Where to live?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Asher
Look up the word in a dictionary.

cosmopolitan adj., common to or representative of all or many parts of the world.

Sounds like L.A. to me.

[Asher]

It sounds like any city above 100,000 people in size.

[Dinner]

LA does have bad pollution, it does have bad traffic, the subway and metro rail don't extend far enough, the crime rate is fairly high though uneven (rich white areas have very low and poor black areas have very high), the most certainly isn't enough green space. That said it is extremely cosmopolitan; which is what we are discussing I believe.

I'd even go so far as to say I'd rather live in Toronto then LA given the above but there is no way Toronto is more cosmopolitan or more key to international business. LA is up there with places like Tokyo, New York, and London in that field. Toronto isn't. The amount of tourism in LA vs Toronto speaks for itself. There is simply more to see and do there.

[Zkribbler]

...and it never snows in L.A.

[Dinner]

It does in the mountains but that's another attraction. Surfing and skiing in the same day in the same city.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oerdin
more key to international business. LA is up there with places like Tokyo, New York, and London in that field. Toronto isn't.

I'm actually not sure that's totally true. NYC is the key to international business in the US, Toronto is the key to international business in Canada.

Most of the banks my company work for have offices in New York City, Tokyo, London ,and Toronto -- not LA. None of them do, even...

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Asher

I'm actually not sure that's totally true. NYC is the key to international business in the US, Toronto is the key to international business in Canada.

Most of the banks my company work for have offices in New York City, Tokyo, London ,and Toronto -- not LA. None of them do, even...

So they're stuck in the 1950's?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
So they're stuck in the 1950's?

No, there's just no purpose of having two trading offices in the same country.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Asher
It sounds like any city above 100,000 people in size.

I really, really hope you get assigned to Jacksonville, Florida.

[Asher]

I don't get "assigned" anywhere...

And my company doesn't do work in nothing cities like that.

[snoopy369]

Cosmopolitan. (n)
1 oz vodka
1/2 oz triple sec
1/2 oz Rose's® lime juice
1/2 oz cranberry juice

I think that sounds more Toronto than LA. There would be Tequila in LA.

[Asher]

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Kontiki, I'm continuing to say Latin America is a very diverse place with Mexicans being very different from Central Americans, which are very different from Venezuelans, which are very different from Cubans, which are very different from Brazilians, which is extremely different from Argentines. I'm say that not only does LA stomp on Toronto in absolute numbers but that it also stomps on it in relatively interesting numbers. Further more since people have more money, open more restaurants & clubs that every immigrant & child of an immigrant is more interesting and more viable then Toronto. There is just so much more to see and do as exampled by the higher euntrapronurialism rate. Toronto is nice but not even on the same level as LA. LA pwns the hell out of Toronto in regular business, in international business, in tourism, in just plain interesting things to see & do, and as a place to live. Even with LA's crappy traffic. Toronto isn't on the elite level LA is on. It's on a nice middle of the road level maybe even the top of the middle of the road level but not on the elite level places like LA and New York are on. Those are massively well known international cities and Toronto is a bit regional city. That's just the way it is.

So you're changing your story? Gotcha. I really enjoyed how you kept repeating that the figures I was using missed a huge chunk of LA even after I showed you they weren't. I guess this new tact makes you feel better about being totally, abjectly wrong. Oh, I might add, though, that a very small number of the Latin American immigrants in greater LA are from South America or anywhere in the Caribbean. The numbers are readily available, but feel free to deny them too. Here's a good place for you to pretend they aren't saying what they're saying:

http://www.census.gov/prod/2002pubs/cenbr01-2.pdf

Check page 2.

I love the "stomps Toronto in relatively interesting numbers" line too. I guess the smaller group from fewer areas makes that true too.

You really nailed me on the tourist attractions, though. Man, I lost count of how many times I brought that subject up. Throw in a few made up stats like your higher "euntrapronurialism" rate and people having more money, and you've really covered off those differences in foreign born population.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Asher
7) lack of "walkability" of the city

Any city without "walkability" isn't a proper city, it's just a giant version of Milton Keynes. LA sounds a real turn-off to me.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Cort Haus


Any city without "walkability" isn't a proper city, it's just a giant version of Milton Keynes. LA sounds a real turn-off to me.

actually West LA has gotten somewhat denser lately, and because it has a rectilinear street grid, is much more walkable then many USA suburban areas. When I first visited LA coming from NYC I was all "this place isnt walkable, yadda, yadda" when i went a couple of years ago, after living in Northern Virginia, it was like hey, this place really has A. An urban feel B. A sense of place and C. Its actually quite walkable (well at least Venice/Santa Monica, and I think a huge stretch from Santa Monica in to downtown)

really people dont give LA the breaks it deserves, from an urban design perspective. Im a native New Yorker, and not a fan of USAian suburban sprawl, and I LIKE LA.