So i ask again for the 3rd time. what does a city have to HAVE to be considered "world class"? I've asked this question over 50 posts ago and no one has even tried to answer it, instead a bunch of meaningless comparisons, (not to mention a loss of opinions, to other forums.) stick to the point people, i'm trying to learn somthing here, i allready know how to argue, its stupid and pointless which is why i don't do it, or am i just talking to children here.???

A city doesn't have to be considered world class to be great because the definition of world class if vague and subjective. A city is important because the people living there think it is. End of story.

Ah.... the pointless comments continue... Yes, LA is a 'world class city', whatever that is. Chicago is also a 'world class city'. LA is densely populated, & is a national center. Don't care much for LA & I still consider Chicago a more significant city in numerous regards, nonetheless, and this might come as a surprise to some: making stupid statements about another city does not make your city any more important.

I'm sorry, but London is a much more important world city than Los Angeles.


Chicago trolls are quite an amusing, provincial lot. TICONLA1, don't feed the trolls.

How utterly boring and pointless. :down:

New York

Los Angeles, Chicago

If you think either cities are close to NYC's tier, you're dead wrong. NYC's tier includes London and Tokyo. The 2nd tier includes a lot more world cities. Chicago was for more than half a century, in the same position as LA is, and Philadelphia before that. Many argued that either one of these cities would surpass NYC, but as time went by, NYC remained on top, as it will in the future. I predict a southern city will surpass both Chicago and LA in the future.

NYC
Los Angeles
Chicago
San Francisco
Washington DC
Boston

are the world class cities of the US

Chicago trolls are quite an amusing, provincial lot. TICONLA1, don't feed the trolls.

I'm hungry...


http://www.enel.ucalgary.ca/~camp/photos/misc/troll.jpg

New York

Los Angeles, Chicago

If you think either cities are close to NYC's tier, you're dead wrong. NYC's tier includes London and Tokyo. The 2nd tier includes a lot more world cities. Chicago was for more than half a century, in the same position as LA is, and Philadelphia before that. Many argued that either one of these cities would surpass NYC, but as time went by, NYC remained on top, as it will in the future. I predict a southern city will surpass both Chicago and LA in the future.

NYC
Los Angeles
Chicago
San Francisco
Washington DC
Boston

are the world class cities of the US

Let's face it. We all throw around a lot of bull shit on this board. Me included.

If I put all that BS aside, there wouldn't be any question that New York, Chicago and Los Angeles are all global cities. And with the critical mass each has, that's not going to change. Others can change due to shifitng economic, social, and politics reasons; but NYC retains immunity.

But there is an interesting assumption you have expressed here (unless I'm reading incorrectly between the lines), Goonsta. That would be that NYC's global and US postions are unchangeable. Etched it stone. For eternity.

I, for one, feel that unchallengable quality of NYC is far too overplayed. Overplayed by many, many people. Cities are organic. They change in time. They go up. They go down. The changes in the US and the world in my lifetime have been staggering; at the rate of excelleration keeps falling into smaller and smaller incriments all the time. Despite all its spleador, greatness, and global importance, there is no global insurance policy that will keep NYC on top forever.

Let's not lose perspective here. A mere 100 years ago New York was not even high on the list of the world's greatest cities. And a mere 100 years ago, there was very little visually that we associate with man made New York that is still standing today, short of the street grid. Other than that, I'd have to say the Brooklyn Bridge, Statue of Liberty, and Central Park are the main parts of evocative New York that are still part of the landscape.

And while NYC's position in the world has certainly become more super charged in the post-WWII dominance by the US, in many ways, NYC is not the center of the US universe the way it once was. In 1950, there was only one great city and the New Yorker felt comfortable with putting on its cover a picture of Manhattan dominating the US, with little importance beyond the Hudson. That's not the US of today. Neither New York nor the eastern seaboard hold that type of power of the American nation any more.

The jury is still out as to what is coming up in the future. Even the near future. Will global warming be a true detriment to cities like New York with sea level rising? Will global cities take on a more colleagual role rather than a hierarchial one? If the 20th century was the American Century and the 21st more probably about Asia, what effect will that have on NYC's global position. If Europe starts drifting further apart from the US (as we have seen during the Bush years) and Europe becomes even more unified and thus more economically powerful, what does that do to NY's relative position with London? Or Frankfort? What does the continuing latinization of the US do to NY in relationshi with LA (or Miami or Houston)? What effect will increased density have on the workability of Manhattan, where the demand for space puts pressures on real estate and the environment that could seriously bring into question the city's ability to function.

I have seen my home town of Chicago evolve into a global city in a very short time. Chicago has a tremendous respect for New York. But from the perspective of a Chicago, that respect is not "looking up" but being a peer. And being a peer means not giving a shit if others don't view us as being a peer to NYC. It is irrelevant in how we see ourselves. And meanwhile, from Mayor Daley, throughout the business commuity, education community, the cultural community, etc., in Chicago, the Windy City is looking out to London, Tokyo, China, Africa, throughout the world for its connections. That whole American stage we have traditionally used to see the interplay between cities is pretty well played out.

^From my own personal experience, I notice Goonsta gets touchy when you criticize NYC. Not sure, maybe he is originally from there. Either way, he takes good pictures..

^From my own personal experience, I notice Goonsta gets touchy when you criticize NYC. Not sure, maybe he is originally from there. Either way, he takes good pictures..

Actually, when I made the post, I really didn't think he went overboard at all. My observations were more general, as in:

why does NYC always seem to get a "pass" when the discussion comes up about relative positions of global cities. Of course NY is great, of course it is global and of course you can make a pretty compelling argument that it is currently the world's greatest city.

My point is: who's to say that this is etched in stone or that, in 10 or 15 years we may be looking at New York and any number of other cities in a different light.

it doesn't matter if Chicago is that much of a better city than LA. It can TEN times more walkable, fifty times denser, with 200 times as many skyscrapers, LA is just much more of player when it comes to cities. IS is just because of all the rich peopple, movie stars and rockstars???????? Maybe, but I doubt it.

NY and LA are the coastal couterparts....LA is fast becoming the 21st century NYC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And you can blah blah blah all you want, but it is happening. And most of the US and world already know LA is the place to be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111

Don't worry about any of us 'blah blah blah'-ing, you're doing all of that for us. And it's sad you had to troll over here, edsg25 made a series of excellent posts, which appeared to provide some finality to this thread, and perhaps all LA - Chicago threads.

But you are definitely right, Chicago is a better city than LA.

Don't worry about any of us 'blah blah blah'-ing, you're doing all of that for us. And it's sad you had to troll over here, edsg25 made a series of excellent posts, which appeared to provide some finality to this thread, and perhaps all LA - Chicago threads.

But you are definitely right, Chicago is a better city than LA.

THIS IS THE LA FORUM WHICH HAS BEEN SO OVERTLY TROLLED UPON THAT THERE IS NOTHING LEFT!!

it doesn't matter if Chicago is that much of a better city than LA. It can TEN times more walkable, fifty times denser, with 200 times as many skyscrapers, LA is just much more of player when it comes to cities. IS is just because of all the rich peopple, movie stars and rockstars???????? Maybe, but I doubt it.

NY and LA are the coastal couterparts....LA is fast becoming the 21st century NYC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And you can blah blah blah all you want, but it is happening. And most of the US and world already know LA is the place to be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111

Silverlake, as we've told you. You are right. LA is the greatest city in the world. It keeps the US in sync by counterbalanacing New York on the east. It will replace NYC as America's premier city. You know it. I know it. The US knows it. And the world knows it.

Now. Are you happy? Good. Those nasty New York dragons have been slayen and there is no Al Capone or other unsavory Chicago types hiding in your closet (we've even taken the liberty to keep that closet light on so you won't get scared).So take a nice warm bath. Slip on those head-to-toe PJ's with those cute pictures of Farmers Market, the LaBrea tar pits, the Hollywood sign, and the Watts towers on them.Grab that Teddy Bear (the one you call LA LA Bear) and put your arms around him. Have mommy tuck you in and sing you a lullaby (your favorite: Horray for Hollywood). And get a good night's sleeping, secure and happy in the thought that no city on earth can match Los Angeles. Sweet dreams, sweetheart.

Tomorrow you will wake up in the sugary and smogy wonderland that is the city of the angels.

So i ask again for the 3rd time. what does a city have to HAVE to be considered "world class"? I've asked this question over 50 posts ago and no one has even tried to answer it, instead a bunch of meaningless comparisons, (not to mention a loss of opinions, to other forums.) stick to the point people, i'm trying to learn somthing here, i allready know how to argue, its stupid and pointless which is why i don't do it, or am i just talking to children here.???

Like I said way back. It is not something the city has that makes it world class. There are not a list of things. Your city is world class when everyone knows that it is world class without ever discussing it. The question is not asked if the city is truely are world class. For example. NY is world class. No one would post a thread asking "Is NYC world class?" If you have to ask it isn't! Period! As another example people are always discussing Atlanta. Is Atlanta world class. When will Atlanta be world class? Atlanta has had the Olpymics it must be world class, right? etc. Well... Atlanta is most deffinately not world class. Now as for LA being world class. It might have been world class before this thread was started but the thread has ruined it by asking the question and creating a debate with 5000 views and over 200 responses!

YES

:) Thanks guys, as i've said before i love ALL citys for what to they represent to there locations, continental, or world wide,. so as its been pointed out, (this question can be answered with a simple yes or no). my response,......... yes!.........point well taken, thanks, steel. ........................also i may not argue, but i love to laugh, thanks for the troll pic. dampire...........that was classic.

Silverlake, as we've told you. You are right. LA is the greatest city in the world. It keeps the US in sync by counterbalanacing New York on the east. It will replace NYC as America's premier city. You know it. I know it. The US knows it. And the world knows it.

Now. Are you happy? Good. Those nasty New York dragons have been slayen and there is no Al Capone or other unsavory Chicago types hiding in your closet (we've even taken the liberty to keep that closet light on so you won't get scared).So take a nice warm bath. Slip on those head-to-toe PJ's with those cute pictures of Farmers Market, the LaBrea tar pits, the Hollywood sign, and the Watts towers on them.Grab that Teddy Bear (the one you call LA LA Bear) and put your arms around him. Have mommy tuck you in and sing you a lullaby (your favorite: Horray for Hollywood). And get a good night's sleeping, secure and happy in the thought that no city on earth can match Los Angeles. Sweet dreams, sweetheart.

Tomorrow you will wake up in the sugary and smogy wonderland that is the city of the angels.

Hey Silverlake, don't worry... I'm sure this guy's 580+ posts have been mostly in the LA threads... kinda scary! I have already had my way with him over in the Chicago thread and have reduced him to a "yes, dear". Yes, it is true! He even posted a picture of a troll trying to say its me, talk about originality!!! I'm shocked that he keeps coming over here and posting his retarded posts, he thinks he is being witty and funny by that oh so subtle sarcasm.. and yet it just comes across as forced and revealing. He has already been taught a lesson, but keeps wanting more. Oh dear is right!

Hey Silverlake, don't worry... I'm sure this guy's 580+ posts have been mostly in the LA threads... kinda scary! I have already had my way with him over in the Chicago thread and have reduced him to a "yes, dear". Yes, it is true! He even posted a picture of a troll trying to say its me, talk about originality!!! I'm shocked that he keeps coming over here and posting his retarded posts, he thinks he is being witty and funny by that oh so subtle sarcasm.. and yet it just comes across as forced and revealing. He has already been taught a lesson, but keeps wanting more. Oh dear is right!

yes, dear (sorry...i wasn't the one who posted the troll pic, but i'll take credit for it). you are right though, vicecityguy. I am an idiot. I also find your posts to be thought provoking and informing. You do exceed me in every way imaginable.

You have a great day.

best wishes, Ed the Idiot

yes, dear (sorry...i wasn't the one who posted the troll pic, but i'll take credit for it). you are right though, vicecityguy. I am an idiot. I also find your posts to be thought provoking and informing. You do exceed me in every way imaginable.

You have a great day.

best wishes, Ed the Idiot

edsg25, its funny how you are trying to "kill me with kindess", very cute! Please tell us how many of your 500+ posts were actually in LA threads versus Chicago? :weirdo:

I will have a great day, and remember... you called yourself an idiot, not me.... hmmm yes dear indeed! LOL

NY and LA are the coastal couterparts....LA is fast becoming the 21st century NYC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And you can blah blah blah all you want, but it is happening. And most of the US and world already know LA is the place to be!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111

Los Angeles will never in it's existence match up against New York in any way shape or form, LA is not and will never be on the same level as New York.

Los Angeles will never in it's existence match up against New York in any way shape or form, LA is not and will never be on the same level as New York.

To say that you are a thinking individual holds as much true as the statement you just made above, How lame...

Anyways LA is already used to this kind idiocy coming from people of lesser cities, It's just a measure of how irritating it must be for you to know that Chicago will always play second fiddle to LA and NY, or should I say third :D



.
..
...

Los Angeles will never in it's existence match up against New York in any way shape or form, LA is not and will never be on the same level as New York.

You must be young. Haven't you ever heard of cities being unique. Can't compare every city to NYC and Chicago.

You must be young. Haven't you ever heard of cities being unique. Can't compare every city to NYC and Chicago.

I never said LA wasn't unique, I mean, it's the only giant suburb I've ever heard of, so it must be unique. All I said was it can't compare to NYC in terms of anything, which is true.

Silverlake and Vicecityguy are lovers.... daortiz watches.

edsg25, its funny how you are trying to "kill me with kindess", very cute! Please tell us how many of your 500+ posts were actually in LA threads versus Chicago?

624 (a conservative estimate). Sometimes I stay up all night, posting message after message ripping apart LA (which shows what a total sicko I am)......and these are all minor compared to the 1274 I wrote that totally dissed Witchita.

good grief! I am a scumbag of the worst proportion

why would I "kill you with kindness"? I actually respect the great insight that you bring to this forum. I enjoy your posts and the great deal of knowledge I gain from them. Frankly I find you far more intelligent than I am.

You asked me why I only respond with "yes, dear". It's because you are right. You put me in my place and I can't keep up with you.

vicecityguy, you are the greatest and, no, I could never compete or keep up with you. Have a great day!

To say that you are a thinking individual holds as much true as the statement you just made above, How lame...

Anyways LA is already used to this kind idiocy coming from people of lesser cities, It's just a measure of how irritating it must be for you to know that Chicago will always play second fiddle to LA and NY, or should I say third :D



.
..
...

^thats true. I'm so jealous of LA. It has such a great and bustling downtown, such a strong corporate presence; so many mid-sized and Fortune 500 companies compared to Chicago. Such a worldwide presence in the stock and global derivatives/futures exchanges. Too bad Chicago has all of those ugly parking lots and big box centers, unlike LA. Too bad Chicago has such a weak heavy rail system compared to LA's world class system. I wish Chicago had the kind of downtown and urban architecture and financial importance that LA enjoys. It sucks playing second "fiddle" :fiddle:

^thats true. I'm so jealous of LA. It has such a great and bustling downtown, such a strong corporate presence; so many mid-sized and Fortune 500 companies compared to Chicago. Such a worldwide presence in the stock and global derivatives/futures exchanges. Too bad Chicago has all of those ugly parking lots and big box centers, unlike LA. Too bad Chicago has such a weak heavy rail system compared to LA's world class system. I wish Chicago had the kind of downtown and urban architecture and financial importance that LA enjoys. It sucks playing second "fiddle" :fiddle:

and don't forget.....Chicago only has Lake Michigan while LA is way ahead of us because it has Silverlake.

Silverlake and Vicecityguy are lovers.... daortiz watches.

Is this an insult? Or are you jealous? You can join us if you like! Post your picture, I'll see if you're good enough for us! :cheers:

I call for a truce. We Chicagoans promise to stop attacking LA if you guys stop attacking us. Whaddya say?

Lets all move on

624 (a conservative estimate). Sometimes I stay up all night, posting message after message ripping apart LA (which shows what a total sicko I am)......and these are all minor compared to the 1274 I wrote that totally dissed Witchita.

good grief! I am a scumbag of the worst proportion

why would I "kill you with kindness"? I actually respect the great insight that you bring to this forum. I enjoy your posts and the great deal of knowledge I gain from them. Frankly I find you far more intelligent than I am.

You asked me why I only respond with "yes, dear". It's because you are right. You put me in my place and I can't keep up with you.

vicecityguy, you are the greatest and, no, I could never compete or keep up with you. Have a great day!


First, I would like to welcome all the new posters from Chicago to this forum! I hope you enjoy the read, as I am sure you will all add your 2 cents.

edsg25 - Thanks for the compliments, I am glad that you are able to recognize my great deal of knowledge. I have always known that I was far more intelligent than you but know am glad that you realize this, bravo! Also, no need to tell me I'm the greatest, I already know this. Yes yes, you're right, you could never compete or keep up with me, few can! Well, that's all for now, oh I had a great day.

First, I would like to welcome all the new posters from Chicago to this forum! I hope you enjoy the read, as I am sure you will all add your 2 cents.

edsg25 - Thanks for the compliments, I am glad that you are able to recognize my great deal of knowledge. I have always known that I was far more intelligent than you but know am glad that you realize this, bravo! Also, no need to tell me I'm the greatest, I already know this. Yes yes, you're right, you could never compete or keep up with me, few can! Well, that's all for now, oh I had a great day.

True!

First, I would like to welcome all the new posters from Chicago to this forum! I hope you enjoy the read, as I am sure you will all add your 2 cents.

edsg25 - Thanks for the compliments, I am glad that you are able to recognize my great deal of knowledge. I have always known that I was far more intelligent than you but know am glad that you realize this, bravo! Also, no need to tell me I'm the greatest, I already know this. Yes yes, you're right, you could never compete or keep up with me, few can! Well, that's all for now, oh I had a great day.

^Oh, brother..

^Oh, brother..
Oh brother indeed!

Well if L.A can stand next to lONDON , TOKYO , PARIS and still look good , then yes its a world class city

So does it ? :)

Wow, I didn't realise my words started a 15 page thread!!!!!!

Let me see if I can explain myself a bit better.

LA in global terms is only important really to other Los Angelinos. The only thing that Los Angeles does on a global scale is Hollywood. But even in terms of movies Bollywood produces more films, Vancouver is THE Destination for filming, the UK for cheap technical aspects. It seems that LA is wrapped up in something that doesn't really signify anything, or in other words a lot of hot air.

The world of finance and banking passes LA by, prefering NYC, London, Tokyo, HOng Kong, and even Chicago.

What great attractions other than a beach or movie stuff does LA have that are world reknowned? A Louvre, Statue of Liberty, and beaches are better elsewhere and combined with celebrity and glamour ie Monte Carlo, Cannes or St Tropez. Even Hollywood actors come to Londons Theatreland to get some credibility.

LA is in pop terms second, but can LA rival Chicago, DC or the bay area in terms of importance.

Do peopl outside of LA consider it up there with Paris, London, New York, Moscow, Tokyo, Sydney and so on. does LA even feature on the GLOBAL radar?

It seems LA is important globally to only those who live there.

Wow, I didn't realise my words started a 15 page thread!!!!!!

Let me see if I can explain myself a bit better.

LA in global terms is only important really to other Los Angelinos. The only thing that Los Angeles does on a global scale is Hollywood. But even in terms of movies Bollywood produces more films, Vancouver is THE Destination for filming, the UK for cheap technical aspects. It seems that LA is wrapped up in something that doesn't really signify anything, or in other words a lot of hot air.

The world of finance and banking passes LA by, prefering NYC, London, Tokyo, HOng Kong, and even Chicago.

What great attractions other than a beach or movie stuff does LA have that are world reknowned? A Louvre, Statue of Liberty, and beaches are better elsewhere and combined with celebrity and glamour ie Monte Carlo, Cannes or St Tropez. Even Hollywood actors come to Londons Theatreland to get some credibility.

LA is in pop terms second, but can LA rival Chicago, DC or the bay area in terms of importance.

Do peopl outside of LA consider it up there with Paris, London, New York, Moscow, Tokyo, Sydney and so on. does LA even feature on the GLOBAL radar?

It seems LA is important globally to only those who live there.

PLEASE, THE PRESS IN LONDON COVERS THE LIVES OF THE FOREMOST ANGELINOS DAILY.

PLEASE, THE PRESS IN LONDON COVERS THE LIVES OF THE FOREMOST ANGELINOS DAILY.

Out of all the things you could have said to defend LA you come up with this????


:rofl:

But actually it doesn't really. It covers C List UK celebrities. It only covers Hollywood types when there is a scandal ie someone being arrested, gay liasons etc etc, or if there is a movie and then its about the movie not the celeb.

This is my point, only people who live in Los Angeles think the rest of the world covers everything about Los Angeles celeb residents. We cover our own celebs.

But again, you arguement proves my point, the only thing there is about LA is Hollywood.

PLEASE, THE PRESS IN LONDON COVERS THE LIVES OF THE FOREMOST ANGELINOS DAILY.

That's interesting. I didn't know that. And I don't read the London papers. So, tell me. How is Cato? Is he still in touch with OJ?

That's interesting. I didn't know that. And I don't read the London papers. So, tell me. How is Cato? Is he still in touch with OJ?

They don't cover LA residents, unless its a moviestar. and very little of LA's tv stars, but I do get London editions of Esquire and GQ and they cover Hollywood film continously with a star always on the cover. The media and fans went really nuts when Brad Pitt showed up there recently. Especially if it's a british actor that has made it in Hollywood like Jude Law or formerly Kate Winslet. Hollywood is still very much on the mind in London in terms of entertainment.

Pricemazda, it isn't just an LA thing. Im sure most Americans believe that the rest of the world knows everything about hollywood. Which obviously is not true. But if any American cultural export is the most readily known around the world, it's Hollywood. I think very few would disagree. Even in London, nearly half of the movies shown in theatres are American movies.


I don't know what it's like in London, but Moscow and Sydney rarely show up in the American radar. And an argument could be made that the US's relationship with Paris is much less than even little known cities in Canada in terms of known trading connections. I guess London have a stronger relationship with them but the US doesn't. Obviously, depending on the region, some cities are just not going to have a strong presence. London's presence in Mexico or Latin America is not nearly as strong as its connections to LA.
But London doesnt show up on the radar of most Angelenos either except for what they know from their rock music industry and of course entertainment. The point is, even the most famous city doesnt show up on the radar in half of the world. But when you mention the city, a lot of people have atleast heard of it.

It is true than American actors go to London to tread the boards, but that exchange is not one sided. British actors go to LA to be in the movies.

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't visit Paris because we have a trading relationship with them. I go because of the image it projects. When I think of Paris, I think food and art. When I think of Milan, I think of fashion. When people think LA, they think Hollywood.

As for attraction in LA, there happens to be a little place called Disneyland.

The Region
Los Angeles (L.A.), the arts and entertainment capital of the world, is the second most populous city of the U.S. Founded in 1781 by the Spanish, L.A. subsequently experienced both Mexican and American rule. In the late 1800s, Easterners came to settle in the area's vast, unspoiled terrain and enjoy its temperate climate and escape of the poverty and crowded condition of most eastern cities, with an average annual temperature of 74 degrees. Spurred by the growth in agriculture, oil production, and the creation of a deep-water port, the economy of the city expanded rapidly, as did its population.

Immigrants have brought to L.A. a rich diversity of food, fashion, architecture, entertainment, languages, world views, and religions that are showcased in the largest number of community and ethnic festivals in the nation. L.A. is home to a myriad of museums and galleries, including The Los Angeles County Museum of Art, The Museum of Contemporary Art, The J. Paul Getty Museum, and The Norton Simon Museum. Music and theater may be enjoyed under the stars at the Hollywood Bowl or the Greek Theatre, or inside at the Music Center or Dorothy Chandler Pavilion.

The history of this city also is reflected in popular destinations such as Watts Towers, the La Brea Tar Pits, and Little Tokyo. Fame and celebrity abound at The Hollywood Wax Museum, Hollywood Boulevard's "Walk of Fame," and Mann's Chinese Theater.

L.A. continues to be an economic powerhouse. The Port of Los Angeles has the highest volume in the country, contributing to the city's status as the largest trade center in the U.S. and the 15th largest economy in the world. The city continues to grow; the County of Los Angeles leads the nation in manufacturing, producing more than ten percent of the nation's aircraft and women's apparel.

As L.A. is home to industry giants such as Disney/Capital Cities, ABC, CBS Television City, Paramount, Columbia, and Universal Studios, it's not surprising that the majority of projected new jobs in the city are in the technological and creative areas of the entertainment field.

The Region


L.A. continues to be an economic powerhouse. The Port of Los Angeles has the highest volume in the country, contributing to the city's status as the largest trade center in the U.S. and the 15th largest economy in the world. The city continues to grow; the County of Los Angeles leads the nation in manufacturing, producing more than ten percent of the nation's aircraft and women's apparel.



That's cool daortiz. I think last year it was 18th largest, ahead of Netherlands. I think it means that it would be ahead of Russia right now, wouldn't it ? Also of note, California surpassed France last year to be 5th or 6th largest economy in the world just under Germany and the UK.

They don't cover LA residents, unless its a moviestar. and very little of LA's tv stars, but I do get London editions of Esquire and GQ and they cover Hollywood film continously with a star always on the cover. The media and fans went really nuts when Brad Pitt showed up there recently. Especially if it's a british actor that has made it in Hollywood like Jude Law or formerly Kate Winslet. Hollywood is still very much on the mind in London in terms of entertainment.

Pricemazda, it isn't just an LA thing. Im sure most Americans believe that the rest of the world knows everything about hollywood. Which obviously is not true. But if any American cultural export is the most readily known around the world, it's Hollywood. I think very few would disagree. Even in London, nearly half of the movies shown in theatres are American movies.


I don't know what it's like in London, but Moscow and Sydney rarely show up in the American radar. And an argument could be made that the US's relationship with Paris is much less than even little known cities in Canada in terms of known trading connections. I guess London have a stronger relationship with them but the US doesn't. Obviously, depending on the region, some cities are just not going to have a strong presence. London's presence in Mexico or Latin America is not nearly as strong as its connections to LA.
But London doesnt show up on the radar of most Angelenos either except for what they know from their rock music industry and of course entertainment. The point is, even the most famous city doesnt show up on the radar in half of the world. But when you mention the city, a lot of people have atleast heard of it.

It is true than American actors go to London to tread the boards, but that exchange is not one sided. British actors go to LA to be in the movies.

I don't know about anybody else, but I don't visit Paris because we have a trading relationship with them. I go because of the image it projects. When I think of Paris, I think food and art. When I think of Milan, I think of fashion. When people think LA, they think Hollywood.

As for attraction in LA, there happens to be a little place called Disneyland.

I am not disputing anything about Hollywood, but what else, is that the only string to LA's bow?

Disneyland is everywhere now. Most Brits go to Orlando or Paris not LA. But everyone I know who has been to LA, says its a dump.

You don't often find people booking a two week vacation in the UK for LA. You hear people going to San Francisco, Vegas, NY and Florida but not LA.

Again LA is only important to LA. Like you can see it in movies. Take independence day. The shock and horror that those aliens would destroy, no, no not the Hollywood sign!!!!! ARRRGHHHHHHH!!!!!! You mean they have destroyed not, LAX, oh no!!!! Its all pointless.

Bottom line is most americans think people outside america know where their cities are, or have heard of them and know the culture and everyone dreams of being american . Americans are arrogant, no one cares about them as much as they think. :) I agree with Pricemazda in the last post.

Most Brits go to Orlando or Paris not LA. But everyone I know who has been to LA, says its a dump.


Really its no different with London, ask many locals about this city and many wouldn't have a clue about it. Many probably couldn't tell you what country its in. Outside the tourist areas of London can be ugly as well. I noticed how the city sweep the sidewalks in the tourist areas, but once you venture past those areas, it really isn't that much different than any other city.

But to reply to the quote above, there sure are a lot of British living in this dump. I wonder why, and as a matter of fact more than any other american city. I guess it must not be that much of a dump, many seem to move here. You should come to my job, there seem to be more Brits than anything else.

There are more brits living in LA than New York you think? And they sweep the streets everywhere here. It just you dirty tourists can't use a bin.

Absolute rubbish I have never heard anyone in all my travels every say 'where' when you say London. Don't be ridiculous.

I wasn't saying people won't have heard of it, but that it really is only important to other Angelinos who to start with have an over-inflated sense of self worth.

^Yes there are more, its a known fact. Also don't blame the tourist for the trash, I've seen this in the non tourist areas. I don't just visit the tourist areas, and you're lying when you think that LA doesn't influence London. I could see the influence as soon as I stepped out of a subway station not even 30 mins after I arrived there.

Bottom line is most americans think people outside america know where their cities are, or have heard of them and know the culture and everyone dreams of being american . Americans are arrogant, no one cares about them as much as they think. :) I agree with Pricemazda in the last post.


Schristopher, you know that old, flat "globe" of the world, the one thrown out in 1492? Ironically it has been resurrected in America, of all places. on it, you will see the Atlantic on the east and the Pacific on the west and the United States stretching on and on forever between the two. Nothing of much consequence out in those oceans.

That map is a variation, an updated version, of the famed one that once appeared on the cover of the New Yorker, many years ago. It featured an America totally dominated in size & importance by the island of Manhattan. Much of the rest of the country, small though it may have been, was taken up by the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. Oh, yes, a sliver of space was left over for the reaches of America that stretched from the Hudson to the Pacific and perhaps even down to the gulf.

We Americans are a provencial lot. And totally unprepared for what Europe, Asia, and who-knows-whatever-other parts of the world, as well, have in store for us in the 21st century. I have a sneaking suspicion that it will not be a great chaser for the 20th century, a cocktail known as the "American Century". In fact, I see a hangover coming on.

^Yes there are more, its a known fact. Also don't blame the tourist for the trash, I've seen this in the non tourist areas. I don't just visit the tourist areas, and you're lying when you think that LA doesn't influence London. I could see the influence as soon as I stepped out of a subway station not even 30 mins after I arrived there.

LA influences London, don't make me laugh. 1. London has been around for a lot longer, 2. If you are going to talk fashion wise London is where people come to see what the next trend will be. 3. Major music trends are also started in London ie 60's, Punk, Electric, New Romantics, UK Garage, Funky House. Please don't even try. What a dumb argument.

The only influence LA has is on what films we might go see. But then not all.

I suppose the buildings were LA influenced? Maybe Buckingham Palace reminded you of Venice Beach?

London is a global centre of finance not a global centre of Hollywood, they will be many more UK citizens living in New York than LA. Simply because it is closer, it has the UN lots of diplomats, all the british banks based in NY, not to mention all the british staff at other NYC companies.

But if it is a known fact, prove it. Tell me how many Brits live in LA?

And what 'non-tourist' areas did you go to? Camden? LOL

LA influences London, don't make me laugh. 1. London has been around for a lot longer, 2. If you are going to talk fashion wise London is where people come to see what the next trend will be. 3. Major music trends are also started in London ie 60's, Punk, Electric, New Romantics, UK Garage, Funky House. Please don't even try. What a dumb argument.

The only influence LA has is on what films we might go see. But then not all.

I suppose the buildings were LA influenced? Maybe Buckingham Palace reminded you of Venice Beach?

London is a global centre of finance not a global centre of Hollywood, they will be many more UK citizens living in New York than LA. Simply because it is closer, it has the UN lots of diplomats, all the british banks based in NY, not to mention all the british staff at other NYC companies.

But if it is a known fact, prove it. Tell me how many Brits live in LA?

And what 'non-tourist' areas did you go to? Camden? LOL

I think you'e being a bit hard on LA but you do have a point. LA is a top-tier media city and that probably confuses people a bit. When it comes to finance and real business London is leagues above Los Angeles.

I suppose, but its just the feeling I get from Angelinos that they really do think LA matters globally, when to the rest of the world, its really doesnt.

Chicago is more important.

NYC is a top tier media city, so is London, the BBC, EMI, well the music biz in general is huge in London, the creative industries are on of Londons largest emloyers, (now LA people im not trying to suggest that LA isnt)

But what do they make in LA, is it an industrial city? Finance? Business? Tourist Destination? Culture? Or just a bunch of self important movie business types. Wait until China starts making some good movies then Hollywood won't be so 'important'.

Its just I think Angelinos believe the hype.

I suppose, but its just the feeling I get from Angelinos that they really do think LA matters globally, when to the rest of the world, its really doesnt.

Chicago is more important.

NYC is a top tier media city, so is London, the BBC, EMI, well the music biz in general is huge in London, the creative industries are on of Londons largest emloyers, (now LA people im not trying to suggest that LA isnt)

But what do they make in LA, is it an industrial city? Finance? Business? Tourist Destination? Culture? Or just a bunch of self important movie business types. Wait until China starts making some good movies then Hollywood won't be so 'important'.

Its just I think Angelinos believe the hype.
..

Sounds like your beef isn't with LA, its with America. America will always make better movies than China! And as far as Brit actors, they come to LA for their hookers and make bad movies in the process. If it weren't for America and the Academy Awards (which are held in LA) brit actors wouldn't have a career.

Errrrr yeah ok, just because you don't see British movies doesn't mean there aren't any!!!!!! Also just because you don't see other countries award ceremonies doesn't mean that the Oscars are the only ones. Very narrow minded.

Where have I said anything about America. Don't turn this into something it is not. Just because im not American and I am criticising something in America doesn't mean I hate America. Geez.

LA influences London, don't make me laugh. 1. London has been around for a lot longer, 2. If you are going to talk fashion wise London is where people come to see what the next trend will be. 3. Major music trends are also started in London ie 60's, Punk, Electric, New Romantics, UK Garage, Funky House. Please don't even try. What a dumb argument.

The only influence LA has is on what films we might go see. But then not all.

I suppose the buildings were LA influenced? Maybe Buckingham Palace reminded you of Venice Beach?

London is a global centre of finance not a global centre of Hollywood, they will be many more UK citizens living in New York than LA. Simply because it is closer, it has the UN lots of diplomats, all the british banks based in NY, not to mention all the british staff at other NYC companies.

But if it is a known fact, prove it. Tell me how many Brits live in LA?

And what 'non-tourist' areas did you go to? Camden? LOL

Pricemazda is correct, there are far more Londoners in NY than in LA. All the investment banks have a big UK contingent. Law firms, consulting, VC, hedge funds, private equity all have lots of Brits.

The employees bring their tastes with them. There are now tons of London-style chip shops and curry shops. NY even has lots of the London casual restaurant chains. Pret a Manger is all over the place in Manhattan.

Pricemazda is correct, there are far more Londoners in NY than in LA. All the investment banks have a big UK contingent. Law firms, consulting, VC, hedge funds, private equity all have lots of Brits.

The employees bring their tastes with them. There are now tons of London-style chip shops and curry shops. NY even has lots of the London casual restaurant chains. Pret a Manger is all over the place in Manhattan.


Statistics please.

Statistics please.

LOL, I don't have nor do I need statistics.

Go to the trading floor of Goldman Sachs at 15 Broad Street. 20% of the floor is UK. Go to Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Merrill, Bear Stearns, JPMorgan Chase.

You can't get bubble and squeak or fried mars bars in LA.

LOL, I don't have nor do I need statistics.

Go to the trading floor of Goldman Sachs at 15 Broad Street. 20% of the floor is UK. Go to Credit Suisse, Morgan Stanley, Merrill, Bear Stearns, JPMorgan Chase.

You can't get bubble and squeak or fried mars bars in LA.

I thought so.

I thought so.

Your logic is ridiculous.
The fact that I don't have statistics doesn't mean it's not true.

You have no statistics indicating there are more movie stars in LA than in Moose Jaw.
I therefore declare that Moose Jaw is the true movie capital of the world.

Prove that LA is the movie capital. Show me statistics.

I never touted that LA is the movie capital. You, on the other hand, stated that "there are far more Londoners in NY than in LA", therefore you need statistics to backup your claim, I don't since I didn't make this claim.

I win!

wow that must make you feel real big and manly!!!!

Actually, it does! Thanks mr. london! Do you feel like a big man?

Only on weekends

Actually, it does! Thanks mr. london! Do you feel like a big man?

vicecityguy, may i take this opportunity to suggest that you add more fiber to your diet.

Here's an interesting article about world cities:

http://www.international-relations.com/wbadvir/Cities.htm


"Aside from housing the headquarters of corporations, international governmental agencies, nations, finance, banking, accounting, insurance and legal headquarters, global and communications nodes, some cities also control the 'dissemination of information, news, entertainment and other cultural artefacts' (Friedmann 1995, p322). New York, Los Angeles, London, Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong and other world cities have vital roles in the global information flow and in the flow of services into the global economy (Taylor et al. 2001). Knowledge, training centres, and expertise often clusters around these World Cities (Taylor et al. 2001). As such, even as industrial production has now been rather de-centralised or moved into poorer or peripheral cities, the World cities retain key command and control functions in the global economy and information network (Smith & Timberlake 2001). On this basis, lists of World Cities can be generated by studying their service value across different international firms, and by their connectivity across global networks (see Table 2, Taylor et al . 2002).

Table 2: Top 10 cities ranked by total service value across 100 firms, generated out of 316 cities by 100 firms matrix (Taylor 2002)"


Rank City Total
1 London 368
2 New York 357
3 Hong Kong 253
4 Tokyo 244
5 Paris 235
6 Singapore 229
7 Chicago 213
8 Los Angeles 201
9 Frankfurt 193
10 Milan 191

vicecityguy, may i take this opportunity to suggest that you add more fiber to your diet.


You may.

I am not disputing anything about Hollywood, but what else, is that the only string to LA's bow?

Disneyland is everywhere now. Most Brits go to Orlando or Paris not LA. But everyone I know who has been to LA, says its a dump.

You don't often find people booking a two week vacation in the UK for LA. You hear people going to San Francisco, Vegas, NY and Florida but not LA.

Again LA is only important to LA. Like you can see it in movies. Take independence day. The shock and horror that those aliens would destroy, no, no not the Hollywood sign!!!!! ARRRGHHHHHHH!!!!!! You mean they have destroyed not, LAX, oh no!!!! Its all pointless.


YOur ignorance is amusing. LA has one of the highest tourist populations in the world.
I'm sorry, but London really isn't an important city to LA either. And if not to LA, definitely not to most cities in the US.
All we really follow about it is the music industry. And most of that is coming from around the UK in other areas, not London. What exactly is London's famous attraction? ANd please don't say Big Ben. Most people around the world have never heard of Big Ben and definitely wouldn't recognize it.

A dump? This coming from LONDON. I guess my most overused phrase is now "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Many of my friends who've visited don't really like London and call it a very dirty and "bitter" place, so I don't know your point.

YOur ignorance is amusing. LA has one of the highest tourist populations in the world.
I'm sorry, but London really isn't an important city to LA either. And if not to LA, definitely not to most cities in the US.
All we really follow about it is the music industry. And most of that is coming from around the UK in other areas, not London. What exactly is London's famous attraction? ANd please don't say Big Ben. Most people around the world have never heard of Big Ben and definitely wouldn't recognize it.

A dump? This coming from LONDON. I guess my most overused phrase is now "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". Many of my friends who've visited don't really like London and call it a very dirty and "bitter" place, so I don't know your point.

Actually, London is a very important city to Los Angeles. The price of the oil that powers all those cars on LA freeways is determined in London and New York futures exchanges.

Actually, London is a very important city to Los Angeles. The price of the oil that powers all those cars on LA freeways is determined in London and New York futures exchanges.

That's a stretch. Oil has more to do with the Middle East's and other oil rich countries affecting LA. Prices are just that: prices. And are determined by more than the exchanges. It really didn't affect people's ordinary behavior with their cars or using public transit anywhere in California OR in the US.

That's a stretch. Oil has more to do with the Middle East's and other oil rich countries affecting LA. Prices are just that: prices. And are determined by more than the exchanges. It really didn't affect people's ordinary behavior with their cars or using public transit anywhere in California OR in the US.

It affects your wallet.

I wish people would quit mentioning film and music for christ sakes...film and music can and is made in places like Kentucky LOL...gimme a break.

That's cool daortiz. I think last year it was 18th largest, ahead of Netherlands. I think it means that it would be ahead of Russia right now, wouldn't it ? Also of note, California surpassed France last year to be 5th or 6th largest economy in the world just under Germany and the UK.


I just found out in 2000, it was at 23rd largest economy. Currently it's still second only to New York in comparison to other American cities.

http://www.theglobalist.com/research/briefs/cities.shtml

I wish people would quit mentioning film and music for christ sakes...film and music can and is made in places like Kentucky LOL...gimme a break.


LA has the largest trading port in the country. But somehow, I don't think anyone would be interested in talking about that.

It affects your wallet.

SO does buying a chicken sandwich at Mcdonalds.

LA has the largest trading port in the country. But somehow, I don't think anyone would be interested in talking about that.

No, I personally think that is very much more intellegent and viable than some stupid pop BS.

The thing is that LA has multiple and sometimes conflicting images in peoples minds, I think it has too many labels attach to it. LA is not an easy city to be defined, but ultimately the ones who are actually fooled by the glitzy image of LA and never get to see what's beyond that are its detractors

As far as "perceptions" go, I Guess most angelenos would give a rat's ass about London as well, is a city very very far away and we only hear about it when some of the royals are screwing around the palace.
IN other words if LOndon was to sink to the bottom of the Nort Sea, nobody would even notice the difference in LA, and I guess the same could be said on the reverse.

A world class city is a city with a set of somewhat subjective traits which often include the following:

- A fairly large population
- An international airport
- Several international cultures and communities (such as a Chinatown, a little Italy, or other immigrant communities)
- International financial institutions, corporations (especially conglomerates), and stock exchanges.
- A variety of cultural institutions and venues such as film festivals and premieres, a lively musical scene, theatrical plays, art galleries and museums.
- A unique cultural air and sophistication produced by its inhabitants
- Non-chain retailers and eateries, upscale boutiques and hotels, and trendy nightlife.
- Spectacular natural background, and landmarks.
- Have hosted the Summer Olypics (this would exclude New York, however, whilst including, on this point 2012 Summer Olypics may be held here.

Several power and influential media outlets with an international reach are based in world-class cities, such as the BBC, The New York Times, Le Mode, The Times, and Pravda. Many of these cities are renowned tourist attractions.

New York, London, Paris, and Tokyo are often considered the top four world class cities, not incidentally, they also serve as symbols of global capitalism that won a definitive triumph at the end of the Cold War. Beyond these, most people have a personal subjective list, and any two lists are very likely to differ based on cultural background, values, and experience. A devout Muslim, for example, might feel that Mecca is a world class city, an Arab that Cairo is one, and Australian that both Sydney and Melbourne are, all while rejecting the others' claims out of umfamiliarity or differing values.

Thanks, VICECITYGUY, SAVVYSERCH, your new info. only reinforces my YES vote on world class status for Los Angeles. in a long past post i mentioned (actually several) the LA port complex, and no one seemed to want to talk about it's world status, and LA seems to have all the aforementioned constituants, in post 326.

YOur ignorance is amusing. LA has one of the highest tourist populations in the world.
I'm sorry, but London really isn't an important city to LA either. And if not to LA, definitely not to most cities in the US.


London is a VERY IMPORTANT CITY to Chicago. And Chicago would be greatly dimished if that were not the case.

Are there really places on this planet that don't view London as an important city? Astonishing!

All Bull shit asside. None of the Chicago-LA bashing. The truth is (and, yes, vicecityguy, I'm saying this in absolute truth and lack of sarcasam) Los Angeles is unquestionably a world class city.

What I don't understand, quite frankly, is the obsessive need that Angelenos have to defend their city, to bring every insult in the book out when someone says something negative about it, to brand as flamers people who are only interesting in offering an opinion. Your defensively and need to feed LA into some some of US/global pecking order ironically is probably the least "world class" attribute that your city has. You are speaking from far less confidence then you should.....silverlake, vicecityguy, and others).

As I've said, you can rip the shreads out of Chicago and put it in the category of Topeka and Laramie, and I won't be offended or hurt. I find Chicago unquestionably global and I don't need validation from others to make it true (although the innumerable compliments our city has received are awfully nice to hear)

As I said, LA is unquestionably world class. That said, I see LA fraught with risks. I've ennumerated them: sprawl without a truly strong core to draw the whole area in (this is not a knock on LA, more an observation on its relative imporance WITHIN the metro area, not how it is preceived by outsiders). water issues are huge. LA was better equipped for dealing with less congested, car oriented and car freedom world of the post WWII years than it is with today's tight, compact, interconnected city core world of global cities.

Silverlake, Vicecityguy, do you consider this horrendous flaming or just observation? Me: I see it, and intend it, ans the second.

London is a VERY IMPORTANT CITY to Chicago. And Chicago would be greatly dimished if that were not the case.

Are there really places on this planet that don't view London as an important city? Astonishing!

It's amazing how little these LA forumers know about the global economy. What goes on in London affects everyone in the developed world.

London is a VERY IMPORTANT CITY to Chicago. And Chicago would be greatly dimished if that were not the case.

Are there really places on this planet that don't view London as an important city? Astonishing!
The USA as a country depends a lot on London, let alone Los Angeles. Britain never gave up its small colonies, which are scattered all over the globe.(Like Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean) and the USA depends on the cooperation of London with its ties to 71 Commonwealth Of Nation countries, particularly at times like now, when military strategies are important. :)

Well we don't feature on E! that often so of course we aren't important.

LA has the largest trading port in the country. But somehow, I don't think anyone would be interested in talking about that.

Everone knows about that already. Did you know that several world ports are busier than LA's?

It's amazing how little these LA forumers know about the global economy. What goes on in London affects everyone in the developed world.

Nobody is denying London's world status, but what we are sayin is that for for your avergae Angeleno London is just a city that exists out there and is not of mayor importance here, it is far, and interesting as most european cities are, as far as I know London or England are not mayor trade partners with LA or California, I think we are more focused towards the east than the west when it comes to economic ties.
And personally I don't think that what goes on in London affects LA in a measurable way, LA is more affected by what happens in Tokyo, Hong Kong or China, and of course other US cities and probably Latin America also.

Im sure people in Hogs Penis Arkansas are just as provincial...they dont even care whats going on in big 'ol Little Rock...and places like LA are the DEVIL...its all relative.

Nobody said that London wasnt an important city. Of course it is. But it doesn't mean it or any other big city somehow controls the fate of the rest of the world. And no LA forumers said that, although some people in some weird way seem to have construed that I or others have said that somehow.
On the other hand, you knock out any big industry in any big city and you'd be crazy to think it wouldn't affect the world market. You knock out Walmart corporation in Arkansas and a lot of developed world is going to have a bad day whether or not they have even heard of Walmart. But the truth is that every city mainly survive on local economy and business within the host country.

Everone knows about that already. Did you know that several world ports are busier than LA's?

That's great Dampyre.

The only thing LA has Chicago beat economically in is GMP size, population and media exposure. When it comes to corporate power, international exchanges, and just about everything else Chicago wins.

Of course, if you are the type of person who gets his information from TV I understand why you think LA comes out on top.

The fact that you say that London "probably" beats LA shows that you have an awful lot to learn.

Just to let you know, I've spent a great deal of time in all three cities I mentioned. As you pointed out, making direct comparisons is very difficult, but don't kid yourself, Chicago's world influence is ebbing away slowly. If you really believe it now compares to one of the wealthiest, most culturally influential cities in world, then you are mistaken. Both London and Los Angeles are far more visible to people from overseas, and occupy more of the public conciousness.

As to the LA / London comparison, I just don't have the figures to back up my statements, so I wouldn't try to make my opinion sound definitive. Don't get all defensive, because someone overlooked Chicago. It's a city, not your baby.

Just to let you know, I've spent a great deal of time in all three cities I mentioned. As you pointed out, making direct comparisons is very difficult, but don't kid yourself, Chicago's world influence is ebbing away slowly. If you really believe it now compares to one of the wealthiest, most culturally influential cities in world, then you are mistaken. Both London and Los Angeles are far more visible to people from overseas, and occupy more of the public conciousness.

As to the LA / London comparison, I just don't have the figures to back up my statements, so I wouldn't try to make my opinion sound definitive. Don't get all defensive, because someone overlooked Chicago. It's a city, not your baby.

You're the one who's getting defensive about a city you don't even live in. Of course, you have nothing to back up your statements. I'm not surprised as only a select few people around here have any real knowledge. You, sir, are not one of them.

Hey, Osborne, perhaps yu missed this:

http://www.international-relations....dvir/Cities.htm


Rank City Total
1 London 368
2 New York 357
3 Hong Kong 253
4 Tokyo 244
5 Paris 235
6 Singapore 229
7 Chicago 213
8 Los Angeles 201
9 Frankfurt 193
10 Milan 191

I bring objectivity to the table. Others, well, they bring hype and hot air.

Just to let you know, I've spent a great deal of time in all three cities I mentioned. As you pointed out, making direct comparisons is very difficult, but don't kid yourself, Chicago's world influence is ebbing away slowly. If you really believe it now compares to one of the wealthiest, most culturally influential cities in world, then you are mistaken.

Yeah, ebbing away slowly. I guess that's why Chicago has more Fortune 500 companies, more middle-sized companies, greater business activity, and its financial exchanges enjoy much greater trade volumes than 10 years ago. Maybe that's why the Merc and CBOT have been reaching record trading volumes in their history on a regular basis; or that new options and derivatives exchanges are being created in Chicago and other ones in Europe are forming partnerships or merging with ones in Chicago right now.

Perhaps that's why Chicago has, for years, trumped any other US city in Business Activity Index (although NYC is gaining). I guess that's why global companies like Boeing, or like ones in London, are choosing to create world corporate headquarters in Chicago. I guess that's why Donald Trump chose Chicago, not LA, Houston, Miami, London, Melbourne, etc to build a nearly billion dollar ultra-luxury tower. But I guess you're the genius, Osborne. Out in some far-flung mega-island in the Pacific, I guess you have a clue what's happening in the world of cities and business.

Im sure people in Hogs Penis Arkansas are just as provincial...they dont even care whats going on in big 'ol Little Rock...and places like LA are the DEVIL...its all relative.

Just curious. How close is Hogs Penis, Arkansas, to Fayettesville, where the Razorbacks play? I knew Vaginal Bacon was just down the road, but was unaware of Hogs Penis.

You've got to love it: LA vs. Chicago has been replaced by Melbourne vs. Chicago.

You've got to love it: LA vs. Chicago has been replaced by Melbourne vs. Chicago.

^I'm not attacking Melbourne in the least. I just think this guy lacks access to reality

I wish people would quit mentioning film and music for christ sakes...film and music can and is made in places like Kentucky LOL...gimme a break.


And banks cant be headquartered there?? fact is, LA is the capital of Movies and Music, and yes you are right, it can be based in Kentucky.

Everone knows about that already. Did you know that several world ports are busier than LA's?


Actually only two are busier than the LA-Long Beach Port Complex, they are both in china i believe. I recently read that over 60% of americas imports go through Los Angeles.

No, its the centre of American music and movies.

Actually only two are busier than the LA-Long Beach Port Complex, they are both in china i believe. I recently read that over 60% of americas imports go through Los Angeles.

Hong Kong and Singapore are busier. Individually, Los Angeles is number 6 and Long Beach number 13 I believe. The ranking for tonnage is a lot different.

BTW, Chicago is the 3rd largest intermodel port in the world, behind Hong Kong and Singapore.

^I'm not attacking Melbourne in the least. I just think this guy lacks access to reality

I know you're not and it wasn't directed at you. Or anyone actually.

Just curious. How close is Hogs Penis, Arkansas, to Fayettesville, where the Razorbacks play? I knew Vaginal Bacon was just down the road, but was unaware of Hogs Penis.

Hogs Penis is just north of Chode Arkansas, the county seat of Ass Crack county.

"CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?" :cry:


btw: this threat is totally stupid and completely infantile. who gives a rats ass about one city having more or less "world class" than another. Live where you want to and try to be productive and creative, wherever you are - whoever you are........maybe then, some day, you'll figure out that ALL cities are world class cities

no!

"CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG?" :cry:


btw: this threat is totally stupid and completely infantile. who gives a rats ass about one city having more or less "world class" than another. Live where you want to and try to be productive and creative, wherever you are - whoever you are........maybe then, some day, you'll figure out that ALL cities are world class cities

^What an annoying hippie statement. Go back to the 60's

^What an annoying hippie statement. Go back to the 60's
you need a hug

I liked it :)

I liked it :)


i like betty bowers, lol

I consider LA to be a world- class city, maybe not for big business but for movie stars and hollywood showcase productions. It is the second-largest metropolitan area in the United States, so yes i think it ranks high

i like betty bowers, lol

Just when you think she is going to take a break they bust out with something absolutly fresh and hilarious. I just hope I can spread betty to the rest fo that world. LOL

This is a small reason, but still is evidence at just how important LA is regarded.

I saw that Paris and the Olsen Twins were at opening night at Madison Square Garder for the Knicks. The NY media freaked out. OK OK OK OK, I know Paris and The Olsen twins are pretty uncool, at least to us, but most of the country is obsessed with them. They are pure LA, not necessarily my idea of what LA is all about, but they are still LA. ANd look how the NY media freaked out that they were at the game. They were all over the NY papers and it was even Howard Stern talked about it.

It also proves the deep connection between West Central and Manhattan...You would never ever ever ever see this at the United Center or the Delta Center or Target Center, but seeing West Central's most famous celebrities in NY is totally expected.

This is a small reason, but still is evidence at just how important LA is regarded.

I saw that Paris and the Olsen Twins were at opening night at Madison Square Garder for the Knicks. The NY media freaked out. OK OK OK OK, I know Paris and The Olsen twins are pretty uncool, at least to us, but most of the country is obsessed with them. They are pure LA, not necessarily my idea of what LA is all about, but they are still LA. ANd look how the NY media freaked out that they were at the game. They were all over the NY papers and it was even Howard Stern talked about it.

It also proves the deep connection between West Central and Manhattan...You would never ever ever ever see this at the United Center or the Delta Center or Target Center, but seeing West Central's most famous celebrities in NY is totally expected.


:master:

LA has the Olsen twins. We must all give deference

:master:

LA has the Olsen twins. We must all give deference

I AGREE THEY ARE SUCKY, but why does the NY Press freak out that they are there and snap a million photos of them and publish the fact that they were there in their papers? BECAUSE THEY ARE LA!!!!

^that is the silliest suggestion I have ever seen. Why would they shower them with praise because they are LA? What on earth is your logic behind that? I guess that means that anybody from LA (you and your dog included) would get worshipped by the New York press too, ey?

Sorry, I don't think so. They get praise because---hmmm...this is a tough one---they're famous! We already acknowledge that LA is a major center for TV and movie stars. What's new about this?

I wish people would quit mentioning film and music for christ sakes...film and music can and is made in places like Kentucky LOL...gimme a break.

I always thought that America's music capital was Nashville, Tennessee not LA.

I AGREE THEY ARE SUCKY, but why does the NY Press freak out that they are there and snap a million photos of them and publish the fact that they were there in their papers? BECAUSE THEY ARE LA!!!!

They snap photos of them because they are celebrities not because they are from LA. Who runs up to someone and takes pictures of them just because they are from LA?

They snap photos of them because they are celebrities not because they are from LA. Who runs up to someone and takes pictures of them just because they are from LA?

I guess that means I should move to LA. Then, by being an "LA guy", I will instantly be worshipped and people will want to take my picture everywhere I go

I love L.A. and I would choose it over Chicago anyday but goddamn SILVERLAKE shut the fuck up.

I love L.A. and I would choose it over Chicago anyday but goddamn SILVERLAKE shut the fuck up.


A certain minute subset of people in LA might be infinitely more famous than anyone in Chicago, but nevertheless, Chicago is by far a superior city, unless you love surfing, year round warm weather, skiing or mountain biking. BUt if you love cities, Chicago is arguably as good as it gets.

When I lived in LA and would go back to visit my family on the east coast people would snap photos of me, try to get me to sign poloroids of me that they had just taken, asking what it was like and how they all wished they were me because I lived in LA ... now its all worn off, I really miss those days.

But I guess you're the genius, Osborne. Out in some far-flung mega-island in the Pacific, I guess you have a clue what's happening in the world of cities and business.

I wouldn't ever claim to be an expert on world business or live in the centre of the world, but I do live in a great place. Interestingly, if you consider my responses, Melbourne feels a lot more like Chicago than LA. I also like the Windy City. But if I were to ask the people I know who travel frequently on business where they spend more time, I can guarantee they would say LA. I'm sorry if you feel that I was being belligerent, and I am aware of Chicago's significance within the US, but from this far-flung mega island in the Pacific, LA rates higher.

I also live on the Pacific Rim. Our nearest neighbours are the tiger economies of South-East Asia and China. The centre of the world is moving, Urban Politician. You're the expert, so ask yourself where it will be in twenty years...

Shame on Los Angeles. Shame on Chicago. After cutting down on the venim here, its almost like a love fest between the cities of angels and winds. But nature abhors a vacuum. So, due to peace coming here, are you folks aware that a huge battle has broken out between Orlando and Vegas as to which is the true world class themed city?

I wouldn't ever claim to be an expert on world business or live in the centre of the world, but I do live in a great place. Interestingly, if you consider my responses, Melbourne feels a lot more like Chicago than LA. I also like the Windy City. But if I were to ask the people I know who travel frequently on business where they spend more time, I can guarantee they would say LA. I'm sorry if you feel that I was being belligerent, and I am aware of Chicago's significance within the US, but from this far-flung mega island in the Pacific, LA rates higher.

I also live on the Pacific Rim. Our nearest neighbours are the tiger economies of South-East Asia and China. The centre of the world is moving, Urban Politician. You're the expert, so ask yourself where it will be in twenty years...

^First of all, that was a REALLY delayed reply.

Secondly, I challenge you to go ahead and do that. Ask international business travellers. I am 100% convinced that they will more often say "Chicago", not LA. Why? Because the statistics back it up--Chicago gets WAY more business trips and is a bigger tourist destination than LA is. But I challenge you to do a personal poll if you want, despite ample evidence to the opposite of what you claim

The only reason that I can imagine why you have this LA-centric point of view is because of LA's relative dominance among Pacific economies, you being from Australia and all... But Chinese and Japanese sister-cities are Chicago and NYC, not LA. And Chicago is working towards improving business connections with Asia--it is only a matter of time. Chicago often gets what it wants when it comes to business, LA just doesn't have that work ethic, and it shows

Im pretty sure Chicago has a much more finacial importance than LA.

Im pretty sure Chicago has a much more finacial importance than LA.

And we all know that financial importance is what its all about! lol

^First of all, that was a REALLY delayed reply.

Secondly, I challenge you to go ahead and do that. Ask international business travellers. I am 100% convinced that they will more often say "Chicago", not LA. Why? Because the statistics back it up--Chicago gets WAY more business trips and is a bigger tourist destination than LA is. But I challenge you to do a personal poll if you want, despite ample evidence to the opposite of what you claim

The only reason that I can imagine why you have this LA-centric point of view is because of LA's relative dominance among Pacific economies, you being from Australia and all... But Chinese and Japanese sister-cities are Chicago and NYC, not LA. And Chicago is working towards improving business connections with Asia--it is only a matter of time. Chicago often gets what it wants when it comes to business, LA just doesn't have that work ethic, and it shows

Yeah, sorry about the late reply. I only check this site every now and then.

I'm interested in what you say about business development. In Australia, Southern California is well known for being heavily invested in higher technologies, ie. aerospace, genetics and bio-technology, information technology, automotive design, mass media and communications, etc. Is Chicago involved in these areas? I was under the impression that Chicago was more about manufacturing and transport. I ask because I'm interested in how major world economies (in this case, major metropolises) can sustain labour intensive industry, as the developing world continues to grow in these areas. I study business, and was talking with a colleague who said that much of the Mid-West and Great Lakes area is collapsing because the demand for US steel, coal, agriculture and automobiles is falling. Is this true? Does it affect Chicago, or is it more Detroit, Cleveland, etc?

Whenever I'm in California, I'm struck by the overt wealth of the place. I don't have that same feeling in Illinois. Is Chicago's boom over?

Yeah, sorry about the late reply. I only check this site every now and then.

I'm interested in what you say about business development. In Australia, Southern California is well known for being heavily invested in higher technologies, ie. aerospace, genetics and bio-technology, information technology, automotive design, mass media and communications, etc. Is Chicago involved in these areas? I was under the impression that Chicago was more about manufacturing and transport. I ask because I'm interested in how major world economies (in this case, major metropolises) can sustain labour intensive industry, as the developing world continues to grow in these areas. I study business, and was talking with a colleague who said that much of the Mid-West and Great Lakes area is collapsing because the demand for US steel, coal, agriculture and automobiles is falling. Is this true? Does it affect Chicago, or is it more Detroit, Cleveland, etc?

Whenever I'm in California, I'm struck by the overt wealth of the place. I don't have that same feeling in Illinois. Is Chicago's boom over?


Yeah that's right! We are much more invested in advanced techonology here. We got silicon valley and all the research. Cali and NY gave up on relying on manufacturing decades ago, unlike the rust belt. Manufacturing ended in NY shortly after WWII. So Cal still is a big manufacturing center but we also got things like Jet Propolsion Lab and the entertainment industry.

Chicago is this huge "financial center", so what, Osborne is right. Do you have any idea how much more affluent the Bay Area is than Chicago CMSA. It is much smaller yet sells twice as many luxury cars, same with luxury goods. The Bay Area alone is a much larger market for affluent consumerism than Chicago. Plus the bay area is much more cultured and refined, more famous restaurants and arts. Then when you add the heavyweight LA area, Cali alone blows away the entire Midwest... LA is a major center for expensive design, with much more offerings than Chicago...even the bay area blows chicago away in terms of designer furniture and galleries. And LA blows SF away...

SO what if Chicago has blah blah fortune 500 companies galore....so does minneapolis....does minneapolis rival Chicago???? just because of that??????

There are only two alpha cities and each one is on a coast...all the numbers point like that

GET REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are only two alpha cities and each one is on a coast...all the numbers point like that

All the numbers point like that? What numbers do you speak of?

The numbers I've seen show that Chicago is most definitely a city of world class stature. Provide proof with a comment like that.

Um, Los Angeles is a world-class city, and it's on the same level as New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc. I find it hard to believe people are even debating this.

Just look at an atlas and you'll see L.A. in the same large bold-faced type as all the other world cities. It's as simple as that.
Maps code by population, and only population within city limits at that.

LA is NOT on par with New York, London, Paris and Tokyo. I occupies the second tier, which it shares with Chicago, Hong Kong, etc.

And we all know that financial importance is what its all about! lol
In terms of a city's importance to the wider world, yes, it's the single most important factor. It's certainly not the only factor, but if you were to pick just one criterion, that would be it.

LA is more widely known, perhaps, because it is a center of the media & entertainment industry, and a larger tourist city. But in the world of business, Chicago is still the Second City.

Chicago is this huge "financial center", so what, Osborne is right. Do you have any idea how much more affluent the Bay Area is than Chicago CMSA. It is much smaller yet sells twice as many luxury cars, same with luxury goods. The Bay Area alone is a much larger market for affluent consumerism than Chicago. Plus the bay area is much more cultured and refined, more famous restaurants and arts. Then when you add the heavyweight LA area, Cali alone blows away the entire Midwest... LA is a major center for expensive design, with much more offerings than Chicago...even the bay area blows chicago away in terms of designer furniture and galleries. And LA blows SF away...


^Apparently, Silverlake saw this as another opportunity to blow the usual unfounded and unproven recycled hot air our direction. I have read his usual statements about LA's greatness and he continues to have nothing new to add. There is no actual basis for his claims as the Bay area being the great "arts center" that rivals Chicago, since I once again must remind him that culturally speaking, the order goes NYC, DC, then Chicago in most lists that have been published. Regarding restaurants--Chicago ranks in the top 3 in almost all surveys, so once again you are spewing out hot air. His talk about luxury cars and the huge market in California draws no envy from me--we in Chicago use public transportation and you can have all your highway-congesting cars.

Regarding technology and industry, LA is a huge manufacturing center right now, but big deal--everybody had its turn as a manufacturing center. Nobody's jealous--one thing LA will likely not have is status as a financial center. People in Chicago call the shots, while people in LA follow orders. It's as simple as that.

Also, Silverlake you combined the resources of both the Bay area and LA and compared them to Chicago--heck, you compared the entire state of California to Chicago! Of course there is no comparison there, but the fact that you did that in the first place is very flattering! I find it awesome that LA and San Francisco need to be combined in order for Silverlake to make a compelling argument against Chicago (although I, by all means, do not believe Chicago holds a candle against 2 combined metropolis's!)

So, as usual, Silverlake makes up his usual stories based on no reliable evidence at all, just to satisfy his hatred of Chicago (one of the few people on earth I have known who actually dislikes Chicago)

Back to Osborne: I think what you have heard is not completely untrue--many major midwest cities are "rustbelt" cities that have lost major manufacturing to the third world. Even Chicago has lost much of its manufacturing base, but Chicago has always had a fairly diverse economy and has been a major financial center. It continues to be one, and now has become a much more global city. Chicago is not a rust belt city in the least like its other midwestern brethren. I guarantee you that you only hear more about LA because of its pacific influence and because of Hollywood. But from a business and financial standpoint, there is no comparison to Chicago. And as far as the Pacific is concerned, Chicago is making a play on that area and its presence will grow (although LA will always have the advantage of proximity--which is essentially why Chicago is much more respected on the east coast and Europe)

No I compared SF to CHicago and said SF blows Chicago away and then I said the LA blows SF away interms of markets and affluenc.

Draw the obvious conclusion and LA BLOWS CHICAGO SQUARED AWAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111111 in terms of financial power of its citizenry....AND GIVE ME A BREAK ABOUT EVERY ONE IN THE CHICAGO METRO TAKING THE BUS AND TRAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'M SURE EVERY BANKER WORKING DOWNTOWN HAS A NICE CAR OR TWO. GIVE ME A BREAK IF YOU THINK EVERYONE IN HIGHLAND PARK TAKES PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION!!!!!!!!!!

AND LIKE I SAID WE ARE A BIGGER MANUFACTURING CENTER AND WE HAVE ENTERTAINMENT, TOURISM, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT FOR THE MILITARY and the AEROSPACE industry. IM REALLY SUPRISED YOU DIDN"T KNOW ALL THAT CONSIDERING YOUR SUCH A BUSINESS EXPERT.

^yes, and all those exclamation points and capitalized letters really point to how confident you are in those claims. Your rowdy and boisterous claims only point to how little actual evidence you have to back you up.

Not everyone who works in downtown Chicago takes public transit, but majority do and you really aren't making a point. Silverlake, exclamation points aren't going to make you right. "I compared SF to Chicago and SF blows Chicago away and LA blows SF away" pretty much says it all about the strength of your arguments. I have nothing to say to that

Regarding industry--I have long since acknowledge LA's importance in media (all owned by NYC-based media giants) and aerospace. Boeing, in Chicago, enjoys employing laborers in LA for that industry. Yes, Northrup Gunman is based in LA, but I'm sure it will eventually be acquired by Boeing, Lockheed Martin, or Aerobus. LA seems to lack the aggressive and hard-working spirit of cities on the eastern half of the US, and that is unlikely to change.

For example, Mayor Daley of Chicago as well as numerous local business leaders, sometimes the Governor of Illinois, have gone on trips to India, China, and Japan to market Chicago as a city to do business. Shanghai, one of Chicago's sister cities (and growing rapidly as a major Asian business center) asked Chicago to established nonstop flights there from O'Hare. Daley came back to the US and the very next day that nonstop route was established. That's how Chicago does things--government, business, civic groups,etc coordinate and things get done. And that's why despite being a metro nearly double the size of Chicago, LA will continue to trail Chicago as a corporate and financial center.

Also, it doesn't hurt that the Speaker of the House in Washington is Dennis Halstert (Republican) of Illinois, or that the Democrat Whip of the Senate is Dick Durbin of Illinois. Nor that Mayor Daley's brother, William Daley, once worked in Washington and has numerous connections to the Government. Or that the Governor of Illinois chooses to live in Chicago rather than the Capitol, or that the newly famous Senator Barack Obama is from Chicago. Chicago is a city of tradition, establishment, and connections, and has a lot of clout because of that. Sometimes Chicago suffers (not as "cool" or "hip" as LA) because of its alignment with the establishment, but it is still very liberal and welcomes people from all walks of life (gays, all racial and ethnic groups, etc--that's why global companies choose to locate there).

Okay, I'm done rambling on...

There are only two alpha cities and each one is on a coast...all the numbers point like that

GET REAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, I don't want to fuel the flame here, as it has gotten far too ridiculous already. Pecking order for cities? It is kind of nuts.

Look, it's all opinion anyway. And we're all entitled to our opinions. Me? Despite all the BS here (and the way I've responded to it), I personally think that NY, Chi, and LA are the US's three global cities. Sure I think that LA belongs. But who gives a rat's ass. It's just my opinion.

Could someone make a compelling argument that SF, DC, and Boston are America's greatest cities? sure. Ranks are just in our mind. Even USN&WR can't really tell me what is America's top college.

So, Silverlake, you confuse the hell out of me. I don't get it.

Of all the people I've read on the skyscrapercity website, there is not a one who thinks as little of LA as you do. You are incredibly insecure about LA's RELATIVE POSITON to other cities. Rather than liking LA for what it is, you end up needing to insert LA towards the top (or on the top) of some imaginary list? It's like LA can't be great unless those outside it recognize it as being as great as you want it to be.

Me? I love Chicago. Do I think it's greater than LA? Sure. But that's just how I see it, Silverlake. Not how I'd expect you to. If everyone outside of Chicago thought that the place was a pit, it would have no bearing on how I feel about it.

And, Silverlake, I've got to tell you this: Chicagoans love this city. And suburban Chicagoans are overjoyed that this is the city they are a part. NY's postion, LA's positon, or even Omaha's positon have no effect on how I see Chicago.

So, if Silverlake can't or won't answer the question of why he is so insecure about LA, I wish someone else from LA would. Despite the "rivalry" we see here, LA is unquestionably a great city. Why be insecure about it.

Again...trying to be sincere here, and thoroughly confused about the need to put LA on top.

Why do you try to rationalize with a person that doesn't get it? Who cares what he thinks, nobody else does.

Nor do we care what you think. Besides, Chicago has great pizza and beer. SF has a nice bridge, and LA has a nice, well too many to list but very nice indeed.

Why do you try to rationalize with a person that doesn't get it? Who cares what he thinks, nobody else does.

no doubt you're right. it's just so unbelievable that someone could be that insecue about his city. i guess there is something facinating to know why it is so important to him that LA be recognized. it's just such a crazy thing to care about.

Nor do we care what you think. Besides, Chicago has great pizza and beer. SF has a nice bridge, and LA has a nice, well too many to list but very nice indeed.

What a surprise silverlakes bitch makes an appearance.
Most respected L.A members don't even join in these "debates" because they know better, Chicagoans should follow and let this thread die.

Bitch, I didn't know your mother was on this thread?

Nor do we care what you think. Besides, Chicago has great pizza and beer. SF has a nice bridge, and LA has a nice, well too many to list but very nice indeed.


Beleive me, Chicago DOES NOT have good pizza. Though maybe it is more edible than the pie available in LA.

Beleive me, Chicago DOES NOT have good pizza.

Blasphemy!! May God smite you to your death! :weirdo:

histrionics, name calling, and bull shit aside, could someone (anyone) answer the following:

WHY THE HELL IS THERE SUCH A CHICAGO-LOS ANGELES RIVALRY ON THIS BOARD?

Two basic premises here:

Chicago and Los Angeles are both great, global cities. Few people OFF of this board would argue about the power, prestige, or draw of either of them.

While there are many ways to organize US cities in our minds, there is certainly evidence that a lot of people see that, through sheer power, size, and diversity, New York, Chicago, and LA seaparte themselves from the pack.

So, why is it that we see so much Chgo vs. LA here and very little Chgo vs. NYC or LA vs. NYC?

• is it more related to the nature of the posters from Chicago and LA than to the cities themselves? Without getting into the "who", is this actually a personality issue here?

• do New Yorkers, despite the widely used "World's Greatest City", not really care about getting into a pissing contest with other cities?

• do LA and Chgo strive to be No. 1 (or, at least, a preceived No. 1) and are thus more feisty than New Yorkers on this subject (I may be the first person in history to suggest New Yorkers aren't feisty)?

As I've said: Chicago and LA are great cities. Off of this forum, the connection between the two, down through the years, has been considerable. So many Chicagoans and Angelenos have connections with the other city and so many Chicagoans and Angelenos actually like the other city. a lot.

So why the rivalry here?

I think the reason is that NYC is not comparable to Chicago and LA. A big call, I know, but I think that the biggest city in the United States is in a different league to any other city on earth, for the moment at least.

Often there is a bigger fight for second place than for first.

^My point I made yesterday (which everyone seemed to miss) is that Osborne is right. The Bay and LA have a far greater proportion of affluent people than Chicago as measure by statistics such as income, art galleries, deisgner furniture stores, luxury items sold, etc.... So Chicago's "superioirty" as a financial center obviously means squat as far as far as equalling wealth for its citizens.

Bitch, I didn't know your mother was on this thread?

That's the best you can do? Why don't you go in the other room and suck on your momma's balls. And Chicago pizza is overrated, i prefer NY style.

^My point I made yesterday (which everyone seemed to miss) is that Osborne is right. The Bay and LA have a far greater proportion of affluent people than Chicago as measure by statistics such as income, art galleries, deisgner furniture stores, luxury items sold, etc.... So Chicago's "superioirty" as a financial center obviously means squat as far as far as equalling wealth for its citizens.

Los Angeles has roughly the same per-captia GDP and poverty rate as Chicago. You've been so brainwashed by media that you don't know what a fact is anymore.

Beleive me, Chicago DOES NOT have good pizza. Though maybe it is more edible than the pie available in LA.


You're insane.

i was just wondering, what are the differences between chicago style pizza, ny style pizza, and pizza made in l.a.???

^My point I made yesterday (which everyone seemed to miss) is that Osborne is right. The Bay and LA have a far greater proportion of affluent people than Chicago as measure by statistics such as income, art galleries, deisgner furniture stores, luxury items sold, etc.... So Chicago's "superioirty" as a financial center obviously means squat as far as far as equalling wealth for its citizens.

Regardless if your comment about affluent people is correct.... who really cares? I feel more comfortable around "normal" people than affluent people. BTW, would you mind posting these "statistics" of yours?

Beleive me, Chicago DOES NOT have good pizza. Though maybe it is more edible than the pie available in LA.

You don't like it? I love Chicago stlye pizza, best in the world IMO.

That's the best you can do? Why don't you go in the other room and suck on your momma's balls. And Chicago pizza is overrated, i prefer NY style.


Ha! And that's the best you can do? LOL... your mom's balls are much more tasty and hairy! :cheers:

I'll give this one last try...and then do my best to shut up.

I'll go first: Chicago and LA are world class cities. I prefer Chicago to LA. Chicago is my home town and IMHO opinion, I don't think any city can beat it. I hope you feel the same about LA, as that is your home town.

What I can not argue with, nor will I argue with is the consistentcy of thought that most people have: Chicago and LA are great cities.

Is there any non-Silverlake LA forumer (I repeat non-SILVERLAKE LA forumers) here who believe that LA is not only a truly great city and Chicago, just another declining midwestern town, is merely not in its class?

And if your answer is: YES, Yes: LA is, it would not change my thoughts which are, again: Chicago and LA are both very great cities.

LA forumers with neither mineral nor body-of-water as part of your names and with all the BS aside, what do you really think?

****************************

For that matter and with the same conditions, how do some of my fellow Chicagoans, often partisan and competitive, feel......when all the BS is put aside? Do you really believe Chicago is all substance and LA is all fluff, or do you realize that LA is a potent force of its own?

i was just wondering, what are the differences between chicago style pizza, ny style pizza, and pizza made in l.a.???

Traditional NY pizza is very thin crust, crispy, and usually from a coal or brick oven. NY pizza typically has only sauce, cheese, and herbs, though you can also get chicken, eggplant or sausage (rarely pepperoni).

Traditional Chicago pizza is a deep-dish pie format, with a thick, flaky crust and tons of fillings. You need a knife and fork.

It's hard to compare the two, because they are so radically different. Both done well are excellent.

I don't know if there is such a thing as LA pizza. I hope it doesn't resemble California Pizza Kitchen, which is awful.

How about you have an original italian pizza?

How about you have an original italian pizza?

No such thing. You have Neapolitan, Sicilian, etc. Most of the pizza on the Continent and UK resembles Neapolitan. Traditional NY pizza is completely different, Chicago pizza is closer to Pot Pie/Shephard's Pie than pizza.

Well, this is certainly entertaining, though I've heard most of it before.

Two questions: why do people dump on us so much, and why do we feel we have to make excuses? The hostility and slights are truly amazing, i.e. whether or not we are a 'world class' city. Gimme a break....

I have been to Rome, London, Chicago. They are GREAT cities- I loved 'em all but I missed L.A. The different foods, neighborhoods, people, hills, mountains, beaches, women- nothing compares. I guess the naysayers just don't 'get it' and hey, that's fine with me. I don't go out of my way to diss someone else's town because, frankly, I'm happy with what I've got.

I grew up in Orange County and weathered many ignorant, media-fueled, paranoid nonsense about L.A. When my wife and I moved here ten years ago, we heard it from expat NYers who had NOTHING good to say about the city, with the possible exception of my brother-in-law from the Bronx who, using his own two eyes learned to love it here. Lunch at Barney's Beanery, movies at the Egyptian and shows at the Pantages will do that for some people. Another friend form Long Island, who has lived here for 30 years calls it the 'most exciting City in the world.'

Go figure.

Those of you who say Los Angeles isn't world class must be living in the past (or at least in a cave somewhere). You obviously don't know what "World Class" means. Take a look at this excellent website about Los Angeles and get yourselves educated. http://www.geocities.com/los_angeles_coast/index.html


Well I live in LA, and I can say it isn't a world class city. LA is famous all because of Hollywood and Beverly Hills nothing more. You need to travel more to the outside world, there are tons of other cities out there that are MUCH better than LA. Los Angeles is nice to a certain extent but it isn't "world class". New York, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, and Paris are some examples of world class cities. LA just doesn't have the flair as other cities.

edit

The debate about LA being a "world class" city is very subjective. I mean, what precisely is "world class"?

The debate about LA being a "world class" city is very subjective. I mean, what precisely is "world class"?

^Good question, eXo

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:rofl:

^Good question, eXo

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
:rofl:

Hey UP, Welcome back...

^Thanks for the welcome. I enjoy being back :lol: !!!!!

I personally don't like LA but you can't deny it's world class. You might be able to argue it doesn't have a world class skyline or a world class subway system. There's some incredible architecture, shopping, beaches, and few cities on the planet spread their cultural and economic wings so far.


"World class skyline"....


Gee, I guess that applies to London, Buenos Aires, Paris, and Moscow as well. A world-class city is not dictated by how many skyscrapers it has obviously. Panama City is not world-class, yet its skyline is quite impressive, and would be considered for the coveted title if left up to your definition.

Well said..

"World class skyline"....


Gee, I guess that applies to London, Buenos Aires, Paris, and Moscow as well. A world-class city is not dictated by how many skyscrapers it has obviously. Panama City is not world-class, yet its skyline is quite impressive, and would be considered for the coveted title if left up to your definition.

Read his post more carefully.

There is no doubt that LA is a world class city, no matter who is supplying the definition. The metro population is very high in world city rankings, it is by far the entertainment capital of the world, it has prestigious universities, professional sports (except football, amazingly enough), a large port, natural and man-made attractions, world-class museums (the Getty), nice architecture, the ocean, the mountains and the LaBrea Tarpits!

There is no doubt that LA is a world class city, no matter who is supplying the definition. The metro population is very high in world city rankings, it is by far the entertainment capital of the world, it has prestigious universities, professional sports (except football, amazingly enough), a large port, natural and man-made attractions, world-class museums (the Getty), nice architecture, the ocean, the mountains and the LaBrea Tarpits!
I don't think mountains make a city world class but yeah, your right.

All, LT watcher, FT poster. Great forum.

Nobody in the thread has said what they believe the definition of 'world-class' is. There are so many parameters you could use, it seems like Preference is the only real guide used so far. Meaning: I prefer my hometown (SF) to most other cities in the world, but could it possibly be considered World-Class? I don't think so. Cool and fun and a great place to grow up, but not world-class.
Museums and art galleries: LA has more per capita than any large city in the world.
5-star restaurants: more (by number) than any in the US, on par with other cities between 2 and 10 million people.
Sports teams: (I don't think this is relevant): championship teams in 3 of 4 major US sports. But since London doesn't field any of the 4 types of sports teams, nor Paris, nor most of the other cities commonly called 'world-class', using sports teams as an indicator is beyond subjective, it's naive and nationalistic. For example: there is not one US city with a pro soccer (futbol) team that - on its best day - could beat United, Arsenal, or Celtic on their worst days.
Number of skyscrapers: being mindful of the forum's origin, I do not believe sheer number of skscrapers is a great indicator of 'world-class' status. But if that is a measure you think should be included, LA doesn't even come close. Count them if you like (I sit on the 33rd floor of one of them), but all of the scrapers in LA, when put together, would take up about 10 blocks of Tokyo, London, Paris, Beijing, Hong Kong, etc. LA for sheer skyscrapers (and skyscraper architecture) just doesn't cut it. I say this as someone who sells land and teardown buildings in downtown LA, and desperately wants LA to become what it has the potential to become.
Number of people: 2nd to NYC, but the LA MSA is 17mm people, the largest MSA in the US.
Port size and volume: top 5 in the world
Airport size and volume: number 5 in the world
Foreign-born residents (indicating a metropolitan/worldly effect): 29.5%, highest of any city in the US. It is the home of the largest Mexican, Korean, Salvadoran, and Guatemalan populations outside of those countries.
GDP per capita: US is second-highest in the world, LA is second-highest in the US
Quality of life: LA quality of life in terms of cultural outlets, dining, safety, entertainment, exercise possibilities, average income, home ownership percentage, health of residents, economic diversity and growth, racial/religious diversity and tolerance, and population growth? Nearly unparalleled among the top twenty cities in the world, and definitely in the top ten in any of these parameters.

Any other SPECIFIC parameters we should consider? If it's really all about opinion of the city, i.e. "I hate LA", that would seem to be a different question. But this thread deals with a fascinating difference of opinion surrounding something dear to my heart. I plan on spending the next thirty years building LA into even more deserving of the 'world-class' moniker than it already is, so let's hear it. What MATTERS to a world-class city?

OK, here goes.

I'm new to skyscrapercity.com and mostly have been hanging out in Latinscrapers until now when I decided to explore a little bit more of this site, and what a better place to start, I thought, than a thread on my own hometown.

I must admit I only made it to page 11 of this thread before I had to stop. Why does it feel like that "my dad can beat up your dad" argument from second grade?

As a native Angeleno, this sprawling polyglot megalopolis is a cultural landscape I comprehend. As a student of California history, I have made it a point to broaden my understanding of this part of the world. And as a first-generation American, whose parents immigrated from points further south, I have a unique insight into the significance of this region, not unlike so many others who have come from elsewhere (whether internal migration or from abroad) to stake out their dream here.

Is it a 'world class city'? Since there seeemed to be divergent opinions on what that meant, I did a little research on what the term implied, and time after time, I did find Los Angeles ranked among the 20 most important cities on the planet.

My own anecdotal understanding of Los Angeles' importance in the global scheme is that no matter where I have been (an Aymara village in Bolivia, or a train station in Bamako, or the highlands of Assam, to name a few) when I am asked where I am from and I answer, "Los Angeles, California" invariably there is always someone who pipes up with the inevitable "I have cousin/brother/friend" who lives here. No further explanation is ever needed.

As a Californian, I don't really care about Chicago or New York. I don't have skyscraper envy. And I certainly don't want to be scraping ice off my car day after day in the winter.

I enjoy myself everytime that I am in Manhattan or in Boston (where my sister lives) but I am always ready to come home to LA, to speak Spanglish, to watch the sunset from Pacific Coast Highway, to feel the space and distance of Los Angeles.

Is crime as big a problem as it is portrayed in the media? Nah. Not at all. Is the traffic horrendous? Absolutely at times, but at others (and not just 3 a.m.) you can zip on the Harbor Freeway at 90 miles an hour. Is it one big urban sprawl? Yup, hands down because that is part of the American legacy of Los Angeles which was powered by real estate speculation, marketing Southern California to the East and Midwest as the paradise of eternal springtime where you could live in a house with your own yard in front and in back and get on a streetcar (originally) or a car (later) to get to your place of business. That is the dream of California, and LA in particular, it was presented as a rejection of dense, urban centers like New York and Chicago. It was marketed as the antithesis of that type of urban design. That's why it is so spread out and so difficult to understand for those who come from elsewhere.

And yet people still keep coming, migrating from other parts of the US, and the world, and continuing to make this one of the most expensive real estate markets in the nation.

If people elsewhere do not wish to consider Los Angeles as a 'world class city' because we don't possess the skyline or public transit systems that other cities do, well so be it. Maybe less people will move here, and our housing prices will go down. At the least, they'll go down the next time we have a big earthquake.

^
Bravo Mr. GatoNegro, a very well thought out post.

:applause:

OK, here goes.

I'm new to skyscrapercity.com and mostly have been hanging out in Latinscrapers until now when I decided to explore a little bit more of this site, and what a better place to start, I thought, than a thread on my own hometown.

I must admit I only made it to page 11 of this thread before I had to stop. Why does it feel like that "my dad can beat up your dad" argument from second grade?

As a native Angeleno, this sprawling polyglot megalopolis is a cultural landscape I comprehend. As a student of California history, I have made it a point to broaden my understanding of this part of the world. And as a first-generation American, whose parents immigrated from points further south, I have a unique insight into the significance of this region, not unlike so many others who have come from elsewhere (whether internal migration or from abroad) to stake out their dream here.

Is it a 'world class city'? Since there seeemed to be divergent opinions on what that meant, I did a little research on what the term implied, and time after time, I did find Los Angeles ranked among the 20 most important cities on the planet.

My own anecdotal understanding of Los Angeles' importance in the global scheme is that no matter where I have been (an Aymara village in Bolivia, or a train station in Bamako, or the highlands of Assam, to name a few) when I am asked where I am from and I answer, "Los Angeles, California" invariably there is always someone who pipes up with the inevitable "I have cousin/brother/friend" who lives here. No further explanation is ever needed.

As a Californian, I don't really care about Chicago or New York. I don't have skyscraper envy. And I certainly don't want to be scraping ice off my car day after day in the winter.

I enjoy myself everytime that I am in Manhattan or in Boston (where my sister lives) but I am always ready to come home to LA, to speak Spanglish, to watch the sunset from Pacific Coast Highway, to feel the space and distance of Los Angeles.

Is crime as big a problem as it is portrayed in the media? Nah. Not at all. Is the traffic horrendous? Absolutely at times, but at others (and not just 3 a.m.) you can zip on the Harbor Freeway at 90 miles an hour. Is it one big urban sprawl? Yup, hands down because that is part of the American legacy of Los Angeles which was powered by real estate speculation, marketing Southern California to the East and Midwest as the paradise of eternal springtime where you could live in a house with your own yard in front and in back and get on a streetcar (originally) or a car (later) to get to your place of business. That is the dream of California, and LA in particular, it was presented as a rejection of dense, urban centers like New York and Chicago. It was marketed as the antithesis of that type of urban design. That's why it is so spread out and so difficult to understand for those who come from elsewhere.

And yet people still keep coming, migrating from other parts of the US, and the world, and continuing to make this one of the most expensive real estate markets in the nation.

If people elsewhere do not wish to consider Los Angeles as a 'world class city' because we don't possess the skyline or public transit systems that other cities do, well so be it. Maybe less people will move here, and our housing prices will go down. At the least, they'll go down the next time we have a big earthquake.

Good thought. :)

We promise, LA will be still world class city after major earthquake alike 1994 Northridge Earthquake and after economy started shit in around early 1990s.

In late 1990s, LA economy is booming again as more construction project, new business, new commerical, new single family houses sprawl over LA MSA and brings diverseful to LA too. Most white people from east coast, midwest and some other state in west coast have moving back to LA again as including all part of Southern California alike San Diego. Asian and Hispanic immigrants are still moving to Southern California too. LA is world class city.

LA have much less urban decay unlike Chicago and NYC.

LA has been world class for decades. That said, why are we putting up these threads which display more about our insecurity than of a thought-provoking discussion about our city?

Here's some advice. KNOW what your city is all about for yourself, don't ASK someone else. LA is what it is and there's all there is to it.

I have a question

New York , London , Paris , Tokyo are all world class cities

So if L.A is too , a world class city in its own way

that means Dubai , which is new , could become a world class city too soon

Coz Comparing L.A to cities as grand as London and Paris , is like comparing Dubai to New York and L.A which are both extremly new cities if compared to those two world class European cities

I don't think comparing LA to London or Paris is analagous to comparing Dubai to LA.

It depends on how many people live in Dubai.

1.5 million now , 3 million in five years time

1.5 million now , 3 million in five years time

Whoa! That would be impressive, tho doubtful. What is your cities' metro population?

by the way, this is what I have found relating to World Class City.

A world city, or a world-class city, is a city with a set of somewhat subjective traits which often include the following:

* International familiarity (or "first-name" familiarity – one would say "Paris", not "Paris, France").
* Active influence and participation in international events and world affairs.
* A fairly large population (the center of a metropolitan area with population of at least one million, typically several million).
* A major international airport that serves as an established hub for several international airlines.
* An advanced transportation system that includes several freeways and/or a large mass transit network offering multiple modes of transportation (subway, light rail, ferry, bus).
* In the West, several international cultures and communities (such as a Chinatown, a Little Italy, or other immigrant communities).
* International financial institutions, corporations (especially conglomerates), and stock exchanges that have influence over the world economy.
* World-renowned cultural institutions, such as museums and universities.
* A lively cultural scene, including film festivals, premieres, a thriving music or theatre scene; a symphony orchestra, an opera company, art galleries, and street performers.
* A unique cultural air and sophistication produced by its inhabitants.
* Varied retailers and eateries, upscale boutiques and hotels, and a thriving nightlife.
* Beautiful natural setting, landmarks, and specific tourist destinations.

An influential attempt to define and categorise world cities was made by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group & Network (GaWC) [1] (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/index.html), based primarily at Loughborough University. The roster was outlined in the GaWC Research Bulletin 5 [2] (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb5.html) and ranked cities based on their provision of "advanced producer services" such as accountancy, advertising, banking/finance and law. The Inventory identifies three levels of world city, termed Alpha, Beta and Gamma for their relative influence. Each level contains two or three sub-ranks. There is also a fourth level of cities that show potential to become world cities in the future.

A. ALPHA WORLD CITIES (full service world cities)

12: New York, London, Paris, Tokyo

10: Chicago, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore, Frankfurt

B. BETA WORLD CITIES (major world cities)

9: San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Zürich

8: Brussels, Madrid, Mexico City, São Paulo

7: Moscow, Seoul

C. GAMMA WORLD CITIES (minor world cities)

6: Amsterdam, Boston, Caracas, Dallas, Düsseldorf, Geneva, Houston, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Melbourne, Osaka, Prague, Santiago, Taipei, Washington, D.C.

5: Bangkok, Beijing, Montreal, Rome, Stockholm, Warsaw

4: Atlanta, Barcelona, Berlin, Budapest, Buenos Aires, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Miami, Minneapolis, Munich, Shanghai

D. EVIDENCE OF WORLD CITY FORMATION

Relatively strong evidence

3: Athens, Auckland, Dublin, Helsinki, Luxembourg, Lyon, Mumbai, New Delhi, Philadelphia, Rio de Janeiro, Tel Aviv, Vienna

Some evidence

2: Abu Dhabi, Almaty, Birmingham, Bogotá, Bratislava, Brisbane, Bucharest, Cairo, Cleveland, Cologne, Detroit, Dubai, Ho Chi Minh City, Kiev, Lima, Lisbon, Manchester, Montevideo, Oslo, Riyadh, Rotterdam, Seattle, Stuttgart, The Hague, Vancouver

Minimal evidence

1: Adelaide, Antwerp, Arhus, Baltimore, Bangalore, Bologna, Brasília, Calgary, Cape Town, Colombo, Columbus, Dresden, Edinburgh, Genoa, Glasgow, Gothenburg, Guangzhou, Hanoi, Kansas City, Leeds, Lille, Marseille, Richmond, Saint Petersburg, Tashkent, Tehran, Tijuana, Turin, Utrecht, Wellington, Winnipeg

1.5 million now , 3 million in five years time

That is a very impressive population growth. That could probably surpass LA in about 10 years.

1.5 million now , 3 million in five years time

No. Dubai sucks. :weird:

Dubai cannot suprassing LA and Chicago.

Dubai cannot suprassing LA and Chicago.

Agreed. Dubai strikes me as a "flash in the pan" city that won't last. Sure, Dubai is putting up the most daring and ambitious developments in the world with many stunning buildings but I simply don't see that many people really moving there. The city just has unsustainable growth written all over it. I give the city 10 years before it falls on its face in bankruptcy.

It depends on how many people live in Dubai.

It depends on a lot more than how many people live in Dubai.

I just visited this thread and see that a lot has already been discussed. But to answer the question of the thread, I think anyone who does not consider America's second largest metro to be world class is silly, ignorant, or in denial.

Also, I doubt that Dubai will grow by 1.5 million people in 5 years. Most people haven't even heard of it.

LA has been world class for decades. That said, why are we putting up these threads which display more about our insecurity than of a thought-provoking discussion about our city?

Here's some advice. KNOW what your city is all about for yourself, don't ASK someone else. LA is what it is and there's all there is to it.

Very true LAuniverse, my city of Atlanta has the same problem (insecurities). LA is without a doubt one of the worlds foremost important, recognizable, and connected cities. This discussion takes place only out of insecure posters and not facts. I couldn't believe I saw this thread to tell you the truth.

Agreed. Dubai strikes me as a "flash in the pan" city that won't last. Sure, Dubai is putting up the most daring and ambitious developments in the world with many stunning buildings but I simply don't see that many people really moving there. The city just has unsustainable growth written all over it. I give the city 10 years before it falls on its face in bankruptcy.

How about called Dubai Depressing? It will be Black Tuesday as many condo, retail and office has going into bankrupt.

Very true LAuniverse, my city of Atlanta has the same problem (insecurities). LA is without a doubt one of the worlds foremost important, recognizable, and connected cities. This discussion takes place only out of insecure posters and not facts. I couldn't believe I saw this thread to tell you the truth.

Who revived this thread?
How can anyone claim that L.A. is not a world class city.
There is no doubt.

I dont know if I said this but yea, it is world class. Is a different city than chi town or NYC but its still world class.

Who revived this thread?
How can anyone claim that L.A. is not a world class city.
There is no doubt.

I dont know, I just saw it and started reading some of the posters comments and was in shock that it was even a discussion.

"Im sorry to all those Los Angelinos out there or LA sympathisers but outside of America LA isn't really considered a 'world city'."

Hey, Im outside of america and i still think its a world class city, all my friends do too and i bet ppl over in Europe and mExico and Asia do as well. But what do i know right im just a canadian .


BENJI I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU...WHEN YOU HAVE A CITY WHOSE CULTURE IS SOUGHT AFTER BY MANY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD..I'M AFRAID YOU'VE GOT YOURSELF A WORLD CLASS CITY. IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE PARTHENON LOOK FOR IT IN ATHENS.

Why bring this back to life? No posts in over a year, and rightfully so.

:ancient:

BENJI I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU...WHEN YOU HAVE A CITY WHOSE CULTURE IS SOUGHT AFTER BY MANY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD..I'M AFRAID YOU'VE GOT YOURSELF A WORLD CLASS CITY. IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE PARTHENON LOOK FOR IT IN ATHENS.

:weirdo:

People with less than 100 posts should not be allowed to revive old threads just to tickle their own fancy. Shame on you!

:weirdo:

People with less than 100 posts should not be allowed to revive old threads just to tickle their own fancy. Shame on you!

Yes please, lets get a Mod to lock this peice of Shit thread.

I'm truly shocked that (Silver) has not posted since it was brought back to life @ 12:41pm (Pacific) and it's almost 5pm (Pacific)!

Chicago doesn't dominate LA economy. WE are number one manufacturing center. You could buy all of Chicagoland with the cost of real estate in LA city alone.

We are a far more dynamic city!!!!!!!!!!!


First of all, Savvy Search,

Chicago dominates LA in Economy. It has been undisputedly rated the most diverse U.S. economy and by far the most active economic center by numerous business magazines. Also its metro area has more fortune 500 companies and more companies with greater than 1500 employees than any other city other than NYC (read Fortune Magazine). By the way, the LA Times is OWNED by the Tribune Co. headquarted in Chicago! And let's not even compare LA's economic status to NYC.

As far as population, LA's metro area may exceed New York's eventually, but that's not as relevant because NYC's density makes LA's look like Nebraska. And if you cut out the metropolitan area, NYC alone has more than double the people that LA (the city) has.

Furthermore, as far as being the center for fashion, media, etc, WHAT are you talking about? NYC is the fashion capital of the nation, as noted by all of the major designers and fashion shows, magazines, etc being based there. As far as media, pretty much every production company in LA is owned by a media giant in NYC. That includes movie studios! Let's not forget that ALL the major publishers are in NYC. ALL the major TV networks! Even CNN, based in Atlanta, is owned by Time-Warner in NYC.

Regarding architecture, I mostly agree. Personally, I prefer the more urbanized architecture of cities like San Francisco, Chicago, NYC but LA definitely has some cutting-edge stuff.

Leads the nation in Aerospace? Boeing is in Chicago (with large operations in Washington), NASA is in Florida, Lockheed Martin is in Colorado. Airbus is in France! That's all the big ones. Northrup Gunman in LA is like number 12 on the list, I think...

Dominates in manufacturing.....true statement. But there are a few other dominant manufacturing centers to the east..

Culture? Tough one to argue. But all I can say is that in at least 3-4 national rankings, I have seen NYC, Washington DC, and Chicago ranking the top 3 in culture (which means museums, attractions, theatre, etc), but we all know that depends on how you define "culture" so the jury will probably always be out. In some rankings, Baltimore and Boston even make the top 4-5.

There are plenty of LA people in this forum who will readily agree with your assumptions, Savvy, but lets be a bit more objective. LA is a great city with a lot of diversity, tons of people, and great economic opportunity, no doubt. It is fun, lots of famous people, etc, but I can't stand here and watch you make it seem greater than it really is. Besides, one of my friends from LA once said that "the coolest thing about LA is that the people are chill". Leave the annoying bragging and boasting to those tightwads in the East!!

...ugh

It's interesting, really, looking back at this thread. It seems like everyone has matured so much...with the exception of SILVERLAKE.

edit| I almost forgot:

:cheer:

silverlake is cool leave him alone

lockheed skunkworks is in los angeles area they are the ones who make planes for the united states millitary like the sr-71 blackbird and the auroura.

of COURSE LA is world class. :crazy:
It has freaking Hollywood and Beverly Hills

By the way, the LA Times is OWNED by the Tribune Co. headquarted in Chicago! And let's not even compare LA's economic status to NYC.



And it looks like the Tribune's fate is controlled by a Los Angeles family. HA HA HA LOL. I can't belive all the crap TUP has said. He is the number one LA hater Chicago booster. Yet all the Chicago forumers like him because he boosts their city. HA HA HA LOL.

Tribune Strategy Has Failed, Say Chandlers
By Jesus Sanchez, Times Staff Writer
5:32 PM PDT, June 14, 2006

The Chandler family of Los Angeles today called for the breakup of the Tribune Co., owner of the Los Angeles Times and KTLA, into separate newspaper and television broadcasting operations, saying that the guiding strategy of the media giant "has failed" and has had "disastrous" results.

The harsh remarks made by Tribune's second-largest shareholder in a securities filing are certain to raise tensions over the company's plan to buy back stock and fuel speculation about a sale of all or parts of the company.

ADVERTISEMENT

On Wall Street, Tribune stock surged after news of the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission surfaced. The company's shares rose 89 cents, or 2.87%, to close at $31.94 on the New York Stock Exchange.

In a letter to Tribune directors, William Stinehart Jr., an attorney representing the Chandler trusts, made it clear that the family will not tender its Tribune stock and instead called for more "decisive action" to better respond to industry challenges and boost the company's stock price.

"If timely action is not taken, however, we intend to begin actively pursing possible changes in Tribune's management and other transactions to enhance the value realized by all Tribune stockholders by engaging with other stockholders and other parties," Stinehart said in the letter.

The Chandlers own 12% of Tribune stock and control three of the company's board seats.

Ariel Capital Management, which owns 10.3 million shares, or 3.4%, of Tribune, wants Tribune to dispose of the broadcast unit and become a pure newspaper company, said Ariel money manager John Miller, according to a Bloomberg News report. He spoke before the June 13 letter from the Chandlers was released.

"Something will be done," Miller said. "You have to take a more aggressive strategy. The true value of the company isn't being reflected in the share price."

The boardroom rift centers on Tribune's plan to take on more than $2 billion in new debt to buy back 25% of the company's stock. Tribune is offering to pay $28 to $32.50 a share, but the Chandlers' three representatives on the board have voted against the plan, citing concerns over tax liability. Tribune has said it planned to proceed with the buyback.

Late this afternoon, Tribune Co. Chairman and CEO Dennis J. FitzSimons sent an e-mail to employees and responded to the Chandlers' letter saying, "Many of the assertions are inaccurate."

The statement said that the actions sought by the Chandler trusts were considered and that the buyback plan was in the best interests of shareholders.

FitzSimons said the company would continue expanding its Internet portfolio and sell non-core assets, along with implementing cost-saving initiatives.

"After extensive deliberations by the board, which included a detailed review of the environment in which all media and newspaper companies are operating today, we recommitted to an aggressive performance improvement program," FitzSimons said.

"Our confidence in the company's future is strong," FitzSimons said in the e-mail.

The Chandlers' holdings date to the sale to Tribune in 2000 of their controlling interest in Times Mirror Corp., the parent company of The Times.

Company and industry officials hailed the merger at the time for its potential to capitalize on the ownership of leading newspapers and television stations in some of the nation's largest cities, including Chicago, Los Angeles and New York.

But the strategy has yet to pay off and the company's stock price has stumbled. Tribune shares, which traded above $50 a share in early 2004, had recently fallen below $30 a share until the stock buyback and speculation about a possible breakup surfaced.

Like other newspaper chains, the company has suffered from investor concern about declining circulation and advertising volume amid a proliferation of competing media channels. In addition, the company has been dogged by regulatory delays and a long legal battle with the government over a giant tax liability the company inherited from Times Mirror.

"As you know, the basic strategic premise of the Tribune/Times Mirror merger was that the cross-ownership of multiple premium major media properties in the nation's three largest media outlets would provide a platform to produce above-industry performance for both its newspaper and broadcast assets and for strong growth in interactive and other media opportunities," the Chandler filing said. "This strategy has failed and the regulatory change anticipated at the time of the merger to make legal the permanent cross-ownership of certain of key assets has not occurred."

In addition to calling for the company to explore a possible breakup of its television and newspaper properties, the Chandlers also requested that the company's independent directors conduct a "thorough review and evaluation of the management," as well as business and strategic issues facing the company.

"The gravity of management's failure to address fundamental strategic issues is apparent from the precipitous decline in stock value over the past three and a half years," the letter said.

It's interesting, really, looking back at this thread. It seems like everyone has matured so much...with the exception of SILVERLAKE.

edit| I almost forgot:

:cheer:

And you who always put LA down and when you do complement us it is often a backhanded complement!

BENJI I'M GOING TO HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU...WHEN YOU HAVE A CITY WHOSE CULTURE IS SOUGHT AFTER BY MANY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD..I'M AFRAID YOU'VE GOT YOURSELF A WORLD CLASS CITY. IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THE PARTHENON LOOK FOR IT IN ATHENS.
You know what's really ironic about this? Benji stopped posting on this site a year and a half ago so your comment was really quite pointless. The last thing the LA forum needed was to dredge up this ancient relic.

Oh, SILVERLAKE.......Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough already?

BTW: I actually like LA. :cheer:

....might as well...

look what Chicago is building a mirror covered pinto bean that costs a hundred million dollars or something like that, like anyone will want to go see that.

Actually, it's a part of Millennium Park--which has quickly become one of the most visited places in the nation and has spurred dozens of developments. It's a very, very cool place.

http://www.nycos.co.uk/images/chicago_millennium%20park.jpg

^the bean is being polished under the white canopy. :D

Chicago doesn't dominate LA economy. WE are number one manufacturing center. You could buy all of Chicagoland with the cost of real estate in LA city alone.

And Chicago is the number two manufacturing center, the largest tech employer, and the number two financial center (behind New York, obviously), with growing recognition for the huge role it plays in many massive global markets. Chicago is also the nation's second largest corporate center. So any conclusion as to which city "dominates" in terms of economical importance is entirely up for debate. (as if you'd play any role in that sort of nonsense, huh, silverlake?)

LA is a world class city, without a doubt...

^^ That Millennium Park picture is gorgeous, BTW.

Silverlake should be banned from living. Seriously..

Ahhh, how fantastic I found Millenium Park to be. I hope the new Civic Park that's part of the Grand Avenue plan will be and I'm sure it will be similar to Millenium Park being that they both have VERY similar Gehry structures in the area and that they will be city centers.

Silverlake should be banned from living. Seriously..

wow you really feel that way....after all my great threads....all my great defense of the great city of LA? You obviously don't read all the trash that is talked about us!

Silverlake should be banned from living. Seriously..


^ 300 that's harsh!

You said ban him from "living" not from SSC........ Wow!!!!!

wow you really feel that way....after all my great threads....all my great defense of the great city of LA? You obviously don't read all the trash that is talked about us!

Why do you think people talk down on LA? The answer might be closer than you think. :)

btw guys, I'm off to LA tomorrow. It's gonna be tough going to sleep tonight, I can't freakin wait!!!!!!!!
:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

Are you going to visit the forums while you're gone? Anyways, have a great time and I hope you take into consideration some of the things we recommended for you to do. :)

btw guys, I'm off to LA tomorrow. It's gonna be tough going to sleep tonight, I can't freakin wait!!!!!!!!
:cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

^ One's he goes Angeleno, he will never go back! :cool:

L.A = world class city

LA is a world-class city. Why wouldn't LA be a world-class city? It's the 2nd largest city in the US and it's probably the 2nd most important city in the US. People think LA's only the 2nd largest because of Hollywood. Do you really think a city with 18 million metro is all Hollywood? Hell no!!!

wow you really feel that way....after all my great threads....all my great defense of the great city of LA? You obviously don't read all the trash that is talked about us!

You make LA look bad. Seriously. And your arguments suck.

Source after source cites LA as a world class city, usually coming in second in the states due to the size of its metro area, billionaires residing therein, foreign born population and airport #'s. Chicago and San Fran are very important centers as well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_class_city This link is for the layman but it's just one of a host of references that all say the same thing.

This is an idiotic question. It's like someone asking whether one thinks a Rolls Royce is a luxury automobile. :bash:

This is an idiotic question. It's like someone asking whether one thinks a Rolls Royce is a luxury automobile. :bash:

You're right. But the reason why that question is always asked (especially with L.A.) is because there are a lot of retards on this forum that actually think L.A. is not a deserving world class city.

LA is definetly a world class city nice scenery good highway system even though its full of traffic and its skyline is too small for a city of its size. Only real bad things about LA is the earthquakes, some rude people, and the fact many people cant afford to live there.

You're right. But the reason why that question is always asked (especially with L.A.) is because there are a lot of retards on this forum that actually think L.A. is not a deserving world class city.

And if you read their comments, most of them are from Chicago because we took over second city status from them.

There was a news article here in my city, Birmingham (not Alabama) and it mentioned that LA was ranked equal to Birmingham in the quality of living. Now, looking at Birmingham, I do not consider it to be a world class city and I am not too sure how LA tied it. Maybe they included gun crime figures, I am not sure. I would definitly say LA is world class because of the scale of the place.

What are we measuring world class cities with? What's the criteria? If lots and lots of mass transit constitutes a world class city then that's biased towards cities who a) are older model T type cities that came into and had at least a good portion of its initial heyday over a century ago or b) are skewed towards cities that have governments that see the importance of mass transit and will invest hardely i.e some E. Asian countries. The US gov't simply is not putting enough money towards infrastructure for newer cities like LA or even Miami or Phoenix to construct huge subway systems like is present in New York City(good example of a city that had its initial explosion pre-auto revolution.) Shouldn't a very good freeway system count as well, seeing that we are living in the 21st century. If that's the case LA would be ranked up with the best of them.
Another thing that bothers me is the criteria that world corporations and # of billionaires residing in the city makes it a world class city or not. This is totally skewed towards a western capitalist paradigm. Just because you are a city in a poor country doesn't mean that you don't have a world class city. Cities like Havana or even Beijing did not make it to the top because of their economic/class structure. And why Mexico City, the second largest city in the world, is not considered top tier is beyond me. It's funny that all of the top tier cities, London, New York, Paris and Tokyo are all considered western style cities and all are ironically on the north side of the equator.

^^ thats because, like canada, most people do not consider mexico to be a sovereign nation. they think of it as Americas back yard.

no one wants to think that a nation that is not equal to ours has the right to be a top tier city. usually the same people that dont belive skid row is in LA

And if you read their comments, most of them are from Chicago because we took over second city status from them.

And just who are the offenders in question? LA is and always will be a world-class city.

And just who are the offenders in question? LA is and always will be a world-class city.

The URban politician, Michigan Ave, RP1, lots of em. That guy EDSG is always coming in here and hitting us with backhanded complements. Just look at the start of this thread.

I just got sick and tired of people saying we are just one big suburb, we are not a real city, we have no density (Even though I mathematically proved LA contains a larger area of greater density than anything that exists in Chicago and except for the highest densities San Francisco), people only live here for the weather, we only have pop culture (which I also proved over and over again as false).

There really is nothing to compare with LA. NYC is a little bigger and has banking industries and things like the UN that we don't have and never will have. But we have world dominating industries here of immense influence and significance. Other than NY (which I admit rules areas LA will never touch) there is no other US or Canadian city than can even be mentioned in the same sentence.

WE are young and WE ARE LOST but we are there with Paris, NY, LONDON< TOKYO. WE STAND AT THE EDGE OF CONTINENT, A CITY OF LIGHT DREAMS AND MOTION. I'LL TAKE MY CAMERA TO THE SHORE. THE COAST IS ALWAYS CHANGING.

This is a dumb thread and should die

SILVERLAKE. You have never proven anything. You have NEVER proven that Los Angeles is any more important than Chicago. You've never even made a decent attempt at it. And that whole thing about high density areas was scewed towards LA because its community areas (the areas in question) are geographically smaller.

BTW; the Urban Politician has barely posted in here for over a year and RP1 and Michigan Ave are the same person (had is screen name changed). He's in LA right now, actually.

what is all this crap you keep quoting?
the coast is always changing?

SILVERLAKE. You have never proven anything. You have NEVER proven that Los Angeles is any more important than Chicago. You've never even made a decent attempt at it. And that whole thing about high density areas was scewed towards LA because its community areas (the areas in question) are geographically smaller.

BTW; the Urban Politician has barely posted in here for over a year and RP1 and Michigan Ave are the same person (had is screen name changed). He's in LA right now, actually.

I can't prove the first point because it is so obvious. It is like proving the sky is blue!!!!!!!!!!

The point about the density doesn't rely on smaller community areas.
LA contains a coninuous subset that is bigger than Chicago and of greater density (12k ior 13k or whatever chicago is). Plus if you look at sq miles greater than 50k, 35k, 25k, we blow Chicago away like that too!

what is all this crap you keep quoting?
the coast is always changing?


IT's POETRY. CAN"T YOU RELATE TO IT??

I can't prove the first point because it is so obvious. It is like proving the sky is blue!!!!!!!!!!

The point about the density doesn't rely on smaller community areas.
LA contains a coninuous subset that is bigger than Chicago and of greater density (12k ior 13k or whatever chicago is). Plus if you look at sq miles greater than 50k, 35k, 25k, we blow Chicago away like that too!

Actually, no, if you look at any study of world cities or have any basic understanding of economics, it's not obvious. Try me.

And you and I were both refering to different topics regarding density. Nevermind.

IT's POETRY. CAN"T YOU RELATE TO IT??
sure its poetry... but were is it from.. usually when some one quotes something they sight a source

And that whole thing about high density areas was scewed towards LA because its community areas (the areas in question) are geographically smaller.

.

Yes, not to argue but Chicago's total geographical area is twice as small as LA's (212 and 465 respectively). So we shouldn't quibble about skewing because of stated geographical area we should just go with the facts. Chicago is about 4,000 more persons denser than LA per square mile. Fact! But as a metropolitan area LA comes out at #1. So anyone calling LA a suburb is either completely ill informed or stuck back in the 50's. Besides Dorothy Parker made that statement close to 50 years ago.

It's also important to remember that LA has a mountain range (Santa Monica Mountains) running through it. Here is an enlightening excerpt from Wikepedia:
The city's gross population density statistic is deceptively low, because of the sparsely-inhabited Santa Monica Mountains which separate the Los Angeles Basin from the San Fernando Valley. South of the Santa Monica Mountains, the population density throughout most of the city is much greater than 7,876.8 people per square mile (3,041.3/km²). Los Angeles has some of the most densely-populated urban land in the United States. Parts of L.A. would rank second only to New York City in population density if they were separate cities. The region bounded approximately by the Los Angeles River, Sunset Boulevard and Hollywood Boulevard, Fairfax Avenue and Vernon Avenue provides a good example. The land area, 50 square miles (130 km²), is only slightly larger than San Francisco but, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, this region housed about 30% more people in 2000 * (more than 1,000,000).

* San Fran's pop as of 2000-767,000.

i think we all need to stop sighting wiki as a source for stuff... collages are failing kids that do that.

^Good post, klamedia.

of COURSE LA is world class. :crazy:
It has freaking Hollywood and Beverly Hills

you said it, Hollywood and Beverly Hills, if it weren't for that I would doubt it.

blah blah blah blah... why dont you all make better use of your time and go masturbate

The city's gross population density statistic is deceptively low, because of the sparsely-inhabited Santa Monica Mountains which separate the Los Angeles Basin from the San Fernando Valley. South of the Santa Monica Mountains, the population density throughout most of the city is much greater than 7,876.8 people per square mile (3,041.3/km²). Los Angeles has some of the most densely-populated urban land in the United States. Parts of L.A. would rank second only to New York City in population density if they were separate cities. The region bounded approximately by the Los Angeles River, Sunset Boulevard and Hollywood Boulevard, Fairfax Avenue and Vernon Avenue provides a good example. The land area, 50 square miles (130 km²), is only slightly larger than San Francisco but, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, this region housed about 30% more people in 2000 * (more than 1,000,000).

* San Fran's pop as of 2000-767,000.

WOW 50 SQ miles of greater than 20 K!!!!!!!!!! and we are going to gain another 300-400K between 2000-2010. TO THE MOON! WE ARE SO THE SECOND CITY!

i think we all need to stop sighting wiki as a source for stuff... collages are failing kids that do that.

Are COLLAGES ALSO FAILING KIDS THAT CAN"T SPELL COLLEGE???????????

"we are so the second city"

except that name already belongs to another city.

"we are so the second city"

except that name already belongs to another city.

YEAH, oh well.

^I'm waiting for you to put up an argument as to how LA is more important than Chicago, silverlake.

Shhhh, nobody help. I just want to see what he comes up with. ;)

Are COLLAGES ALSO FAILING KIDS THAT CAN"T SPELL COLLEGE???????????

i guess not ass hole :)

you said it, Hollywood and Beverly Hills, if it weren't for that I would doubt it.


^ Such unnecessary comment especially when looking at your 2 city locations.........:weird:

you said it, Hollywood and Beverly Hills, if it weren't for that I would doubt it.

Yes stupid comment :rant: Think about L.As natural side ---- Pacific Ocean, Mountains, Beaches, Deserts -- Its a incredibly diverse area

you said it, Hollywood and Beverly Hills, if it weren't for that I would doubt it.

.......and this bitch is from Tijuana.......

Think about L.As natural side ---- Pacific Ocean, Mountains, Beaches, Deserts -- Its a incredibly diverse area


^^
Also the Weather, Amenities, Life Style, Rich Culture, Down to earth people, and lastly to have Vegas as our playground......

I never said SD or TJ were world class cities ... im just answering the thread's question "Do you think L.A. is a "World Class City" and my opinion is NO , thank you. And if anybody is still doubting just look at the comments/language that these people from LA use, I dont think is a world class language.

Yes stupid comment :rant: Think about L.As natural side ---- Pacific Ocean, Mountains, Beaches, Deserts -- Its a incredibly diverse area

by the way, San Diego also has the same natural landscapes, beaches, mountains and deserts, but again we are talking about LA right? I still give it a NO, but its just my opinion, dont take it too personal.

edit

^^ Sorry but i cant take you seriously. You think that San Diego is ''America finest city'' but L.A is not in one bit world class. I suppose you think San Diego is world class..........

^I'm waiting for you to put up an argument as to how LA is more important than Chicago, silverlake.

Shhhh, nobody help. I just want to see what he comes up with. ;)

It'll probably be something like this:

BECAUSE LA HAS BETTER WEATHER AND MORE CELEBS!!!! :cheer: :cheer: :cheer: :cheers:

And because it just.....IS! ;)