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.
They were just naming other cities people would find interesting aside from just SF, LA, SD, Portland, and Seattle. There is more to the West Coast than just five large cities, again I don't see a problem with someone pointing that out. Nothing negative was even said about the east coast there.
he previously dogged the crap out of the east coast. i'm pretty sure i can read.
"East coast history and culture is NOTHING when it comes to cities in Europe. A typical 200 year old building in Paris would be an icon in NYC. The way you see the west coast can be said of how Europeans look at the east coast."
and then...
"For me, the west coast just has more interesting places to visit. LA, san francisco, vegas, napa/sonoma valley, palm springs. On the east coast, all I want to do is NYC."
wtf is that? the first comment is wrong and the second comment is completely ignorant.
Quote:
CLIMATE is a significant part of the lifestyle on both coasts just in different ways. Climate is one aspect of living in a place, history is another one. I don't really get why you are throwing such a fit with people bringing up these different aspects. If you don't care about climate/weather at all then that's fine, just as plenty of people don't really give a crap how much history a place has when it comes to living. To each their own, trying calming down a little bit.
climate is in no way comparable to history. you don't have to care about history but that doesn't make history less important or even just as important as sunny days. without history, we wouldn't be here. without my ancestors, this country wouldn't be here. and for that i take great pride in virginia, much moreso than i would over something as simple and stupid as my city has more sunny days than some other city.
he previously dogged the crap out of the east coast. i'm pretty sure i can read.
"East coast history and culture is NOTHING when it comes to cities in Europe. A typical 200 year old building in Paris would be an icon in NYC. The way you see the west coast can be said of how Europeans look at the east coast."
and then...
"For me, the west coast just has more interesting places to visit. LA, san francisco, vegas, napa/sonoma valley, palm springs. On the east coast, all I want to do is NYC."
wtf is that? the first comment is wrong and the second comment is completely ignorant.
climate is in no way comparable to history. you don't have to care about history but that doesn't make history less important or even just as important as sunny days. without history, we wouldn't be here. without my ancestors, this country wouldn't be here. and for that i take great pride in virginia, much moreso than i would over something as simple and stupid as my city has more sunny days than some other city.
I know I am not part of this, but I had to mention that I don't see those examples as "dogging the crap" out of the east coast.
The first example is true, Europe is much older than the East coast. Drawing a comparison between Europe vs. east coast and east coast vs. west coast seems rather reasonable to me.
The second example is just him stating that if HE is on the East coast, all HE wants to visit is NYC, what is wrong with that? It is just an opinion.
I am not trying to instigate or anything, I just think you are seeing an attack where none is present nor attempted.
*Disclaimer* I think this whole country is great, I am not picking a side.*
The first example is true, Europe is much older than the East coast. Drawing a comparison between Europe vs. east coast and east coast vs. west coast seems rather reasonable to me.
he said a 200 year old building would be an icon here. we have 300, even 400 year old buildings/houses here. it would be historical but not the oldest and not an icon.
Quote:
The second example is just him stating that if HE is on the East coast, all HE wants to visit is NYC, what is wrong with that? It is just an opinion.
if it's not his less direct way of pissing on the east coast then it's an ignorant opinion. all he wants to do is nyc because 1) he hasn't been anywhere else or 2) he's a complete simpleton. to avoid name calliing, i think it's number 1.
climate is in no way comparable to history. you don't have to care about history but that doesn't make history less important or even just as important as sunny days. without history, we wouldn't be here. without my ancestors, this country wouldn't be here. and for that i take great pride in virginia, much moreso than i would over something as simple and stupid as my city has more sunny days than some other city.
No wonder why when someone dares to like the West Coast better you take it all personally.
Far more people move because of climate/weather than they do because a place has "history", no matter how unimportant you deem climate to be.
he said a 200 year old building would be an icon here. we have 300, even 400 year old buildings/houses here. it would be historical but not the oldest and not an icon.
if it's not his less direct way of pissing on the east coast then it's an ignorant opinion. all he wants to do is nyc because 1) he hasn't been anywhere else or 2) he's a complete simpleton. to avoid name calliing, i think it's number 1.
Well yeah, the numbers are off, but the general idea is correct. To be fair, your numbers are not correct either. NYC wasn't even settled 400 years ago, it was settled in 1624...387 years ago.
Quote:
Since the Landmarks Preservation Commission was established in 1965, the oldest building to become a landmark is the Pieter Claesen Wyckoff House (at Clarendon Road and Ralph Avenue in Flatlands, Brooklyn), which includes the oldest surviving structure in the city, built around 1652.
-The New York Times
So the oldest building in NYC that still exists today is 359 years old. So yes it is more than 200 years old, but that doesn't change the fact that you will find much older architecture in Europe.
And to your other point, you have made plenty of statements in a similar vein about the west coast, does that make you a simpleton or imply that you haven't been to the west coast? Not to me. It is great that you have your own opinions (Which many would disagree with, some might even call ignorant), now why can't he have his?
(I am not calling you ignorant or anything, but opinions are always disagreed with by other people, that is the beauty of opinions. How boring would it be if we all thought the same thoughts? And how crowded would the east coast be if everyone agreed it was the only worthwhile place in the country?)
No wonder why when someone dares to like the West Coast better you take it all personally.
Far more people move because of climate/weather than they do because a place has "history", no matter how unimportant you deem climate to be.
i know a lot of people move for better weather. look at florida. i'm not a moron. however, that doesn't mean it can be in any way compared to the history of a place. sure, weather is nice. but why is it that weather is the biggest topic of argument when discussing la vs wherever or sd vs wherever? it's like the city sucks so much you have to resort to something that's not the city to argue for yourselves.
i know a lot of people move for better weather. look at florida. i'm not a moron. however, that doesn't mean it can be in any way compared to the history of a place. sure, weather is nice. but why is it that weather is the biggest topic of argument when discussing la vs wherever or sd vs wherever? it's like the city sucks so much you have to resort to something that's not the city to argue for yourselves.
Again, to be fair, this thread is not east coast cities vs. west coast cities... it is coast vs coast... that means all the factors play in, not just the cities.
i know a lot of people move for better weather. look at florida. i'm not a moron. however, that doesn't mean it can be in any way compared to the history of a place. sure, weather is nice. but why is it that weather is the biggest topic of argument when discussing la vs wherever or sd vs wherever? it's like the city sucks so much you have to resort to something that's not the city to argue for yourselves.
The ability to enjoy the outdoors 12 months out of the year is very important to a lot of people. It doesn't mean that it's the only thing going for the cities out west, even though that is what you are trying to portray.
You are stating opinions as facts. We get it, you think history is more important than climate. A lot of people think otherwise, and it doesn't make them "wrong".
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.
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.
