Los Angeles vs. Boston (cost, Chicago, airport, NYC)
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, hands down. Better weather, more cultural opportunities (certainly more museums, dozens of colleges all with cheap or free concerts, lectures, and plays), public transportation, ability to breathe, better sports culture, less crime, more historic sites, and, in my opinion, a much better social scene.
Not that I have anything against LA- I just pity the people that have to live there! It's one of those "OK to visit" places for me. And I do think it's better than Cheyenne. :P
I had to think about this but my decision came down to the four seasons Boston has and the fact that Los Angeles seems to have all kinds of superficial people. The way people have been talking about Los Angeles I'm surprised to see Boston winning.
I think I get it here, California is voting for LA and everyone else is voting for Boston. In all seriousness though, Boston wins in every imaginable category over LA. Much more to do, better weather, better nightlife, history etc. LA is a world class city overall, but really dumpy in most places. Cape cod also has way better beaches than LA too! Is LA the worst city in the US? No (ever hear of Orlando, Miami and Phoenix?) but close. I could never deal with the overall apathy and the celebrity worship. Give me beacon Hill over Beverly hills ANYDAY!!!!!
I get the impression though that LA is a better city for someone moving in. Not that the people there will throw you a welcoming party or anything like that. It's just that Boston's a city where the locals have deep roots, and its hard to fit in with that if you come from the outside.
That provincialism is more to be found in some of Boston's old enclave neighborhoods than the city as a whole.
Boston has four seasons, LA does not. Boston has the Celt... hey wait, I'm a Laker fan!
Well, if this really counts in a comparison of cities, the Celtics do have more championships than the Lakers. They will still have more, just barely, if the Lakers win this year. Of course, you can leave out the "just barely" part if you credit Los Angeles only with those championships the Lakers have won in LA, and don't include the five they won in Minneapolis.
its 2 different cultures.... its like comparing prague to rio (ok that's a bit extreme but you get my point)
You beat me to the punch with this observation. Not the part about Prague and Rio, of course, but the part about how these are different kinds of cities. I understand why the current sports news would lead to thoughts of these two cities paired with/against each other, but you'd probably get basically the same results asking the question about which kind of city people prefer: quirky, densely-packed old-style cities or warm, new, sprawling Sun Belt cities. I grew up in Boston. I prefer the old-style cities. Two guesses which one got my vote (and only one guess counts).
Boston, hands down. Better weather, more cultural opportunities (certainly more museums, dozens of colleges all with cheap or free concerts, lectures, and plays), public transportation, ability to breathe, better sports culture, less crime, more historic sites, and, in my opinion, a much better social scene.
Better weather? Are you sure about that?
Quote:
Not that I have anything against LA- I just pity the people that have to live there! It's one of those "OK to visit" places for me. And I do think it's better than Cheyenne. :P
The reasons listed for Boston being a better city are all non-Californians. When "weather/climate" are considered better in Boston than one clearly sees that this is not a comparison of cities but, rather, another anti-California rant by MiddleWestern & East Coast posters. [whatever gets you off
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.
Density is overrated. I could also argue LA is an easier place to live b/c of the weather alone. I lost count a long time ago of how many Boston transplants I've met in San Diego and many come for the same reasons, NO SNOW. You find a bigger migration of Bostonians to Southern CA than the other way generally so obviously that density and transit is not that important to them.
Boston wins in every imaginable category over LA. Much more to do, better weather, better nightlife, history etc.
Weather? What? Are you kidding?
Boston in the summertime is a sauna compared to LA. Sorry, but what's better about that?
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.
