business sense), people will just think you are gay as well. It's as midwestern as it gets.

I agree with all this.

LA is MUCH more international and cosmopolitan than Chicago. Chicago has more of an all-American feel, which is fine, but totally different than LA (or NY, or SF).

[PA Born]

Originally Posted by BarcelonaFan

I agree with a previous poster who said that if anyone doubts the grandiosity of LA should drive down Wilshire from Santa Monica to DTLA. That would shatter any image of LA not being as urban or grand as NYC and Chicago.

LA is possibly as urban/grand as Chicago (perhaps even more grand in some ways), but no way is LA as urban as NYC.

And Wilshire pretty much reinforces this. Wilshire, while dense, definitely caters to the automobile, and generally doesn't have too much pedestrian traffic in most parts.

I mean, there's a giant strip mall on Wilshire just outside of downtown. The condo canyon area in Westwood is totally car-oriented. Wilshire goes through a huge golf course, through a VA Medical Center, and other random uses.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by PA Born

LA is possibly as urban/grand as Chicago (perhaps even more grand in some ways), but no way is LA as urban as NYC.

And Wilshire pretty much reinforces this. Wilshire, while dense, definitely caters to the automobile, and generally doesn't have too much pedestrian traffic in most parts.

I mean, there's a giant strip mall on Wilshire just outside of downtown. The condo canyon area in Westwood is totally car-oriented. Wilshire goes through a huge golf course, through a VA Medical Center, and other random uses.

First off, I agree that LA is nowhere near as urban as NYC.

One thing to note about Wilshire is that it was always sort of intended to be an auto-oriented street - in fact when it was built I believe it was mandated that a street car could not run down Wilshire. Despite the fact that the buildings are much shorter along it, I find Santa Monica Blvd to be more urban than Wilshire.

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by munchitup

First off, I agree that LA is nowhere near as urban as NYC.

One thing to note about Wilshire is that it was always sort of intended to be an auto-oriented street - in fact when it was built I believe it was mandated that a street car could not run down Wilshire. Despite the fact that the buildings are much shorter along it, I find Santa Monica Blvd to be more urban than Wilshire.

That needs to change. People back then never really cared to look into long term consequences of their actions..

[BarcelonaFan]

Originally Posted by PA Born

LA is possibly as urban/grand as Chicago (perhaps even more grand in some ways), but no way is LA as urban as NYC.

And Wilshire pretty much reinforces this. Wilshire, while dense, definitely caters to the automobile, and generally doesn't have too much pedestrian traffic in most parts.

I mean, there's a giant strip mall on Wilshire just outside of downtown. The condo canyon area in Westwood is totally car-oriented. Wilshire goes through a huge golf course, through a VA Medical Center, and other random uses.

Why is NYC always the standard for urbanization? Los Angeles is dense and huge and grand in a different way. The long stretch on Wilshire is still dense even if it is more auto oriented than pedestrian. It can go from being super urban like DTLA or Koreatown to crossing suburbs closer to Hollywood to going back to urban density like Miracle Mile, Wilshire Corridor, and Westwood, ending at the beach. It's not a pre-Auto gothic city like NYC or Chicago totally reliant on public transport. It's a city which was built (or I should say re-built after the destruction of the trolly system) around the post-war ideal of suburbanization, i.e. the commuter model. But if you take the city as it is, as a whole, then it's just as grand as NYC or Chicago.

[Ragnar]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

That needs to change. People back then never really cared to look into long term consequences of their actions..

So how is today any different?

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by Ragnar

So how is today any different?

Dont seem like it. Bad planning seems to be an L.A. trademark..