A question for the people on my friends list (especially those of you living on the west coast): If you could choose from the following cities to live and work in, which one would you pick, and why
( Read more... )
Hmm, I've never lived anywhere with a really high population density, so I don't know if I'd be bothered by that. When I was in Seoul a couple of years ago I definitely noticed the humongous numbers of people walking around the city streets at all hours of the day, but I wasn't too bothered by it at the time, so I think I could adjust if I had to.
What kind of city would I like to live in...I'm not really sure, but I'd like a change of pace from where I'm currently living (a small college town in the northeast, with not much to do and really sucky weather). So I guess I'd like to live in a really big city in the southwest with lots to do every night and beautiful weather year-round. ;)
I was actually leaning towards Santa Monica, that is if I don't end up in NYC (almost all of my family lives upstate, so that's a factor too). Mostly because the weather there is the exact opposite of what we get here. :D But is LA really *that* bad? And is Santa Monica close enough to LA that it would suck there too? I'm honestly pretty clueless about what either city is like.
(Btw, I am eventually going to reply to the atheism comment from the other day, just haven't had the time yet.)
I don't think LA sucks at all. I lived there for the previous year and only moved out to "The Valley" (the suburb just north of LA) b/c I found a great deal on an apartment there.
You need a car in LA. Public transportation is terrible and not worth attempting. Plus, it won't go as far as you like b/c people consider LA to be not the "city of" but the "county of". I actually lived in the city of LA, but drove 4.5 miles through Beverly Hills (also LA) into Century City (also "LA") everyday. At rush hour, the 4.5 miles took 45 minutes driving. 1 hour bus time (if the bus went as far as it claimed).
The "LA" that people typically dislike is downtown/E.LA because of the dirtiness. There's also a bit of distaste among the literati for Hollywood with its lack of academic-style intelligence.
However, Santa Monica is far from all that. It's on the West Side (actually on the ocean!). It's very, very close to UCLA, so there's a huge population of smart people. But it's the bohemian side of West LA . . . not including Venice (but it's, generally, nicer than Venice).
Lots of people: The most Seoul-like is going to be NYC, because LA County spreads out it's dense population over more space.
Recommendation: If you've never left the East Coast and all of your family lives there, I very much recommend getting out and seeing places. [My parents had a rule that I had to go far enough away for college that I couldn't come home on weekends. I have always been happy about that rule.]
The East Coast and the West Coast are so . . . indefinably different that it's great to live both places and see which works for you. Plus, NY is really a state unto itself (with commonality in OH, but that's it).
If you're looking to throw yourself into a complete opposite: Santa Monica is the way to go. Plus, gorgeous weather and views, and a million things to go do all within 15 miles of wherever you live.
For ultimate comfort: People who settle into the Silicon Valley side of the Bay Area adore it. It's comfy like a suburb, with more to do than a general one. Plus, you're near three major cities -- San Jose (the "local"), Oakland (the "edgy"), and San Francisco (the "City").
Kirkland is probably the least exciting, but also the most laid-back. It may ease you into the West Coast thing better than anywhere else.
I'd say "move to S.M. so we can hang out" but heavens know when I'm moving again.
It took me awhile of living in Berkeley to figure out that the high population density bothered me. So I guess that's something you're just going to have to figure out by living somewhere with a high density!
Yes, I would say that LA is really *that* bad, but again, it's something you'd have to figure out for yourself. Lots of people love the place. (And, like the poster above mentioned, when I say "LA" I mean the county, not the city, so I'm lumping Santa Monica and the Valley and everything else in with the city proper.)
LA has lots to do, but you might not want to do any of it because it involves driving and parking. When I moved to Tucson with R, who was living in LA before that, he suddenly became excited about seeing bands play again. Because instead of driving through traffic for 90 minutes, he only had to drive an easy 10 minutes. And instead of searching high and low for overpriced parking, he could park for free on the curb right outside the venue. And instead of paying $30 he had to pay $10. And instead of being in a crowded venue unable to get a good view of the band, he could find the best place to stand and not be packed in like a sardine.
So, that is one example of how a smaller town might be better than a place like LA. Sure, there is a ton of stuff to do. But the prospect of actually doing it might be daunting. If I lived in LA I'd find a nice quiet house in walking distance to a market and never leave my home other than to do grocery runs.
There are just too many people in LA. I am of the opinion that they, along with the rest of Southern California, need a major plague (ideally, one that targets people I don't like). Everything about the region is incredible, but unfortunately too many people have discovered that, and by descending upon the area en masse they have transformed it into an incredibly HORRIBLE region. It's why I left. I'd move back in a second if at least half the people died/left.
What kind of city would I like to live in...I'm not really sure, but I'd like a change of pace from where I'm currently living (a small college town in the northeast, with not much to do and really sucky weather). So I guess I'd like to live in a really big city in the southwest with lots to do every night and beautiful weather year-round. ;)
I was actually leaning towards Santa Monica, that is if I don't end up in NYC (almost all of my family lives upstate, so that's a factor too). Mostly because the weather there is the exact opposite of what we get here. :D But is LA really *that* bad? And is Santa Monica close enough to LA that it would suck there too? I'm honestly pretty clueless about what either city is like.
(Btw, I am eventually going to reply to the atheism comment from the other day, just haven't had the time yet.)
Reply
You need a car in LA. Public transportation is terrible and not worth attempting. Plus, it won't go as far as you like b/c people consider LA to be not the "city of" but the "county of". I actually lived in the city of LA, but drove 4.5 miles through Beverly Hills (also LA) into Century City (also "LA") everyday. At rush hour, the 4.5 miles took 45 minutes driving. 1 hour bus time (if the bus went as far as it claimed).
The "LA" that people typically dislike is downtown/E.LA because of the dirtiness. There's also a bit of distaste among the literati for Hollywood with its lack of academic-style intelligence.
However, Santa Monica is far from all that. It's on the West Side (actually on the ocean!). It's very, very close to UCLA, so there's a huge population of smart people. But it's the bohemian side of West LA . . . not including Venice (but it's, generally, nicer than Venice).
Lots of people:
The most Seoul-like is going to be NYC, because LA County spreads out it's dense population over more space.
Recommendation:
If you've never left the East Coast and all of your family lives there, I very much recommend getting out and seeing places. [My parents had a rule that I had to go far enough away for college that I couldn't come home on weekends. I have always been happy about that rule.]
The East Coast and the West Coast are so . . . indefinably different that it's great to live both places and see which works for you. Plus, NY is really a state unto itself (with commonality in OH, but that's it).
If you're looking to throw yourself into a complete opposite: Santa Monica is the way to go. Plus, gorgeous weather and views, and a million things to go do all within 15 miles of wherever you live.
For ultimate comfort: People who settle into the Silicon Valley side of the Bay Area adore it. It's comfy like a suburb, with more to do than a general one. Plus, you're near three major cities -- San Jose (the "local"), Oakland (the "edgy"), and San Francisco (the "City").
Kirkland is probably the least exciting, but also the most laid-back. It may ease you into the West Coast thing better than anywhere else.
I'd say "move to S.M. so we can hang out" but heavens know when I'm moving again.
Reply
Yes, I would say that LA is really *that* bad, but again, it's something you'd have to figure out for yourself. Lots of people love the place. (And, like the poster above mentioned, when I say "LA" I mean the county, not the city, so I'm lumping Santa Monica and the Valley and everything else in with the city proper.)
LA has lots to do, but you might not want to do any of it because it involves driving and parking. When I moved to Tucson with R, who was living in LA before that, he suddenly became excited about seeing bands play again. Because instead of driving through traffic for 90 minutes, he only had to drive an easy 10 minutes. And instead of searching high and low for overpriced parking, he could park for free on the curb right outside the venue. And instead of paying $30 he had to pay $10. And instead of being in a crowded venue unable to get a good view of the band, he could find the best place to stand and not be packed in like a sardine.
So, that is one example of how a smaller town might be better than a place like LA. Sure, there is a ton of stuff to do. But the prospect of actually doing it might be daunting. If I lived in LA I'd find a nice quiet house in walking distance to a market and never leave my home other than to do grocery runs.
There are just too many people in LA. I am of the opinion that they, along with the rest of Southern California, need a major plague (ideally, one that targets people I don't like). Everything about the region is incredible, but unfortunately too many people have discovered that, and by descending upon the area en masse they have transformed it into an incredibly HORRIBLE region. It's why I left. I'd move back in a second if at least half the people died/left.
So, how's that for misanthropic!!
Reply
Leave a comment