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.
Los Angeles is much more expensive than Philadelphia. Without even looking at data, I can state with a fair degree of confidence that Hollywood is more expensive than Northern Liberties, Manayunk or even Old City. Of all the cities in the United States that offer relatively affordable city living, Philadelphia along with Chicago would go at the top of the list.
And you need to quit with the "our 'urban' neighborhoods aren't gentrified" trope. If you want the "real" Philadelphia urban experience, you can go up to Wingohocking Street and stand out on that corner and grind.
As usual, everything has to be black and white. I never said these cities are 100 percent yoga studios and yogurt shops.
Of course Philly has neighborhoods that are very low-income and have high crime rates (similar to Westlake in LA, which for some reason is being mocked). Simply popping into half of Philly on Streetview you'll find at least a couple boarded up rowhouses.
Actually, you're right, as a region, I don't like LA... it's a sprawling mess. Who would?
You absolutely missed the point-- did you even bother to read and comprehend before you responded? LA may have one of the largest downtowns (in a "physical sense"), and I think it's one of the largest-- by contiguous sq. miles of any U.S. city-- but that's not the argument, is it? It's urban core and vibrancy.
Millions upon million of people do.
Downtown LA doesn't seem any less vibrant than Boston's downtown, the last city I lived in and one I am very familiar wtih. Obviously it is not as vibrant as Chicago and definitely not NYC (not sure about Philly, sounds like it has LA beat) but other than that, LA has arguably one of the most vibrant downtowns in the US. It does sounds like the change has been swift and dramatic, so maybe you should pay another visit (on second though, no, don't.)
Of course you get people (actually happened in a thread on this site) who think Century City is downtown LA. If I believed that was the center of the city I would think it is sprawling and lifeless too!
Yeah of course they have nice high density neighborhoods (of course, how long have they been that way and who was given the boot to make way for these yuppies?). The super-rich in LA prefer places like Hancock Park, Palos Verdes and the Hollywood Hills. Fine by me, more room for the regular people in the urban neighborhoods. My wife and I make a decent amount of money but I seriously doubt we could ever afford a place like the Loop or Rittenhouse Square (I've pretty much checked LA's Historic Core off my list because of the hyper-inflated rents. Sounds like it is starting to turn into Yuppy-ville there too).
You nailed it. The super-rich run for the 'burbs -- just like in virtually every other city in the country save for the usual suspects -- and yet you wonder why LA can't shake off its "big suburb" tag and people laugh at comparisons with Chicago, Boston and DC. Until your super-rich (heck, even the merely affluent) want to live in your dense neighborhoods that won't change.
You nailed it. The super-rich run for the 'burbs -- just like in virtually every other city in the country save for the usual suspects -- and yet you wonder why LA can't shake off its "big suburb" tag and people laugh at comparisons with Chicago, Boston and DC. Until your super-rich (heck, even the merely affluent) want to live in your dense neighborhoods that won't change.
But even the areas they consider "urban" would not strike you as particularly urban (perhaps even suburban) if you're from the East Coast. The design of its most "urban" neighborhoods is still auto-centric. LA does not function anything like DC or Boston.
You nailed it. The super-rich run for the 'burbs -- just like in virtually every other city in the country save for the usual suspects -- and yet you wonder why LA can't shake off its "big suburb" tag and people laugh at comparisons with Chicago, Boston and DC. Until your super-rich (heck, even the merely affluent) want to live in your dense neighborhoods that won't change.
Well even the "usual suspects" have their fair share of super-rich who have no interest in living in the city. I agree LA does not have a lot of super rich living in its most dense areas (though Historic Core, Financial District and South Park do ok), and I supposed to some this is something that needs to be fixed.
Hancock Park is not really in the burbs either - it is completely surrounded by Hollywood, Koreatown and Mid-City West. It is very suburban in aesthetic, and mostly filled with mansions.
But even the areas they consider "urban" would not strike you as particularly urban (perhaps even suburban) if you're from the East Coast. The design of its most "urban" neighborhoods is still auto-centric. LA does not function anything like DC or Boston.
Yes, but as/if these areas gentrify they will hopefully also become more pedestrian-friendly, structurally dense and urban in the way we understand that term, and create a quality urban core that LA sorely lacks. Granted they've got a lot of work to do.
Last edited by Fitzrovian; 08-23-2012 at 09:59 AM..
Yes, but as/if these areas gentrify they will hopefully also become more pedestrian-friendly and urban in the way we understand that term, and create a quality urban core that LA sorely lacks. Granted they've got a lot of work to do.
But truly LA has come a long way in the 20 years I have experienced the city. I think perception is still behind reality. That said its still too sploutchy for my liking but think there is a real in 20 or 30 years the core from DT to Hollywood and mostly to SM may be significantly more infliiled/cohesive. The rail infrastruture is a huge step IMHO
to me realtive to other cities LA has or had or still has to a degree this big urban footprint and spread. I always felt like everything you want to do requires a car to drive and park and traverse that area and move to the next. As a visitor it is a pain. Now a train that can take me from Santa Monica to Hollywood or DTLA I just might use. Will still get the car in the first place but it will be a big improvement
Well you can cry about it all you want. If you want subways all over then go back to NYC or Chicago because LA is still working on theirs. Really the LA transit system is the opposite of NYC and I'm glad LA is just now expanding it, people who live there NOW will get to enjoy a brand new system instead of a dirty, mangy, crap system from 100 years ago. The only thing impressive about MTA is how extensive it is, its aesthetics, stations, and condition are crap. I rode the S line, yes it got the job done and took me where I wanted to go but for such a world class city it was a crap station off 7th Avenue near 42nd Street. Those stations have mold on the ceilings but you'll still have your trains it doesn't matter! Right? LA/DC have the cleanest trains I've ever seen in the US and just imagine 15-20 years from now when the height of the 30/10 plan is completed. The city has the infrastructure, I don't know how many times I have to say that, it has the model that works for the world we live in TODAY. NYC is a fun city but its frightening how behind its infrastructure is for its size, LA is not like that especially when these lines become operational.
RCL had it right, those sunbelt cities he mentioned are all framed to be the cities of tomorrow, LA included. I just spent time in the northeast and its not an embarrassment to admit when you've lost on something to LA. Bostonians are the envy of the northeast IMO, their big dig project and their modern streets and massive 2 lane large sidewalks and well kept infrastructure should be the model for places like NYC and Chicago both having decaying infrastructure. Its the only place up there that's conforming to modern technology and infrastructure IMO.
If NYC wasn't so insanely expensive I'd move there. Infact part of the fascination is the grimyness.
LA feels like a big suburb. And it is. You all know that, but you're trying to act as if LA is a real "urban" city that can compare to dense, transit-oriented East Coast cities. It is not and you all know it. It is a vague collection of suburban sprawl connected by 16 lane highways that meander somewhere between dull brown and exurbia strips lined with ugly palm trees, little vegetation and no vibrancy.
Yes, the LA region is massive and dwarfs DC. Yet, the urbanity in DC is incredibly more vibrant than LA. LA's downtown is laughably small. Even DC makes LA's downtown seem small and quiet. Get over yourselves and have a self-deprecating chuckle. There's a reason LA's downtown is the source of jokes and ridicule. It's small, uninteresting and is essentially just another node in a massive, sprawling region of suburbs. Not saying LA doesn't have its positives and charm (it most definitely does), but please check yourself with your nonsense about its supposed vibrancy and urbanity. I've spent a lot of time in LA and just chuckle at how you're comparing it to DC. Compare yourself to San Diego or Phoenix. Those are your "urban" peers.
TBH even the suburbs in LA feel urban. Take my neighborhood. First glance and you'd think it's a suburb, but you still have a city feel to it. The train, you can hear cars passing, sirens, construction, see graffiti, see warehouses down the street and vendors walk around the neighborhood. Think Bronx with houses.
If NYC wasn't so insanely expensive I'd move there. Infact part of the fascination is the grimyness.
The infrastructure sure but I recently saw NYC just a few days ago and it was the first time in years that I've seen the place. I was pleasantly surprised by how much cleaner the city not only looked but felt. What a relief from having to smell pee every corner your turned on like the way it was in the early 00's. Commendable actually.
Now the infrasructure, the roads are as patchy as ever, the trains are as mangy as ever, the sidewalks are as behind as ever and could use a refacing, and just don't even get me started on the sorry state of those train stations, but the city has cleaned up. I can tell NYC as a whole a city that now actually cares for aesthetics. Good job because that's important to leverage the image of a supposed worlds most powerful and most world class city.
London underground for example, a peer city with a peer system, leaves MTA in the dust. The stations, the trains, everything about it. NYC needs to modernize its infrastructure.
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.
If I believed that was the center of the city I would think it is sprawling and lifeless too!
