Does Los Angeles have the greatest location of any city in the world?

[croyboy]

Here's some positives on the weather: Angelenos don't like change of seasons (sunshine and the feeling of nothing uncomfortable in the air is always great). We don't have to waste our precious/productive/expensive time shoveling the streets/sidewalks/driveways (or even paying federal/state/city services to do it for us) or buying salt/shovels/ heavy (unfashionable) coats. That's more time to be actually productive or just for recreation instead of time-wasting chores. If we wanted snow, we could just drive 45 minutes up a mountain.

Today, a gateway to Asia is much more profitable than a gateway to Europe. Also, the Pacific holds more exotic locations to travel to than the Atlantic.

Others will complain about our traffic in L.A. (as if it's somehow better to drive in NYC). For me, the transit works fine here and keeps getting better. For the more stubborn, cars are good too.

I hear from people of all backgrounds tho, that it's difficult for people to just adopt a place to live. Generally, Angelenos can't live anywhere else. The same goes for New Yorkers, and a good number of centralized Americans (Midwest/Plains states).

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by isaidso

- Equi-distant from Europe and Asia? Isn't it better to be close to something you like rather than a 12 hour+ plane ride from it?

More like 9 or 10 hours depending on the jet stream. I travel frequently to Asia from the eastern US, so 9 hours is a cakewalk compared to 14+.

[losangelino]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

More like 9 or 10 hours depending on the jet stream. I travel frequently to Asia from the eastern US, so 9 hours is a cakewalk compared to 14+.

Not sure how frequently you folks travel but I do often to both Asia and Europe (and the middle east). Try 16+ hours from LA to Asia or up to 20 if going to places like Singapore. Try 11 hours to London and then 20 to Dubai and even more if going to India. So we aren't really that close to anything outside the US if you ask me but agree that this is the best place to be not necessarily to leave from.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by losangelino

Not sure how frequently you folks travel but I do often to both Asia and Europe (and the middle east). Try 16+ hours from LA to Asia or up to 20 if going to places like Singapore. Try 11 hours to London and then 20 to Dubai and even more if going to India. So we aren't really that close to anything outside the US if you ask me but agree that this is the best place to be not necessarily to leave from.

Your definition of Asia is different from mine. I only travel to Japan, Korea, and China. That's anywhere from 10 hours to NRT, to 11 to ICN, and 14 to HKG. LAX is closer to those places than any other mainland US city except SFO and SEA, and has way more service to those destinations.

[SydneyCity]

Los Angeles is smack bang in the middle of the English speaking world. The UK and Ireland are about equal flight time from New Zealand and the east coast of Australia, Canada is obviously fairly close as well. It's also in between Europe and Asia, and of course Latin America. Locaton wise, you can't beat LA in my opinion.

[Lydon]

Originally Posted by croyboy

Here's some positives on the weather: Angelenos don't like change of seasons (sunshine and the feeling of nothing uncomfortable in the air is always great). We don't have to waste our precious/productive/expensive time shoveling the streets/sidewalks/driveways (or even paying federal/state/city services to do it for us) or buying salt/shovels/ heavy (unfashionable) coats. That's more time to be actually productive or just for recreation instead of time-wasting chores. If we wanted snow, we could just drive 45 minutes up a mountain.

One can have winter without snow. Personally, I find myself to be far more productive in winter than in summer because I'm cosier indoors and don't get a sense of FOMO stuck inside the office.

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by isaidso

- The weather is actually a negative if you like a change of seasons.

- Being in the continental US is a plus for Americans, but not so much to people from other countries.

- Equi-distant from Europe and Asia? Isn't it better to be close to something you like rather than a 12 hour+ plane ride from it?

- Los Angeles has a lot going for it, but whether its a great location has more to do with personal preference.

Did you manage to catch the snow in the picture?

Continental U.S.? CHECK!

Closer to something?
We only like ourselves! CHECK!

Personal preferrence?* CHECK!

* ( It's not personal preference, the great location is fact.)

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by croyboy

Here's some positives on the weather: Angelenos don't like change of seasons (sunshine and the feeling of nothing uncomfortable in the air is always great). We don't have to waste our precious/productive/expensive time shoveling the streets/sidewalks/driveways (or even paying federal/state/city services to do it for us) or buying salt/shovels/ heavy (unfashionable) coats. That's more time to be actually productive or just for recreation instead of time-wasting chores. If we wanted snow, we could just drive 45 minutes up a mountain.

Today, a gateway to Asia is much more profitable than a gateway to Europe. Also, the Pacific holds more exotic locations to travel to than the Atlantic.

Others will complain about our traffic in L.A. (as if it's somehow better to drive in NYC). For me, the transit works fine here and keeps getting better. For the more stubborn, cars are good too.

I hear from people of all backgrounds tho, that it's difficult for people to just adopt a place to live. Generally, Angelenos can't live anywhere else. The same goes for New Yorkers, and a good number of centralized Americans (Midwest/Plains states).

These are rather very general statements. "Heavy coats" are not unfashionable, I really like getting the chance to wear them. It's the prolonged winter and the having to wear them for 3+ months that gets to you but nothing "unfashionable" about a wonderful coat.

As for mobility, NYC definitely has a large advantage on LA at this time. It's not so much that NYC has a larger rail system but that the culture of the city is obligated to respond to its transit network and therefore those that use it. Los Angeles still coddles car drivers by ensuring that its land use policies are obliged to drivers, the opposite of NYC. So you get parking minimums in every building that promotes car use that promotes less people on the sidewalk that promotes streets built for cars that promotes a less hospitable place for pedestrians that promotes faceless and non-mixed use buildings that promotes less distracting objects on the street like trees, benches, mid-block crossings, change of street textures that promotes boring uninviting street facades that promote low dense areas that promotes..........

Although we don't need government services to clean sidewalks we are using government services in many many more existential ways because of the damage to our health and the environment because polluted air caused by cars.

[saiholmes]

Originally Posted by CNNMoney

California's Monterey Shale, seen here, has a massive mount of oil and the state could be poised for a boom, if it can safely get the crude out of the ground.

California could be next oil boom state
By Steve Hargreaves @CNNMoney January 15, 2013: 4:17 PM ET

California is sitting on a massive amount of shale oil and could become the next oil boom state. But only if the industry can get the stuff out of the ground without upsetting the state's powerful environmental lobby.

Running from Los Angeles to San Francisco, California's Monterey Shale is thought to contain more oil than North Dakota's Bakken and Texas's Eagle Ford -- both scenes of an oil boom that's created thousands of jobs and boosted U.S. oil production to the highest rate in over a decade.

In fact, the Monterey is thought to hold over 400 billion barrels of oil, according to IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates. That's nearly half the conventional oil in all of Saudi Arabia. The United States consumes about 19 million barrels of oil a day.

"Four hundred billion barrels, that doesn't escape anyone in this businesses," said Stephen Trammel, energy research director at IHS.

The trick now is getting it out.

As a result of the San Andres fault, California's geologic layers are folded like an accordion rather than simply stacked on top of each other like they are in other Shale states. The folds have naturally cracked the shale rock, and much of California's current "conventional" oil production -- the third largest in the nation -- is thought to come from the Monterey.

But the folds mean recent advancements that have made shale oil and gas profitable to extract -- horizontal drilling combined with hydraulic fracturing -- don't work as well in California. It's hard to drill horizontally if the shale is not flat.

Plus, it appears the Monterey is made up of shale rock that doesn't respond as well to hydraulic fracturing -- the controversial practice known as fracking that involves injecting water, sand and chemicals into the ground under high pressure to crack the rock and allow the oil and gas to flow.

Still, the U.S. Energy Information Agency estimates there are over 15 billion barrels of oil that can be recovered using today's technology.

"That's a huge number," said Matt Woodson, an analyst at the energy research firm Wood Mackenzie. Woodson said the 15 billion number far exceeds current estimates for North Dakota's Bakken Shale, and is about half the amount held in Alaska's North Slope before it was tapped.

That potential has attracted the attention of the oil industry.

Several oil companies have put together research teams to work on the Monterey, said Katie Potter, head of exploration and production staffing at NES Global Talent, a company that recruits oil industry professionals.

If the Monterey takes off, Potter said the impact on jobs in the state would be huge, saying the shale boom has already created 600,000 jobs nationwide over the last few years.

"It could potentially solve the state's budget deficit," she said.

Last month, the government held a lease sale to drill in the Monterey. While only a modest 18,000 acres were offered, they were all snapped up.

Occidental (OXY, Fortune 500), which is California-based and has long held acres in the Monterey, has had some success using a technology known as deep acid injection, said IHS's Trammel.

The process involves injecting hydrofluoric or other acids deep underground, where they eat away at the shale rock and allow the oil to flow. It's cheaper than fracking, said Trammel. And while it sounds ominous, it may not be as controversial, as the volumes involved are far less and it's not done under such pressure, he said.

Still, no matter how the oil is produced, environmentalists in the Golden State are keeping close watch.

Fracking could still become an issue, as it has in other states where it's led to fears over groundwater contamination, said Nathan Matthews, a Sierra Club attorney based in San Francisco. And there's no guarantee acid injection is much better.

Plus, there's air pollution, road congestion and other issues that go along with an oil boom.

Matthews wants California regulators to require full disclosure of everything the oil industry is putting in the ground, as well as individual permits issued for each well drilled.

"There's a chance to get this done much better than where it's been done elsewhere," said Matthews. "We need to understand the risks before we open the flood gate."

Regulations or not, there's still no guarantee there will be an oil boom at all.

"It might not live up to its expectations," said Fadel Gheit, a senior energy analyst at Oppenheimer. "The industry has not concluded whether it's boom or bust."

But given the rapid advances over the last few years in oil drilling and producing technology, the smart money may be on boom.

"There are some pretty creative people in this industry," said Trammel. "I'd say they are going to figure it out."

Read More: http://money.cnn.com/2013/01/14/news...oom/index.html

[klamedia]

Is this in the right thread?

[Corith]

Come to think of it, are there any other cities/regions with similar characteristics to LA (weather, beaches, city life, etc.) outside of the US?

Only Sydney and perhaps Rio de Janeiro come to mind.

[losangelino]

Originally Posted by Corith

Come to think of it, are there any other cities/regions with similar characteristics to LA (weather, beaches, city life, etc.) outside of the US?

Only Sydney and perhaps Rio de Janeiro come to mind.

Sydney is more water oriented and integrate it into its fabric. LA having its downtown miles away tends to not be the same in my opinion. Sydney reminds me more of San Diego (a BIG San Diego).

[Lydon]

Originally Posted by Corith

Come to think of it, are there any other cities/regions with similar characteristics to LA (weather, beaches, city life, etc.) outside of the US?

Only Sydney and perhaps Rio de Janeiro come to mind.

Cape Town...

[Rail Claimore]

With LA's climate? I can't think of any that approach its size. The closest two would be Santiago and Perth. The area's landscape and weather are truly its greatest gifts.

[mobus]

I would say its a top contender, along with Sydney, Vancouver, Rio De Janeiro, Cape Town and perhaps San Francisco. Rolling mountain ranges, alongside desserts, it's pretty perfect to me:

image hosted on flickr

City of Angeles by trevornsmith, on Flickr

[Westsidelife]

I see people are still misunderstanding the question. If we're talking about raw natural beauty, Rio and Sydney and Cape Town blow LA out of the water. In fact, I wouldn't even put LA in the conversation.

I'm talking about a combination of natural beauty and geographic convenience and how those two influence the local lifestyle.

[mobus]

Raw natural beauty, how is that any different from just natural beauty? The same goes for Geographic convenience, etc.

[Westsidelife]

^ Rio, Sydney, and Cape Town. Those cities have raw natural beauty in the sense that it is palpable and readily on display.

LA's natural beauty is dependent upon certain angles and certain conditions (i.e. after a rainstorm when there's less pollution).

Geographic convenience is something that neither Sydney nor Cape Town possess. Too isolated from the rest of the world.

[mobus]

I see what you mean now.

[saiholmes]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

^ Rio, Sydney, and Cape Town. Those cities have raw natural beauty in the sense that it is palpable and readily on display.

LA's natural beauty is dependent upon certain angles and certain conditions (i.e. after a rainstorm when there's less pollution).

Geographic convenience is something that neither Sydney nor Cape Town possess. Too isolated from the rest of the world.

It's marine layer.

From: http://www.who.int/entity/phe/health...P_database.xls

Annual mean PM10
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale, CA: 25
Paris, France: 92

WHO | World Health Organization
Public Health and Environment (PHE)
Database: outdoor air pollution in cities
http://www.who.int/phe/health_topics.../en/index.html