SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
samy316
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hello all,

This is my second post, and I wanted to get right to it by asking you NYC folk a question. I know that NYC is typically regarded as the top city in America as far as finance, entertainment, and media. Since you all have everything at your fingertips, I wanted to ask you all which city comes the closest on the east coast as far as these elements are concerned, along with quality of life and convenience? These cities would include Boston, Philly, Baltimore & Washington D.C. Also, which of these cities would you rather live in if you were leaving NYC, but were still going to be on the East Coast?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
Welcome. I don't usually post in this forum, but as someone who has lived in NYC, Chicago, and London in addition to visiting all of the cities you've mentioned, there isn't a city that compares on the East Coast and really anywhere in North America for that matter. It's one of the three most important financial centers in the world (if not, the most important). It is second to LA in terms of the entertainment industry in the US, and it is the media capital of the US (with maybe only London ahead globally).

In terms of finance, NYC dominates the region, so you'd need to look outside of the Northeast to find anything remotely close (Chicago and San Francisco for example). Nothing is close, but in terms of the closest in North America for urban environments (AKA not LA) with the things you've mentioned, I'd pick Toronto and Chicago as the closest.

Looking at your choices, though:

Finance: Boston/Philadelphia, then DC, then Baltimore
Media: DC, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore
Entertainment: DC/Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore
 

·
LAL | LAD | LAK
Joined
·
6,477 Posts
Nothing is close, but in terms of the closest in North America for urban environments (AKA not LA) with the things you've mentioned, I'd pick Toronto and Chicago as the closest.
If you exclude NYC, Los Angeles basically has a monopoly on the entertainment and media sectors. So, I don't know why you'd exclude Los Angeles.
 

·
LAL | LAD | LAK
Joined
·
6,477 Posts
^ I know. We've been down this road several times already (in general), so I really didn't want to do it again.

But if people insist...

The ten densest zip codes in California

1 94109 San Francisco San Francisco, CA 50,340.3
2 90057 Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 48,199.9
3 94102 San Francisco San Francisco, CA 44,886.3
4 94108 San Francisco San Francisco, CA 40,682.4
5 90020 Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 35,415.6
6 94133 San Francisco San Francisco, CA 34,339.5
7 90005 Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 32,442.0
8 90006 Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 32,310.3
9 90017 Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA 30,801.9
10 94110 San Francisco San Francisco, CA 29,991.8


Bus ridership statistics

Los Angeles: 1,271,000 (weekday average)
Toronto: 1,197,000
Chicago: 952,800
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
^ I know. We've been down this road several times already (in general), so I really didn't want to do it again.

But if people insist...
If people insist on the topic and you take issue with it, take it up with the thread starter. As someone has mentioned, I'm talking about the urban environment, with a traditional CBD. LA has a CBD, but it's just a different metro model altogether. Not a worse model. Not a better model. Just a different model.
 

·
LAL | LAD | LAK
Joined
·
6,477 Posts
^ The term you're looking for is "polycentric". Plenty of cities around the world follow a similar urban paradigm. London, Tokyo, Paris, and even NYC (Midtown, Lower, Downtown Brooklyn, Jersey City, etc.) immediately come to mind.
 

·
LAL | LAD | LAK
Joined
·
6,477 Posts
To address the topic of the thread, I'd say Philadelphia is definitely the closest match in look and feel.

But we're also talking about the three sectors mentioned (finance, entertainment, and media), so I'll say Toronto resembles NYC the most (in NA) from that perspective.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
29,102 Posts
Overall Toronto. In U.S. probably Philadelphia. Though I'm talking about the look, feel, urbanity etc. not statistical information per sector (doesn't interest me).

But Philadelphia's downtown definitely looks the most like Manhattan
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,339 Posts
Good shot. Looks like you lied down on the floor for that one. I'd have to say Philly aswell btw. I really wouldn't like to live in any of those cities but if I HAD to choose, I'd choose Boston.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
^ The term you're looking for is "polycentric". Plenty of cities around the world follow a similar urban paradigm. London, Tokyo, Paris, and even NYC (Midtown, Lower, Downtown Brooklyn, Jersey City, etc.) immediately come to mind.
You could look at it that way, but really what I was looking for was the differentiation between cities where the CBD (or in the case of polycentric cities, multiple CBDs) developed pre or post the emergence of the automobile. In the case of NYC, it undoubtedly has multiple CBDs, however, all of them were developed pre automobile and as a result all of them are in relatively close proximity to one another. The distance between all four areas you've cited is a maximum of 3 miles.
 

·
LAL | LAD | LAK
Joined
·
6,477 Posts
^ Los Angeles was what you would call a "real" city with a "real" city center back in the day. Then came the post-war era and the subsequent suburban sprawl.

It's important to distinguish between CBD and neighborhood. Realistically, LA's only got 3-4 CBD's (lots of satellite cities, though). Three of LA's four CBD's were built during the pre-war era. Those three (Downtown, Hollywood, Mid-Wilshire) are connected by one single subway line.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
5,837 Posts
I like LA. Many apologies for past bashings. I want to photograph LA similar to what I'm doing for NY.... someday when I get my bike back on the road I think that is what I'll do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,339 Posts
Three of LA's four CBD's were built during the pre-war era. Those three (Downtown, Hollywood, Mid-Wilshire) are connected by one single subway line.
Interesting. I've heard people complain(even in the LA forum)how the subway doesn't go anywhere. I'm guessing LA doesn't function around these specific CBD's like NY would?
 

·
LAL | LAD | LAK
Joined
·
6,477 Posts
My apologies if it appears like I'm hijacking this thread. I already addressed the thread topic when I thought Philly and Toronto the closest matches.

Interesting. I've heard people complain(even in the LA forum)how the subway doesn't go anywhere. I'm guessing LA doesn't function around these specific CBD's like NY would?
I wouldn't say that it doesn't go anywere. Downtown, Hollywood, Mid-Wilshire, Long Beach, Universal City, and Pasadena are important stops.

It just isn't developed enough. The entire Westside remains underserved by rail.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
130 Posts
My apologies if it appears like I'm hijacking this thread. I already addressed the thread topic when I thought Philly and Toronto the closest matches.

I wouldn't say that it doesn't go anywere. Downtown, Hollywood, Mid-Wilshire, Long Beach, Universal City, and Pasadena are important stops.

It just isn't developed enough. The entire Westside remains underserved by rail.
I'll share the thread-jacking responsibility here. My in-laws live in Pasadena, and at least in that area, they're well-served by rail transit. Whenever we visit, I inevitably need to go into the LA office for a day and a half of work. It's not urban transit in the NYC sense where there are stops every few blocks or even every mile in outlying places. It's a hybrid between commuter and urban rail, and it is incredibly underrated. Compared to what I see in Chicago, it is clean, cheap, efficient, and very reliable. The system isn't necessarily extensive, but what it serves it does very well.

I can understand the arguments from some that the train doesn't go "anywhere". Westside pointed out that the CBDs are reasonably old in LA, but they've evolved organically in response to the post auto boom LA went through in the 50s to 70s in particular. LA's growth coincided with the car boom, so the CBDs had more incentive to adapt to the auto world. LA and DC are both 3 times larger in 2000 than they were in 1950. I don't think it's a coincidence that their transit feels the same. The older big cities like New York, Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, and Chicago only grew 40 to 80 percent larger in the same time frame, so the CBDs didn't have the same pressure to accomodate cars. It makes it easier to serve commuters in a traditional public transit model.

Commuters from bedroom communities required that downtown LA adapt to different commuting patterns, so more parking is needed, streets are wider, and highrises are further apart. The walk to and from the train is the most difficult part of the commute. Still, a door to door 8 mile commute from Del Mar to downtown in 45 minutes is better than most can do in NY or Chicago. The train is a bit empty, but I'll take my seat and comfortable ride there any day.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
I'll share the thread-jacking responsibility here. My in-laws live in Pasadena, and at least in that area, they're well-served by rail transit. Whenever we visit, I inevitably need to go into the LA office for a day and a half of work. It's not urban transit in the NYC sense where there are stops every few blocks or even every mile in outlying places. It's a hybrid between commuter and urban rail, and it is incredibly underrated. Compared to what I see in Chicago, it is clean, cheap, efficient, and very reliable. The system isn't necessarily extensive, but what it serves it does very well.

I can understand the arguments from some that the train doesn't go "anywhere". Westside pointed out that the CBDs are reasonably old in LA, but they've evolved organically in response to the post auto boom LA went through in the 50s to 70s in particular. LA's growth coincided with the car boom, so the CBDs had more incentive to adapt to the auto world. LA and DC are both 3 times larger in 2000 than they were in 1950. I don't think it's a coincidence that their transit feels the same. The older big cities like New York, Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, and Chicago only grew 40 to 80 percent larger in the same time frame, so the CBDs didn't have the same pressure to accomodate cars. It makes it easier to serve commuters in a traditional public transit model.

Commuters from bedroom communities required that downtown LA adapt to different commuting patterns, so more parking is needed, streets are wider, and highrises are further apart. The walk to and from the train is the most difficult part of the commute. Still, a door to door 8 mile commute from Del Mar to downtown in 45 minutes is better than most can do in NY or Chicago. The train is a bit empty, but I'll take my seat and comfortable ride there any day.
Criticism of LA's rapid transit system always comes across as absurd to me. That LA even considered, let alone built, such a system is a testament to that city's ability to exercise forward thinking. LA topography is not laid out for massive coverage rapid transit. Anyone who thinks that the LA basin, the valley, and far flung parts of the city and the metro area with which it is so intertwined can be blanketed with rapid transit lines is nuts.

So LA did what it could to operate within those parameters and build a system designed on key connections in its densest parts. Obviously the Westside (no doubt via the Wilshire corridor) will have to be included. There is no way that areas like BH, Westwood, Century City, and SM can be left without connection. But this system was never designed to hit every nook and cranny in LA and with all of DT LA's incredible growth, it is still never destined to serve the roles that DT Chgo and SF and Midtown Manhattan serve for their cities. LA's power is defused over far more power points than what you see in those cities.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top