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.
- Boston is one of many havens for a new breed of "real city" snob that denounces the image-obsessed while also being just that. Scarves and thick-rimmed glasses are just as fake as boob jobs nowadays. Some people could use a little reality stirred into their lattes.
Give me sunshine, mountains and the admittedly vain over "charming" old streets and "culture" that barely extends beyond the facade of a decaying building.
Location: Moose Jaw, in between the Moose's butt and nose.
5,152 posts, read 8,532,478 times
Reputation: 2038
The city of Boston, is proably better than the City of LA, if you are talking just within each others city limits, particulary with higher education and less crime.
However, the Greater LA area vs. Boston, well, then I would have to give the definite edge to Greater LA, vs. Greater Boston.
LA has a LOT more people and more things to do and see, get over it.
I don't need to get over anything because I agree LA has more people and more stuff to do. However, the only reason the city proper has so many more people is because it so so much larger area-wise. the metro area is a different story- LA is much bigger.
LA is 469 sqaure miles. Boston is 50. Soooo I will add cities next to Boston until the area is equal to LAs and see what the population is. probably still slightly less than LA but we will see..... (this is tedious so I'm not gunna do it all right now)
But yes, we all know LA has more people. Nobody was arguing that. It's still awful
- Boston is one of many havens for a new breed of "real city" snob that denounces the image-obsessed while also being just that. Scarves and thick-rimmed glasses are just as fake as boob jobs nowadays. Some people could use a little reality stirred into their lattes.
I don't need to get over anything because I agree LA has more people and more stuff to do. However, the only reason the city proper has so many more people is because it so so much larger area-wise. the metro area is a different story- LA is much bigger.
LA is 469 sqaure miles. Boston is 50. Soooo I will add cities next to Boston until the area is equal to LAs and see what the population is. probably still slightly less than LA but we will see..... (this is tedious so I'm not gunna do it all right now)
But yes, we all know LA has more people. Nobody was arguing that. It's still awful
yes and we all know Boston is a denser city than LA, nobody was arguing that either.....It's still better
I can predict how this will go. A slight majority of people on this sub forum DO NOT like Los Angeles. Los Angeles would probably even loose to Cheyenne, Wyoming. Just my observations, but has LA ever won a comparison thread here? Ever?
yes and we all know Boston is a denser city than LA, nobody was arguing that either.....It's still better
I would argue that Boston is better for city-dwellers because of density. It is simply easier to get around on foot (you MUST own a car in LA), not to mention the mass transit system in Boston is superior to LA.
its 2 different cultures.... its like comparing prague to rio (ok that's a bit extreme but you get my point)
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.
