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.
I like both cities and have spent a good amount of time in both. That's why I'd write-in vote for the Bay Area, which, to me, is a kind of cross between the better parts of these two places, at least culturally and often day-to-day living...
I like both cities and have spent a good amount of time in both. That's why I'd write-in vote for the Bay Area, which, to me, is a kind of cross between the better parts of these two places, at least culturally and often day-to-day living...
I’m pretty sure that’s all you need to be sports rivals. Celtics/Lakers is similar to Bruins/Habs, perhaps less significant than Sox/Yankees but definitely still a thing.
I couldn't agree less.
Sox Yankees play many series, every year. They are inner league rivals. And New York vs. Boston is not confined to a single sport. Ditto the Habs who are in the same division + have a long, historied past (though it's the only Montreal vs. Boston sport of note).
Tough to be rivals with a city not in your division, let alone league in any sport.
I think New York is really the only true rival city. Montreal would be next for the hockey fanatics. After that... Maybe Philadelphia? But even that's not really true in my opinion.
Sox Yankees play many series, every year. They are inner league rivals. And New York vs. Boston is not confined to a single sport. Ditto the Habs who are in the same division + have a long, historied past (though it's the only Montreal vs. Boston sport of note).
Tough to be rivals with a city not in your division, let alone league in any sport.
I think New York is really the only true rival city. Montreal would be next for the hockey fanatics. After that... Maybe Philadelphia?
Definitely NY then Philly. Montreal for the hockey heads.
It was 107 in Sherman Oaks and 104 in Crenshaw.. grey air thick with smoke. Real bad.
Sounds horrible.
But it also sounds as if you were there at an unusually bad time:
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy
Those two are normally more like 10-15 degrees apart. 104 in Crenshaw probably happens for a day every ten years or so. I guess bad timing on your part. And that combined with thick smoke from a fire is like once in a generation type stuff. You really picked an unfortunate time. What was the date if you don't mind me asking?
When it comes to more typical weather, I'd guess that more people would give the nod to L.A. Boston would get some votes on weather, though. Some people love the four-seasons climate. I'd guess that L.A. would win the vote on weather, though, despite those occasional bad moments. L.A. usually has pleasant weather all through the year.
On the other hand, there's air quality. Even without "once in a generation" wildfire smoke, Los Angeles has a problem in that area:
It's a shame for an area with such spectacular scenery, and with generally mild weather, but it's definitely a negative point for L.A. in a city comparison with Boston.
Eh, personally I prefer Boston, but LA is nice too. the weather and scenery in LA is undefeated and the food is better/more diversity. Boston excels in everything else tho. Boston is cheaper too.
LOL. How did LA get as many votes? It has so many problems and Boston is a much more sophisticated city.
weather, diversity, food and hollywood
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.