Top 10 Most International Cities in the World (purchasing, to live in)
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.
LA is still one of the most visited places by overseas tourists but there are so many American tourists they don't stand out. Most tourists who come from Australia or Asia either pass through LAX or SFO. But yeah, it's pretty spread out, so you don't have the 'big city downtown' of SF, Chicago, NY, Philly. LA felt really Hispanic to me.
Really? LA's percentage of tourist visits is pretty low outside of Disneyland when it comes to per capita (it's 12 million in the MSA and 20 million in the CSA). LA also doesn't have very much in centralized tourist attractions. In just about every measure, LA is a very international city and I don't see how it could be off the top ten, and the argument of the Bay Area and Chicago not being on it is a bit weird. Yea, some cities such as those of Australia have higher percentages and per capita stats, but you'd have to ignore how small those places are.
They aren't even close to Chicago geographically firstly. LA is an urban sprawl too and hardly a *city*. If you want to feel what an actual city is like in the US, you either go to New York City or you go to Chicago, or San Francisco.
People say this, and this is one of the most perplexingly inaccurate ways one could possible describe LA. I mean, really: in what way is this not a city??
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,087,446 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Really? LA's percentage of tourist visits is pretty low outside of Disneyland when it comes to per capita (it's 12 million in the MSA and 20 million in the CSA). LA also doesn't have very much in centralized tourist attractions. In just about every measure, LA is a very international city and I don't see how it could be off the top ten, and the argument of the Bay Area and Chicago not being on it is a bit weird. Yea, some cities such as those of Australia have higher percentages and per capita stats, but you'd have to ignore how small those places are.
Not sure of the raw numbers but I thought it'd be up there. If they counted just arrivals I'm sure it'd be top 10 at least. LA has many attractions like Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica/beaches.etc.
The Bay and Chicago might dominate in the US but remember we're talking about top 10 in the whole world. What does size have to do with how international a place is? On what basis do you disqualify Auckland and include Chicago?
People say this, and this is one of the most perplexingly inaccurate ways one could possible describe LA. I mean, really: in what way is this not a city??
My dad is from Los Angeles and most of my family is from there. Hell, I even have family who's in the city government there. I've been there more times than I can count. Just because it has a downtown doesn't mean it's not a sprawl. I'm sorry, but LA is a sprawl. Even Phoenix has a downtown. Showing me a picture of a medium sized downtown means absolutely nothing. It just means there's a few sections of LA that are city.
A city to me is walkable for a long ways. LA is walkable in areas, but not to the extent that other cities in the US like NYC, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, DC, etc are. There are spurts of what I'd consider a "city" in LA. It's a rather car centric place still though even though there is a subway/rail system and bus system. I remember the first time my Uncle from LA visited me in Chicago. He was basically bad mouthing this very thing for LA the entire time here.
SO yes, LA is a city, but it's a different type of urbanization than some of its peers. Houston is just as bad, and Phoenix is worse though so at least you have that.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,087,446 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
My dad is from Los Angeles and most of my family is from there. Hell, I even have family who's in the city government there. I've been there more times than I can count. Just because it has a downtown doesn't mean it's not a sprawl. I'm sorry, but LA is a sprawl. Even Phoenix has a downtown. Showing me a picture of a medium sized downtown means absolutely nothing. It just means there's a few sections of LA that are city.
In that case most American cities would not qualify as real cities.
In that case most American cities would not qualify as real cities.
Maybe I'm using it too loosely. Of course LA is a city, but the level of urbanization isn't the same as other places. By what you said though, by the definition, then yes I'd agree. Most cities in the US are pretty sprawl-like. They have their downtowns and areas of walkability, but usually it's not for a lot of it.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,087,446 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by marothisu
Maybe I'm using it too loosely. Of course LA is a city, but the level of urbanization isn't the same as other places. By what you said though, by the definition, then yes I'd agree. Most cities in the US are pretty sprawl-like. They have their downtowns and areas of walkability, but usually it's not for a lot of it.
LA's sprawl can actually be quite dense. It's just that it has a weak centre that doesn't exert much pull on the surrounding areas and suburbs. The thing is, unlike most other cities, Downtown LA is merely one of many nodes or 'downtowns' throughout the City and metro of Los Angeles.
My dad is from Los Angeles and most of my family is from there. Hell, I even have family who's in the city government there. I've been there more times than I can count.
I'm not from here, but I live here. I grew up mostly in Boston, lived in NYC, and lived in SF, have spent a lot of time in Chicago, and have friends and family in all the above... so it's not like I lack perspective as to what makes a city, a city.
Quote:
Just because it has a downtown doesn't mean it's not a sprawl.
And just because a place sprawls, doesn't mean it's not a city.
Quote:
I'm sorry, but LA is a sprawl. Even Phoenix has a downtown. Showing me a picture of a medium sized downtown means absolutely nothing. It just means there's a few sections of LA that are city.
LA's got multiple downtowns; DTLA, K-town, Hollywood, West Hollywood, BH/Century City, Santa Monica, Westwood, etc etc etc are all CBD's. I won't argue that LA sprawls, but all that sprawl is totally filled-in and in many areas is quite dense.
Quote:
A city to me is walkable for a long ways. LA is walkable in areas, but not to the extent that other cities in the US like NYC, San Fran, Chicago, Boston, DC, etc are. There are spurts of what I'd consider a "city" in LA. It's a rather car centric place still though even though there is a subway/rail system and bus system. I remember the first time my Uncle from LA visited me in Chicago. He was basically bad mouthing this very thing for LA the entire time here.
SO yes, LA is a city, but it's a different type of urbanization than some of its peers.
Exactly: it's a different sort of urbanization. To say that a place that has nearly 4 million in its proper boundaries and 13 million in its greater MSA is anything but a city is misguided at best, and wilfully haughty at worst.
Quote:
Houston is just as bad, and Phoenix is worse though so at least you have that.
Eh, I don't really have anything against either place, but I chose to live in LA over NYC and, well, basically everywhere else in the US (it's not like I don't have a choice), so I don't really think of it as a situation in which I "at least" have anything. I don't feel as though I've lost anything living in the second-largest city in the US.
Not sure of the raw numbers but I thought it'd be up there. If they counted just arrivals I'm sure it'd be top 10 at least. LA has many attractions like Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica/beaches.etc.
The Bay and Chicago might dominate in the US but remember we're talking about top 10 in the whole world. What does size have to do with how international a place is? On what basis do you disqualify Auckland and include Chicago?
Why doesn't size have anything to do with how international a place is? In a first-world country, sheer size means a lot of high-paying (compared to the rest of the world) jobs and opportunities. Auckland has opportunities, but it is on such a massively smaller scale than what Chicago offers. The Bay Area and Chicago dominate in percentages and absolute numbers for any metric of significant size. If you're talking about the number of international corporations, colleges, and conventions, Chicago absolutely beats Auckland. If you're talking about the number of and the population of each ethnic enclave, then Chicago beats Auckland handedly. If you're talking about per capita number of foreign born populations, then Auckland beats Chicago but that's after taking into account that Chicago's metro is around six times larger than Auckland's. If you want to do percentages of foreign-born then there are minor municipalities all around the world which beat Auckland and most other cities listed, but these are tiny.
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.
