# Los Angeles becomes New York City



## Joey313 (May 2, 2006)

who thinks Los angeles will ever become a west side New York city
New York City








OR Los Angels


----------



## Joey313 (May 2, 2006)

what if just what if


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

What do you mean? In terms of population? importance? or just skyline?

It will never have skyline like New Yorks, the two cities are laid out too differently. LA's density is more spread out New Yorks and not concentrated nearly as much as NYC and never will be.

In terms of importance to the world, LA is already so important. Los Angeles is the capital of the entertainment industry and is the counterpart to NYC in so many ways.


----------



## LANative (Aug 28, 2005)

Your joking right?


----------



## Joey313 (May 2, 2006)

EtherealMist said:


> What do you mean? In terms of population? importance? or just skyline?
> 
> It will never have skyline like New Yorks, the two cities are laid out too differently. LA's density is more spread out New Yorks and not concentrated nearly as much as NYC and never will be.
> 
> In terms of importance to the world, LA is already so important. Los Angeles is the capital of the entertainment industry and is the counterpart to NYC in so many ways.


in every thing


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

I honestly don't think even one person will think that Los Angeles will become New York City #2. If there is one person, I think he/she will recieve much of :bash: .


----------



## The Cebuano Exultor (Aug 1, 2005)

*Maybe.*

Los Angeles is getting denser by the day because the population is growing rapidly (with many Latino immigrants--legal and illegal) but with the maximum geographic reaches already reached. I'm guessing that Los Angeles *city* will be as dense as Manhattan 100 years from now. Hehehe . That is because Manhattan is just extremely dense. It would take years for even downtown L.A. to be as dense. But if your asking when the entire urbanized area of Greter Los Angeles (Los Angeles Consolidated Metropolitan Area) will be as dense as Manhattan, then never is the answer.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

EtherealMist said:


> What do you mean? In terms of population? importance? or just skyline?
> 
> It will never have skyline like New Yorks, the two cities are laid out too differently. LA's density is more spread out New Yorks and not concentrated nearly as much as NYC and never will be.
> 
> In terms of importance to the world, LA is already so important. Los Angeles is the capital of the entertainment industry and is the counterpart to NYC in so many ways.


Yes LA is the centre of the entertainment industry but it is no way a counterpart to NYC on a worldwide basis. But locally yes because it's the most important city in the West Coast. Internationally NY is still more important to LA.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

If comparing everyting....Maybe
but just the skyline, only Chicago is worthy of comparing with NYC in USA. LA skyline isn't as tall, dense and sprawl as NYC and Chicago.


----------



## redspork02 (May 7, 2005)

I belive The Wilshire Corridor will Connect Century City(westside) to Downtown(eastside)


----------



## Joey313 (May 2, 2006)

The Cebuano Exultor said:


> Los Angeles is getting denser by the day because the population is growing rapidly (with many Latino immigrants--legal and illegal) but with the maximum geographic reaches already reached. I'm guessing that Los Angeles *city* will be as dense as Manhattan 100 years from now. Hehehe . That is because Manhattan is just extremely dense. It would take years for even downtown L.A. to be as dense. But if your asking when the entire urbanized area of Greter Los Angeles (Los Angeles Consolidated Metropolitan Area) will be as dense as Manhattan, then never is the answer.


It Did not actually take that long for los angeles skyline to be the way it is now only like 50 years and it stoped around the 1990s New york took like 100 years. well the building industry is staring again
so in antother 50 years we will be seeing some skyscrapers in L.A


----------



## Spooky873 (Mar 2, 2005)

it took 100 years and it has thousands more buildings. theres only a handful of cities in the world like NYC in terms of population, density, etc.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Joey313 said:


> It Did not actually take that long for los angeles skyline to be the way it is now only like 50 years and it stoped around the 1990s New york took like 100 years. well the building industry is staring again
> so in antother 50 years we will be seeing some skyscrapers in L.A


It never will surpass NYC skyline at least in our lifetime, just look at the earthquake activities in LA, you will understand why!


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Spooky873 said:


> it took 100 years and it has thousands more buildings. theres only a handful of cities in the world like NYC in terms of population, density, etc.


I agree!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Never will LA reach NY's scraper density. In fact it will even not reach Chicago's level! But I actually like the density and look of today's LA skyline.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

Joey313 said:


> It Did not actually take that long for los angeles skyline to be the way it is now only like 50 years and it stoped around the 1990s New york took like 100 years. well the building industry is staring again
> so in antother 50 years we will be seeing some skyscrapers in L.A


BTW, Joey, that pic of NYC is only the midtown part of skyline and LA skyline still has nothing on it! :runaway:


----------



## Joey313 (May 2, 2006)

which do you think will soon look like New York


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

WANCH said:


> Never will LA reach NY's scraper density. In fact it will even not reach Chicago's level! But I actually like the density and look of today's LA skyline.


Yea, I agree too!
You do the comparison on skyline, skyscraper and density on the following two cities:


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Joey313 said:


> which do you think will soon look like New York


None, each skyline is unique in it's own way. Though to me, HK is the only skyline that can rival NY


----------



## treboy (Apr 14, 2006)

It actually does not matter to me no matter how LA scenery with cluster of buildings resembles the scenery of NYC.
United State is just so powerful, rich and attractive that no country would match on the same level, and always viewed with lots of envy of other nations. :cheers:


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

RP1 said:


> I like the fact the downtown LA is growing and the skyline is improving, but I can't help but think that a lot of these new towers look kind of bland. Is it just a poor rendering, or what?


Maybe it's because the buildings are so far away?


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

Westsidelife said:


> Maybe it's because the buildings are so far away?


That's another thing I was thinking. From that angle many of them look bulky, and very similar in shape. I hope that's not the case.

I'd also like to see some girth, widen the skyline out a little and fill those gaps.


----------



## TheOldMan (Jul 1, 2005)

Why would LA have to become New York. LA can hang with any city in the world, in my opinion. with some of the projects under construction and proposed, LA will gain an increased element of urbanity that it needs. and like the Westsidelife just stated, there is plenty of development going on.But the last thing LA needs to do is become another New York. as far as im concerned LA has it all, beaches, beautiful scenery, diversity, an awesome night life/bar/club scene, and near perfect weather and is the entertainment capital of the Earth. New York has what .........more buildings.


----------



## Facial (Jun 21, 2004)

I see this thread as an attempted disguise of a city vs. city thread.


----------



## Joey313 (May 2, 2006)

truth hurts


----------



## Dampyre (Sep 19, 2002)

UrbanSophist said:


> ^^ Dude, we don't need to see the same pics many times on the same page!


Not only that but Chicago has nothing to do with this topic.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

TheOldMan said:


> Why would LA have to become New York. LA can hang with any city in the world, in my opinion. with some of the projects under construction and proposed, LA will gain an increased element of urbanity that it needs. and like the Westsidelife just stated, there is plenty of development going on.But the last thing LA needs to do is become another New York. as far as im concerned LA has it all, beaches, beautiful scenery, diversity, an awesome night life/bar/club scene, and near perfect weather and is the entertainment capital of the Earth. New York has what .........more buildings.


NY can come up with a more beautiful scenery as well. In fact I prefer NY's scenery from LA especially the outskirts especially Westchester and Long Island. NY has beaches as well not just Coney Island but Long Island as well. Nightlife, NY wins this one. It's a 24 hour city. 

NY more buildings? How about a stronger financial institution, centre of the world stock market, house a majority of the Fortune 500 companies and is the HQ of The United Nations.


----------



## LANative (Aug 28, 2005)

Facial said:


> I see this thread as an attempted disguise of a city vs. city thread.


Same thing I was thinking...


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

LANative said:


> Same thing I was thinking...


Well in that case,

:lock: :lock: :lock: :lock: :lock:


----------



## Skybean (Jun 16, 2004)

This is absurd. How can one city become another?


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

LA is just fine the way it is and I'm glad it breaks the mold.


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

TheOldMan said:


> New York has what .........more buildings.



...right...


Los Angeles is an amazing city and very different from NYC. We all know it will never be nearly as dense or have nearly massive a core as New York, but that doesnt matter because LA has many other things going for it.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

mongozx said:


> Los Angeles will never be like NYC *and doesn't want to be like NYC*. Both mega cities are on opposite ends of the physical spectrum. One is the king of vertical urbanity while the other is the king of horizontal urbanity. End of thread.


Very well explain! And I would add that Chicago is the only one with BOTH, da extreme vertical urbanity and extreme horzontal sprawl suburbanity!


----------



## LANative (Aug 28, 2005)

WANCH said:


> Well in that case,
> 
> :lock: :lock: :lock: :lock: :lock:


Well its a real retarded question for one. The title of this thread "Los Angeles becoming New York City" sounds stupid alone.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

LANative said:


> Well its a real retarded question for one. The title of this thread "Los Angeles becoming New York City" sounds stupid alone.


Yea, now after rereading the thread title, it does sounded absurd!


----------



## TheOldMan (Jul 1, 2005)

WANCH said:


> NY can come up with a more beautiful scenery as well. In fact I prefer NY's scenery from LA especially the outskirts especially Westchester and Long Island. NY has beaches as well not just Coney Island but Long Island as well. Nightlife, NY wins this one. It's a 24 hour city.
> 
> NY more buildings? How about a stronger financial institution, centre of the world stock market, house a majority of the Fortune 500 companies and is the HQ of The United Nations.



um, how can New York "come up" with more scenery. is there a mountain range that is about to spring up that i dont know about. true NYC has strong finance and corporate presence. but that is more than offset by LAs Entertainment and Cinema industry. LA is also a 24 hour city as well, so that is pretty much a draw.you still have weather problem for a signifigant amount of the year in NY.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

TheOldMan said:


> um, how can New York "come up" with more scenery. is there a mountain range that is about to spring up that i dont know about. true NYC has strong finance and corporate presence. but that is more than offset by LAs Entertainment and Cinema industry. LA is also a 24 hour city as well, so that is pretty much a draw.you still have weather problem for a signifigant amount of the year in NY.


I meant to say more attractive scenery  And sometimes, I prefer NY's scenery compared to LA.

Anyway, I've been to both cities and I find NY more vibrant compared to LA. LA does have some nightlife but most clubs close around 2 am.


----------



## Method101 (Nov 16, 2005)

TheOldMan said:


> um, how can New York "come up" with more scenery. is there a mountain range that is about to spring up that i dont know about. true NYC has strong finance and corporate presence. but that is more than offset by LAs Entertainment and Cinema industry. LA is also a 24 hour city as well, so that is pretty much a draw.you still have weather problem for a signifigant amount of the year in NY.



LA a 24 hour city???? please nigroid......


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Method101 said:


> LA a 24 hour city???? please nigroid......


Agree. Most establishments I see that are open 24 hours are the drive-thru fastfood places.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

WANCH said:


> Agree. Most establishments I see that are open 24 hours are the drive-thru fastfood places.


LOL, what is wrong with love, yum..yum!  :cheers:


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> LOL, what is wrong with love, yum..yum!  :cheers:


As for fastfood, there was one time I was staying at my uncle's place in Carson and the nearby fastfood chains were Taco Bell and Jack In The Box. Both had 24 hour drive-thru. I commuted most of the time in LA, in other words I didn't have a car. I was very hungry at that time and the mofos at both chains didn't offer to serve me food because I didn't have a car. But I had the money


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

My sense is that the New York-Los Angeles comparisons will become less and less relevant in time. They are based on a paradigm that looks at cities in the context of the United States...and that context will weaken in an increasingly global world.

LA is not NY, never will be. ANd that is not a put down to LA. It's just a completely different city in a completely different region, a region that looks out across the Pacific to Asia and down to Latin America in a way that more eurocentric NYC never will. 

Is there any doubt that at some time, the comparisons between LA and HK and Tokyo will be as relevant as those between LA and NY....as LA increasingly links itself to the econmic activities of the surrounding Pacific Rim?


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

edsg25 said:


> My sense is that the New York-Los Angeles comparisons will become less and less relevant in time. They are based on a paradigm that looks at cities in the context of the United States...and that context will weaken in an increasingly global world.
> 
> LA is not NY, never will be. ANd that is not a put down to LA. It's just a completely different city in a completely different region, a region that looks out across the Pacific to Asia and down to Latin America in a way that more eurocentric NYC never will.
> 
> Is there any doubt that at some time, the comparisons between LA and HK and Tokyo will be as relevant as those between LA and NY....as LA increasingly links itself to the econmic activities of the surrounding Pacific Rim?


NYC is not all eurocentric but it also looks at Latin America as well. And as for comparisons, LA is best compared with Tokyo than with HK.


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

LA's skyline will look drastically change!

All LA need is to infill between all of those tall buildings with more buildings...

Could LA just build one building with a spire or antennea? One building won't hurt...


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Azn_chi_boi said:


> LA's skyline will look drastically change!
> 
> All LA need is to infill between all of those tall buildings with more buildings...
> 
> Could LA just build one building with a spire or antennea? One building won't hurt...


I can't imagine LA's skyline with at least one or two spired buildings. But I think the reason why LA scrapers don't have spire because they have helipads on the top.

How about a building taller than The US Bank Tower?


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

WANCH said:


> I can't imagine LA's skyline with at least one or two spired buildings. But I think the reason why LA scrapers don't have spire because they have helipads on the top.
> 
> How about a building taller than The US Bank Tower?


There are two reasons for LA's skyscrapers don't need spire or antenna on them.
1) They already have antenna towers(because of earthquake!)
2) LA doesn't have the crazy *lighting* showers like what we have here in Chicago! 

It is tuf in LA to build even a skyscrapers that is taller than US bank tower due to the weak foundation with frequent earthquakes!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> There are two reasons for LA's skyscrapers don't need spire or antenna on them.
> 1) They already have antenna towers
> 2) LA doesn't have the crazy *lighting* showers like what we have here in Chicago!
> 
> It is tuf in LA to build even a skyscrapers that is taller than US bank tower due to the weak foundation with frequent earthquakes!


Well if Chicago gets alot of them, then NY as well?


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

WANCH said:


> Well if Chicago gets alot of them, then NY as well?


Yes, NYC does getting some lighting now and then when our chicago weather systems moving east towards NYC and they get what we got! :cheers:


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

oh another reason why LA scapers don't have spire because they aren't that tall compare to the supertalls in chicago!


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> Yes, NYC does getting some lighting now and then when our chicago weather systems moving east towards NYC and they get what we got! :cheers:


Ok. Anyway, a little off topic but for HK, it's humid sometimes and we do get alot of rain and some thunderstorms. That's probably the reason why we have some mast crapers.


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

WANCH said:


> Ok. Anyway, a little off topic but for HK, it's humid sometimes and we do get alot of rain and some thunderstorms. That's probably the reason why we have some mast crapers.


I know! But HK has mountain hills, so you guys don't need that many spires on top of scrapers!


----------



## mid-town (Apr 15, 2006)

TheOldMan said:


> um, how can New York "come up" with more scenery. is there a mountain range that is about to spring up that i dont know about. true NYC has strong finance and corporate presence. but that is more than offset by LAs Entertainment and Cinema industry. LA is also a 24 hour city as well, so that is pretty much a draw.you still have weather problem for a signifigant amount of the year in NY.


I like NYC's sceney better. I don't really like mountains in the background of a city. NYC looks like it dominates the area around it. But the mountains behind LA makes it look like the mountains dominate LA. You have to drive 2 hours to get to those mountains anyway. In NYC, you go up 15 miles and there's the Hudson River with mansions sitting on the sides of the big hills or small mountains. You should see the along the Hudson River in the Fall. LA is nice though.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

edsg25 said:


> My sense is that the New York-Los Angeles comparisons will become less and less relevant in time. They are based on a paradigm that looks at cities in the context of the United States...and that context will weaken in an increasingly global world.
> 
> LA is not NY, never will be. ANd that is not a put down to LA. It's just a completely different city in a completely different region, a region that looks out across the Pacific to Asia and down to Latin America in a way that more eurocentric NYC never will.
> 
> Is there any doubt that at some time, the comparisons between LA and HK and Tokyo will be as relevant as those between LA and NY....as LA increasingly links itself to the econmic activities of the surrounding Pacific Rim?



well said. also, there is a building with a spire proposed. it is the city house tower at 50 stories. There is a law that states that any building in LA over a certain height needs a helipad for evacuation purposes, however, there is a new elevator technology that the city ahs signed off on that would lead the way for spires. Also, that pic with the Future LA skyline is missing at least 10 towers over 40 stories that will fill in those gaps. And this thread is nonsense. Why would LA want to be NYC? yes some aspects of NYC will be incorporated, but these aspects are not just unique to NYC, they are prevalent in all urban settings, IE tall buildings, density, pedestrian friendly development and mass transit. I think LA is always compared to NYC because of the size similarities. LA is not NYC, NYC is not LA and thank GOD.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

mid-town said:


> I like NYC's sceney better. I don't really like mountains in the background of a city. NYC looks like it dominates the area around it. But the mountains behind LA makes it look like the mountains dominate LA. You have to drive 2 hours to get to those mountains anyway. In NYC, you go up 15 miles and there's the Hudson River with mansions sitting on the sides of the big hills or small mountains. You should see the along the Hudson River in the Fall. LA is nice though.


i live 9 miles from downtown LA at the Base of the Angeles forest. i could be 7000 feet on top of a mountain in 30 minutes from DT LA, and i could be snowboarding at 8500 feet in less than an hour. And there are "Hills" all over LA, the Santa Monica Mountains, the Verdugos, etc etc.


----------



## Fern~Fern* (Nov 27, 2005)

^ Here we go again......... city vs city crap. I see the topic is LA/NY and all I see and read is about the fly over city.......


----------



## nygirl (Jul 14, 2003)

^^ big deal.


----------



## chicagogeorge (Nov 30, 2004)

Ferneynism said:


> ^ Here we go again......... city vs city crap. I see the topic is LA/NY and all* I see and read is about the fly over city*.......


The guy who started this thread is new to the forum, so I guess he/she does not know about the city vs city wars that once existed here. 


*
BTW, take your little flyover city crap and shove it up your ass, before I tell you to go jump in a fault line or something. Might this be the reason why the L.A. forum is so shitty? With people who make comments like that.*

Maybe the reason that so many people from the _flyover city_ are responding is because they are amused at the very idea that L.A. will once resemble NYC in skyline or urbanity. Hell, it doesn't even come close to that _flyover _city that you refer too. LOL!


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

And this city vs. city crap also exists in the real world. I think both cities compete with each other.


----------



## Fern~Fern* (Nov 27, 2005)

chicagogeorge said:


> ]
> BTW, take your little flyover city crap and shove it up your ass,
> 
> 
> ^ ouch!!!! lol*


----------



## mid-town (Apr 15, 2006)

Ferneynism said:


> ^ Here we go again......... city vs city crap. I see the topic is LA/NY and all I see and read is about the fly over city.......


I never said anything bad about LA. I just said I like NYC because you go from the flat city that dominates its area, up 15 miles, to the beautiful Hudson River Valley. And at the end of my comment, I said I liked LA. The scenery stuff was just my opinion.


----------



## TheOldMan (Jul 1, 2005)

Method101 said:


> LA a 24 hour city???? please nigroid......


wow, im impressed. can you explain exactly what a nigroid is. i am very curious. i have never heard that one before. respond at your convenience.


----------



## Fern~Fern* (Nov 27, 2005)

I give this thread 24 hours before it's shut down........ 

That's why per George, I'm going to grab my board and hit the waves. Then go home and clean up for my botox session..... :lol:


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

Westsidelife said:


> We have this new elevator technology thing so we can have spires now.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like them! great architecture. If even one of them is built it will be great for the city.





ferneynism said:


> Here we go again......... city vs city crap. I see the topic is LA/NY and all I see and read is about the fly over city.......


retarded and out of line...


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

Ferneynism said:


> ^Why do you even bother posting here at all???


clever.


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

NO city will ever, ever be New York. Period.


----------



## Fern~Fern* (Nov 27, 2005)

hydrogen said:


> NO city will ever, ever be New York. Period.



^ Obviously, like LA will always be LA, And even Chicago will always be Chicago..... And your point?


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

hydrogen said:


> NO city will ever, ever be New York. Period.


HK


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

WANCH said:


> HK


LOL, So is Chicago!


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

Ferneynism said:


> ^ Obviously, like LA will always be LA, And even Chicago will always be Chicago..... And your point?


Do you suffer from memory loss?

The opening post of this thread, which basically explains what the thread is supposed to be about states:



Joey313 said:


> who thinks Los angeles will ever become a west side New York city


LIKE I JUST SAID, NO city will be New York. 

Understand now?


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

WANCH said:


> HK


Wanch, HK is a great city with a lot going for it, but New York it is not.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

I kinda look at San Francisco as more of NY West, not LA!


----------



## i_am_hydrogen (Dec 9, 2004)

WANCH said:


> I kinda look at San Francisco as more of NY West, not LA!


There are definitely some similarities, mostly in terms of SF's built environment and its emphasis on finance. SF's financial district has actually been referred to as "Wall Street West." I'd say the cities in the U.S. that most resemble New York are SF and Chicago. But even they don't come close.


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

NYC has a size, density, and height that will hardly ever be matched. (Save for HK and Chi in terms of height)


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

WANCH said:


> I kinda look at San Francisco as more of NY West, not LA!


How about Chicago?


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> How about Chicago?


Chicago's not on the west coast...or anywhere near it for that matter


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

EtherealMist said:


> NYC has a size, density, and height that will hardly ever be matched. (Save for HK and Chi in terms of height)


Don't forget HK can match NYC's skyline in size and density. As for Chicago, it's in the Mid-West, not West Coast.

As for SF, it resembles NY in these aspects. Skyline, geography, vibrancy, public transportation, culture, finance, bridges and artistic creativity


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

WANCH said:


> Don't forget HK can match NYC's skyline in size and density. As for Chicago, it's in the Mid-West, not West Coast.


Well, HK is in Asia not west coast,lol! What is the point for name calling if we all know that big 3 are NYC, HK & Chicago!


----------



## ChicagoSkyline (Feb 24, 2005)

WANCH said:


> Don't forget HK can match NYC's skyline in size and density. As for Chicago, it's in the Mid-West, not West Coast.
> 
> As for SF, it resembles NY in these aspects. Skyline, geography, vibrancy, public transportation, culture, finance, bridges and artistic creativity


Well, if it has to be west coast...duh then SF has a better scale to NYC than LA, but still no other cities can closely level with NYC, not even Chicago!


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

Mosaic said:


> New York is New York and L.A. is L.A., there is nothing alike.


:yes: 

if LA were to "become" new york, it would be a sad day becuase lala land is fine just the way it is.

...and with that, i can put this pointless thread to rest...and do i mean pointless. :crazy:


----------

