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.
Location: from houstoner to bostoner to new yorker to new jerseyite ;)
4,084 posts, read 12,696,510 times
Reputation: 1974
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheWereRabbit
people - la? what?
Unlike some, I actually like the "Ma$$hole"/brutal honesty thing, but outside of that Bostonians seem kind of arrogant and uptight. Overall, the (real) people of L.A. seem more laid-back and at times irreverent, which is what I'm used to.
My only comment on this is that city-data doesn't reflect the real world. Reality is that most Americans are obsessed with the sunbelt. I mean, the census numbers don't exactly show people flocking to the northeast, do they? Instead, they show people flocking to the mini-Californias (Nevada, Arizona, etc.)
Flocking? Not necessarily. The Sun Belt obviously has the highest growth rates right now, but when these are states that are relatively sparsely populated to begin with, your growth rates are obviously going to appear a lot higher. It's important to look at hard numbers. For example, 50,000 people may have moved to New York City last year, but that hardly shows up as a blip on its radar. If that many people move to Tucson, it's going to show up big time. Besides, just because people are moving to Sun Belt, that doesn't necessarily translate to more likability. People just want cheap housing and lower costs-of-living. The Sun Belt definitely has that, but that doesn't mean the Northeast is suddenly becoming a dying wasteland. It's as vibrant now as it ever was.
I'm a Californian, but I have to go with Beantown. LA is a freaken cancer..everything is spread out and not concentrated in the City of LA. I'm not a LA hater, but Boston is so much better. Better transit, not car oriented. Boston is a walkable city. Great museums and history. Awesome sports town. no pollution and gang problem like LA. Denser neighborhoods, fantastic art and food scene.
The only thing LA has going for it is the weather and scenery and since its a fashion town, beautiful woman.
But then again I live in San Francisco, so hating LA is in my blood. Go C's.
Tough call, really! Boston gets the slight edge in my book, I just find it more intriguing than L.A.
Just started reading this thread and I do agree on many things said here, but I would like to add a few things.
The AMERICAN architecture is better in Boston, but for those who like Spanish style and Mediterranean style and beach hut style, LA would be better. Boston is much nicer to some others with its colonial style, though.
The food I agree with because although LA has amazing Mexican food and a few great Italian places, Boston has amazing Italian and so-so other places.
COL is close as well. The urban Boston area is probably equal or worse, but suburban Boston is better than LA.
Sports-that's iffy. The Lakers and Celtics are both amazing teams, but I guess Boston is slightly better in all other sports.
Culture-I agree. Boston only has American culture while LA has several cultures mixed together such as many Asians, all types of Hispanics, Native Americans, blacks, and Europeans.
I like LA weather better as well, but some may prefer Boston and that's fine.
Housing is similar, but LA has more SFRs while Boston has lots of Rowhomes. They both have urban centers, but Boston's suburbs are too low-density for me. I prefer dense areas so I like LA's housing.
LA definitely has better natural beauty with the mountains, snow, forests, beach, desert, cliffs, hills, etc.
Once again, man-made is iffy depending on the architectural style you prefer.
Boston definitely wins in the history our country is concerned about.
Downtown Bostson is very nice, but I like how LA has several downtowns so the suburbanites don't need to drive too far to go shopping, eating, etc.
Nightlife-I agree.
Traffic-agree.
Crime-I believe LA has a lower crime rate.
The only huge thing that I don't like about LA is that there are Mexicans everywhere and they are dirty and annoying and need to learn English if they want to actually live in America. If they're legal, that's fine. Bostonians are lukcy they don't have to worry about that.
Sports-that's iffy. The Lakers and Celtics are both amazing teams, but I guess Boston is slightly better in all other sports.
SLIGHTLY? Okay so the angles, dodgers, and ducks are all decent.........football?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
Housing is similar, but LA has more SFRs while Boston has lots of Rowhomes. They both have urban centers, but Boston's suburbs are too low-density for me. I prefer dense areas so I like LA's housing.
The suburbs of Boston are INCREDIBLY more dense than the suburbs of LA. Somerville is the densest city in the US outside of metro NY, but even out in the true towns of suburban character you are talking a few thousand per sq mile.
You're post is still THE BEST I have read in this entire thread.
EDIT: Nevermind. You said LA has a lower crime rate. Lost all credibility. what a shame.
EDIT 2: WOW! And that anti-mexican stuff. which I assume is a not-that-funny joke
I totally take back my praise of your post
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.
