6 ms·
There's no reason to live in Southern California unless you have family there.
by gozur88 9y ago
There's no reason to live in Southern California unless you have family there.
- iopuy 9y agoHow about the weather? Or the geography?
- tomjakubowski 9y ago… or the excellent food, or the friendly and outgoing people, or the art and music scenes, or you work in the film/TV or aerospace industries, or …
- eganist 9y ago> or the friendly and outgoing people You must be thinking of a different place.
- exclusiv 9y agoI'm from the Midwest originally and I've found SoCal to be friendly and outgoing, moreso than most places. As an example, you'll have 50+ year olds on skateboards or surfing, playing volleyball, mingling with younger crowds at bars or restaurants, etc. In the Midwest - they don't do a whole lot, stick to their own neighborhood, and there's lots of ageism. In SoCal - people are generally nice but aren't in-your-business-neighborly-friendly like the Midwest or South but I prefer that. Also, it's rare to even hear a car honk because people are so much more laid back.
- eganist 9y agoSan Diego, perhaps? Because this description doesn't seem to fit my years of experience with LA. :/
- exclusiv 9y agoWhere did you live? Just curious because it might not have been the right one for you. I've lived in Santa Monica, Hollywood, Pacific Palisades, Sherman Oaks, El Segundo, Playa Del Rey, Manhattan Beach. :) Enjoyed every one, although Hollywood was only cool for a few years when I was younger. I knew I wouldn't want to be there long. As you can see I prefer the beach cities but there are great places in the valley (Sherman Oaks) and elsewhere like Echo Park and Silverlake that have completely different people and feel. I have a few friends that absolutely love downtown too.
- gozur88 9y agoThe weather is horrible, IMO. You only have two seasons, and it hardly ever rains.
- ng12 9y agoSouthern California is not just LA. There are many amazing places to call home which are less crowded/expensive.
- chrischen 9y agoLA isn't really crowded. It's pretty sparse as far as large cities go.
- estebank 9y agoWhich is actually part of the problem. Higher density cities allow for/require good public transport, which increases quality of life for young people, the elderly and people that like to go out for a drink and would much rather not have to drive afterwards. Also, higher density with mixed use zoning allows for corner grocery shops, so you can walk to buy whatever you'll have for dinner that day, and possibly work close to where you live.
- tomjakubowski 9y agoThere are plenty of neighborhoods in the Los Angeles metro with these characteristics. It's just that many of them are among the more expensive areas (Downtown, Koreatown, Santa Monica, Fairfax, Echo Park, …). "City population density" doesn't strike me as a good metric for judging a city's ability to support good public transit. It's not like Los Angeles (as a whole) was any denser when it boasted an extensive network of streetcars and electric rail spanning the city (and surrounding towns like Pasadena and Santa Monica); LA city population was ~1.5M in 1940 and is ~3.97M today with no substantial change in land area.
- ng12 9y agoThe land area didn't change but car ownership and external competition [1] did. In the modern day having a car is too cheap and too convenient until you reach population densities similar to NYC. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...