Question of the Week

If you had to live in either Los Angeles or New York City, which would you pick? Why?

7 Comments

  1. Alice

    New York because I know it better. I’ve only briefly visited the LA area. It was ok but I’d have to stay longer to find out what would be appealing compared to the great museums in NY, not only Broadway but also off and off-off Broadway, being able to walk the Brooklyn Bridge, great stores that actually carry products I could buy in person instead of online, etc etc etc. Yes, NY wins. Not that I could afford to live either place…

  2. m9m

    If I *had * to live either place, I sure hope I’d be there with an adequate income. Gotta be New York. Depending on where you live, you wouldn’t need a car. I could wear grownup clothes and do grownup things. On my last visit we did shopping, museum, all kinds of food, theater and Central Park in just 2 days and one subway ride.

  3. Joe Haldeman

    Have to be New York . . . Los Angeles isn’t even a city, as such — I mean, there is a city called Los Angeles, but it’s a small and uncharacteristic fraction of LOS ANGELES! Whereas New York is a city but it’s more than a city — which sort of sounds like the same thing but isn’t.

    Emotionally, I guess I don’t think of a place as a city unless you can walk around in it and feel a particular and complete ambience. Chicago’s a city; Orlando’s just a big parcel of real estate.

    Unca Joe

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.