Introduction
The United States is one of the most urbanized countries in the world. It houses some of the largest and most attractive cities in the world. The cities attract visitors and residents from all over the world because of the opportunities they offer. Los Angeles and New York are some of the most notable cities in the United States. The cities are vast and populated, with many similarities and differences. This paper compares and contrasts New York City and Los Angeles in terms of climate, costs of living, and population.
New York vs. Los Angeles
Firstly, New York and Los Angeles have different climates. New York City is known for its glistening and frosty winter, while it is known to be relatively warm. The atmosphere is generally classic in the Yuletide season, supporting leisurely activities such as snowman assembling and ice skating. On the other hand, Los Angeles has exceptionally mild winters and warm summers that allow for participation in such leisurely activities as beach swimming, sand bathing, and basking, among many others, in its vast provisions. Unlike New York, which only experiences warmer temperatures in its southeastern lowlands, Los Angeles is relatively warm throughout the year. Los Angeles also experiences wet weather during winter between November and January. Nevertheless, people living in Los Angeles equally enjoy the snowfalls of New York.
Secondly, the costs of living in the two cities are also worth comparing. The cost of living is influenced by job opportunities, the housing market and public transportation. Although the two cities march in terms of job and business opportunities which are very easy and encouraging, the two cities are quite expensive as the cost of housing in the cities is relatively high. Contrastingly, Los Angeles is marked with homes as the preference of its population, while New York mainly houses apartments. Averagely, the cost of rent in New York is USD3, 900 while houses cost USD1.4 million to buy (Ozolina, 2020). Ozolina (2020) also argues that the average cost of buying a house in Los Angeles is USD 785,000 less than in New York. Still, renting in either city is not economical as one would quickly opt for home buying.
Additionally, public transportation as a factor affecting the cost of living in both is similar in infrastructure but different in their use as per the preferences of their populations. The huge car culture mainly marks Los Angeles as most people drive their own cars instead of using public transportation. The city has public transport infrastructure even though only a handful of people use it. Due to this, the city experiences enormous traffic jams owing to the high number of personal cars. On the other hand, in New York, most people prefer public transportation instead of private cars. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority and subways are the most used transportation modes as it is easier to access most city parts. As a result, transportation is cheaper in New York than in Los Angeles, where personal cars need regular refueling and parking fees.
Finally, the populations of the two cities’ sizes and components are similar and different in a few of aspects. Deslatte (2020) argues that New York City is 233% more populated than Los Angeles. This fact implies that the New York population well doubles that of Los Angeles and has out-populated it for at least two decades. Deslatte (2020) reports that New York City has a population of 8.5 million, while Los Angeles has 3.97 making New York more densely populated than the latter. Furthermore, the median age in Los Angeles is 1.1 years younger than in New York. As such, the New York median age is 35.7 years, whereas that of Los Angeles is 34.6 years (Deslatte, 2020). Klinenberg (2018) contends that, however, the female population in both cities is higher than the male, with New York standing at 52.4% female population and Los Angeles having 50.4%.
Furthermore, other similarities have been seen in the sound public healthcare system and bike-sharing. Likewise, differences are in many aspects, such as unemployment rates, quality of living, population growth rate, and many others. Abu-Lughod (2018) posits that the unemployment rate in New York is 4.4% lower than in Los Angeles, while the population growth rate of New York is 0.2% higher than the latter. Ozolina (2020) reports that New York has a lower quality of living rating at 22 positions lower than Los Angeles, which is position 44 in the Mercer Quality of Living survey. Ozolina (2020) also reports that New York also has more public universities, eighteen, than Los Angles, which has ten. Furthermore, New York has a lower average minimum temperature, 10.2oC than Los Angeles, which has 14.3oC (Abu-Lughod, 2018). Therefore, the choice to live in both cities is a matter of taste rather than means.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the two cities are similar to and different from any other city in the United States in equal measure. Both cities are attractive worldwide as they have unique features and characteristics affecting staying and business. However, the cities’ climates, housing features, populations, and transportation differ significantly. Both cities also have decent living conditions in terms of education, sporting activities, recreation, shopping, and public utilities, and each city has loyal residents.
References
Abu-Lughod, J. L. (2018). Global city formation in New York, Chicago and Los Angeles: An historical perspective. The Globalizing Cities Reader, 53-59. Web.
Deslatte, A. (2020). Repowering cities: Governing climate change mitigation in New York City, Los Angeles, and Toronto. By Sara Hughes. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University press, 2019. 224p. $41.95 cloth. Perspectives on Politics, 18(4), 1267-1269.
Klinenberg, E. (2018). New York and Los Angeles: Politics, society, and culture: A comparative view. Edited by David Halle. University of Chicago press, 2003. 558 pp. Paper, $25.00. Social Forces, 82(4), 1648-1651.
Ozolina, A. (2020). Repowering cities: Governing climate change mitigation in New York City, Los Angeles, and Toronto. Local Government Studies, 46(4), 668-671.