Both cities are awful and should be crossed off your list unless you are really, REALLY wealthy and/or have no other options.
Both cities are awful and should be crossed off your list unless you are really, REALLY wealthy and/or have no other options.
chicago sucks too wrote:
NYC sucks. Dirty, cold, rundown, expensive, filled with dbags.
LA isn't perfect either. Traffic is a bitch. Mass sprawl, but there is some urbanity too. Some areas are downright scary, others are ritzy as hell. Some dbags around, but not as many as NYC.
Overall though, LA thoroughly kicks the crap out of NYC in the categories of food, weather, culture/values/vibe, and outdoor recreational activities both around town and within a day's drive. Overall a much better place to live.
Honestly- NYC is MUCH better than LA but I always felt that the only way to live in NYC is if you have enough money to get out when you want to.
Seriously look at the smaller towns around NY.
Why is it that people who live in LA/Chicago/NYC only consider living in those three places? Do they not realize there are plenty of other unique metropolises that are enjoyable places to live? Do they only feel adequate when spending half their paycheck on rent nestled among 10 million other restless souls? Are their grandiose visions of themselves only satisfied by living in a seemingly grandiose city? Do they enjoy traffic jams?
LA is nice, but you have to know what you're doing. Living close to where you work is paramount, since the cross city commute is killer (even if you have convenient Metro access) - even worse is the commute between the valley and the basin. If you work around Downtown proper then living anywhere in North East or North Central LA is going to give you a short commute and really good trail access. There's also going to be a lot to do.
LookinToMove wrote:
chicago sucks too wrote:NYC sucks. Dirty, cold, rundown, expensive, filled with dbags.
LA isn't perfect either. Traffic is a bitch. Mass sprawl, but there is some urbanity too. Some areas are downright scary, others are ritzy as hell. Some dbags around, but not as many as NYC.
Overall though, LA thoroughly kicks the crap out of NYC in the categories of food, weather, culture/values/vibe, and outdoor recreational activities both around town and within a day's drive. Overall a much better place to live.
The outdoor recreational activities is a big one for me. I have a large, active dog and I know he'd be more enriched in LA.
But the traffic in LA is a big drawback. I couldn't spend 2 hours commuting while my dog is at home waiting for me.
What kind of work do you do? What kind of living space do you have now?
Both cities eat a** and perfectly capture our sinking ship of a society.
OP, as a normal guy who likes Chicago, I would tell you to head to NYC.
To the guy who said LA has the Playboy Mansion... well, that guy is LA in a nut shell. If partying at the Playboy Mansion is a goal of yours, by all means move to LA.
My honest opinion would be look at other cities like Austin, Portland and the Bay area. If you want East Coast, Boston is a great city.
You sound rather un-tethered by a job...?
I'm sorry, I should have given more details in my original post.
I'm leaning towards NYC, but open to other options. Yes, outdoor activities are important to me, particularly with regards to my dog. Despite living in downtown Chicago, there are still plenty of ways to get him exercise. We have easy beach access, and there are plenty of parks for him to run around.
Long walks aren't enough for him. The dog really needs to stretch his legs and run at top speed. I'm concerned about his ability to do that in NYC.
But more important than outdoor activities is the social setting. I'm 31 and single. I'd like to meet a nice woman and settle down. I think that NYC is well suited. Maybe LA is too?
The Upper West Side has one of the greatest dog friendly parks in Riverside Park. Off leash hours 9pm to 9am your dog can run as fast and as far as he likes.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8019794,-73.9677934,15z
You can meet women anywhere you want. NY or LA or anywhere in between. Personally, if I was younger I'd move to a place like Austin, however, it all depends on what your goals are. It's worth considering how such a move works with your career goals- that is if you have an idea of what they are.
If you have to move to a large city Boston, DC, Seattle, SF & Denver are all better options than NYC or LA.
Orange wrote:
... living anywhere in North East or North Central LA is going to give you a short commute and really good trail access. There's also going to be a lot to do.
I grew up in New York/DC, lived/worked in SF Bay Area for about 25 years, now in Florida for family reasons.
In a few years I'd like to get back to California and I'm focusing on just those areas of LA that you mention. I don't have to work anymore but I'd like to be close to Downtown LA for cultural/sports access while still having trail access and a reasonably safe neighborhood.
Eagle Rock, Mt Washington, and such seem to satisfy those criteria. And housing prices are much more sane than Bay Area.
There's simply nothing like California weather.
NYC just shot itself by electing that DeeBeeClownDJ wannabe mayor.
The only question now is: was it just in the foot or was it a kill shot to the brain?
I love NYC I'm it's biggest supporter-a real 'homer' but I may have heard the death knell when he gave Sharpton a seat at the table.
It's not a Black and White thing it's a matter of gravitas.
I can no longer champion my town...
Surprised not to hear anyone crying about earthquakes and fires yet. In NYC all we've got now for natural disasters is hurricanes.
First Tier-Washington, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Minnesota, Michigan, Vermont, New Hampshire, MaineSecond Tier-Oregon, Idaho, Wyoming, South Dakota, Wisconsin, MassachusettsThird Tier-California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania (just barely) New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island.How's that for credibility.
Absurd wrote:
You lost all credibility when you called California a third-tier state.
whats the/your criteria
Figure it out. There's a pattern.
no one wrote:
whats the/your criteria
Whyyyyyyy? is just looking at the map. Of course by this method Texas and Florida are in the bottom tier and deservedly so.
MarathonMind wrote:
Surprised not to hear anyone crying about earthquakes and fires yet. In NYC all we've got now for natural disasters is hurricanes.
Is this the best rap non-Californians have on us? I've lived in California my whole life. My day-to-day routine has never been affected by a fire, and the 5 earthquakes I've felt were nothing but a slight curiosity that caused me to pause for 10 seconds.
NYC has way worse weather and way worse that can go wrong. Terrorism, hurricanes, crippling snowfall, etc.
Natural hazards in California area actually pretty minimal
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/01/weekinreview/01safe.html?_r=0Actually, I find the smugness nauseating. That's the worst part of California.
al rooker wrote:
MarathonMind wrote:Surprised not to hear anyone crying about earthquakes and fires yet. In NYC all we've got now for natural disasters is hurricanes.
Is this the best rap non-Californians have on us? I've lived in California my whole life. My day-to-day routine has never been affected by a fire, and the 5 earthquakes I've felt were nothing but a slight curiosity that caused me to pause for 10 seconds.
NYC has way worse weather and way worse that can go wrong. Terrorism, hurricanes, crippling snowfall, etc.
Natural hazards in California area actually pretty minimal
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/05/01/weekinreview/01safe.html?_r=0