Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LA, of course, is very large. The specific example you stated with a pier, a formal restaurant and a club can be found in Venice/Santa Monica--definitely can't find it downtown since that's really far from the waterfront. You're going to have a lot more centers of activity in LA, but many of these are going to have a lot of options in and of itself. However, you aren't going to be easily walking from one center near the beach to another one in downtown. So, it's not compact as there's a large physical area but nightlife has multiple centers and many of those centers are close to each other (but not every center is close to every other center).
Yes, so we are largely in agreement then.
Quote:
Venice is the answer (Venice is part of the Westside). You can make an argument for Palms/Culver City to some extent, too.
That's too gentrified and established for me to consider hipster, but whatever.
Quote:
There are hipsters in downtown and Chinatown specifically as well as other parts of LA such as Hollywood, but the largest hipster concentrations is just north of downtown such as Silver Lake, Los Feliz, and Echo Park and further northeast in Highland Park.
Yes, the Downtown Area definitely meets the criteria imo.
That's too gentrified and established for me to consider hipster, but whatever.
Yes, the Downtown Area definitely meets the criteria imo.
I think we're in agreement on a lot of things and I think we can both agree that your example of driving down to San Pedro and then coming back up to West Hollywood is really atypical.
You can get the kind of concentration of nightlife amenities in LA you would get in SF in much of the Westside and Central LA. So you get similar density of it but over a much larger area which is why I think LA is a pretty obvious answer on this. Anyhow, he did say this was for the metro so it's not a specific city to city thing.
Venice is or Palms/Culver City is too gentrified? Venice still has some pretty sizable rough parts to it which is why it still has a lot of griminess to it. Palms is really affordable. From the way you worded your original post, it seemed like you were fine with Venice as a haven for hipsters, but weren't aware that it was part of the Westside.
I think we're in agreement on a lot of things and I think we can both agree that your example of driving down to San Pedro and then coming back up to West Hollywood is really atypical.
It's not atypical for LA at all-I know a lot of people from the South Bay, OC, Valley and whatnot who go to places near them and move on to the Westside and Downtown. People from all over SoCal drive into Downtown and West LA and even between the 2 areas which by itself is quite time consuming, just to party.
Quote:
You can get the kind of concentration of nightlife amenities in LA you would get in SF in much of the Westside and Central LA.
Yes but it's too far apart to compare to SF, where much of the nightlife is packed very tightly into the NE quadrant of the city.
Quote:
So you get similar density of it but over a much larger area
That no night partyer in their right mind would walk across. SF otoh, I myself have done it several times, traversing several different neighborhoods by foot that just overlap into each other.
Quote:
which is why I think LA is a pretty obvious answer on this.
Yes, LA is obviously larger and has more going on as far as nightlife in sum-I concur. But SFs offerings are likewise obviously more compact and far more convenient to experience in walkable distances from one scene to another.
Anyway, reputation aside Los Angeles in my experience has tons of every scene(it's actually quite impressive) so I think it wins as far as total nightlife offerings but getting to these scenes can be a chore by car, even at night. For example last time I was in LA my cousins took me to Ports'O'Call in San Pedro(I think) and I loved the scene but it felt like it took us forever to get there and then forever to go from there back to West Hollywood for a party a friend was throwing--I had a blast, but it took forever. In SF, you can dine at a formal restaurant, hang out at a pier-like waterfront scene and go clubbing within very close proximity of each other.
Yeah, because I don't live in California and never have before.
Think about it, would you really take the opinion of someone in say New Jersey seriously when they of all people talk about how amazing Atlantic City is or would you think it's more reputable when someone not from there nor ever has lived there recommends it as a place for nightlife.
By the way, I never personally said anything about San Francisco's nightlife. I'm more a calm and quiet person when it comes to nightlife either way, you wont ever see me in a South Beach club snorting cocaine off a glass table and taking multiple shots of Vodka. That's for sure.
It's not atypical for LA at all-I know a lot of people from the South Bay, OC, Valley and whatnot who go to places near them and move on to the Westside and Downtown. People from all over SoCal drive into Downtown and West LA and even between the 2 areas which by itself is quite time consuming, just to party.
Yes but it's too far apart to compare to SF, where much of the nightlife is packed very tightly into the NE quadrant of the city.
That no night partyer in their right mind would walk across. SF otoh, I myself have done it several times, traversing several different neighborhoods by foot that just overlap into each other.
Yes, LA is obviously larger and has more going on as far as nightlife in sum-I concur. But SFs offerings are likewise obviously more compact and far more convenient to experience in walkable distances from one scene to another.
To me, YES.
It really doesn't sound to me like you're that familiar with LA. Yea, people will drive far distances to go to places but that's not going to happen very often as you generally attend things in or around the area you live or you hit one location and stay mostly around there. I can count the number of times I've barhopped anything like a San Pedro to West Hollywood on one, maybe two, hands, but it's definitely not normal. It is atypical.
I don't think you understand what I am saying. Concentration, as I was using it, was in reference to density. Again, there are many centers of nightlife in LA and some of them are very close to each other--but not every one of them is going to be close to every other center. No one is going to walk walk a long distance from one center to another one that's very far away and that's not a claim anyone's made so far so there's nothing to rebut there. You might have people walk from one center to another one nearby though which of course makes a lot more sense. LA does fall behind in SF on this, but not as much as you'd think and definitely not in the way your very atypical example points to. I think we are almost in agreement here.
I can sort of see what you're saying about Venice, though again, there's a pretty prominent rough patch. I don't get what you're saying with Palms though--there's almost no way anyone would say that's too gentrified.
EDIT: Actually, did you happen to do that something like two decades or longer ago? If so, then I can see that having been the case--I wouldn't know because I wasn't really doing any nightlife at the time. Maybe traffic was better back then and gas cheaper so this made a lot more sense?
Yeah, because I don't live in California and never have before.
The only evidence you provide to back up your claim that Santa Monica has better nightlife than ANYWHERE in the Bay Area is a YouTube video that is totally unrelated to your initial comment, and looks likes a CW tv teen drama commercial.
Quote:
Think about it, would you really take the opinion of someone in say New Jersey seriously when they of all people talk about how amazing Atlantic City is or would you think it's more reputable when someone not from there nor ever has lived there recommends it as a place for nightlife.
Actually thousands of travel professionals and CVBs pay close attention to these sorts of these survey results because it reveals the perception people have of their cities and if you recall, it was you were the one who brought up 'reputation'---not me.
Anyway, no big deal. Oy and I are used to these little exchanges.
Quote:
By the way, I never personally said anything about San Francisco's nightlife.
You said 'anywhere in the Bay Area' which I suppose I may have misinterpreted. And as far as nightlife, I go out like 3 nights a week but it's not to snort cocaine and/or drink vodka. LOL I like to meet up with friends and try new restaurants.
It really doesn't sound to me like you're that familiar with LA.
No, I've lived there quite extensively and really have no need to list my qualifications to comments for your approval. So move on.
Quote:
Yea, people will drive far distances to go to places but that's not going to happen very often as you generally attend things in or around the area you live. I can count the number of times I've barhopped anything like a San Pedro to West Hollywood on one, maybe two, hands, but it's definitely not normal. It is atypical.
Sorry, but it really isn't atypical at all in my experience with lots of people I know. Yes people tend to stay closer to home, but many, MANY, M_A_N_Y still travel from the OC, IE, Ventura etc. just to go to the westside or downtown.
Quote:
I don't think you understand what I am saying. Concentration, as I was using it, was in reference to density. Again, there are many centers of nightlife in LA and some of them are very close to each other--but not every one of them is going to be close to every other center. No one is going to walk walk a long distance from one center to another one that's very far away and that's not a claim anyone's made so far so there's nothing to rebut there. You might have people walk from one center to another one nearby though which of course makes a lot more sense. I think we are almost in agreement here.
Yes, sure why not.
Quote:
I can sort of see what you're saying about Venice, though again, there's a pretty prominent rough patch. I don't get what you're saying with Palms though--there's almost no way anyone would say that's too gentrified.
Yeah, I couldn't think of a word for 'not-cool-enough' so I settled for 'gentrified-you are free to think of a better word.
The only evidence you provide to back up your claim that Santa Monica has better nightlife than ANYWHERE in the Bay Area is a YouTube video that is totally unrelated to your initial comment, and looks likes a CW tv teen drama commercial.
It's called music, good portion of which especially from the 1980's features Santa Monica in one way, shape, or form.
If you're not familiar with one of the greatest screenwriters of all time, Raymond Chandler, or his novels/films, then I can see why Santa Monica's influence doesn't phase you. From both a nightlife and crime point of view. His perception of the place and the fact that he personally took these aspects and credit Santa Monica's been pretty large for me, growing up, that is.
No, I've lived there quite extensively and really have no need to list my qualifications to comments for your approval. So move on.
Sorry, but it really isn't atypical at all in my experience with lots of people I know. Yes people tend to stay closer to home, but many, MANY, M_A_N_Y still travel from the OC, IE, Ventura etc. just to go to the westside or downtown.
Yes, sure why not.
Yeah, I couldn't think of a word for 'not-cool-enough' so I settled for 'gentrified-you are free to think of a better word.
No one is saying it doesn't happen--I'm saying it's atypical. It's not the usual. Most times, you're going to drive a much shorter distance if possible. Also, you're talking about the OC, IE, Ventura--that's suburban commuters like people going to have a night out in the city. I thought we were talking more about for when you are actually in the city already and then barhopping way out to another part of the city or going to a nice restaurant in one part of the city, then driving way out to another part of the city for some event and then driving way out to another part of the city for drinks afterwards--that sort of stuff doesn't make sense and is atypical. The part of people in the burbs coming into the city for kicks is definitely true but that seems typical of pretty much all US cities.
I can live with not-cool-enough. I generally dislike the Westside anyhow.
Was your stay here about two decades ago though? It'd be interesting to hear what nightlife back then was like and what the hotspots were.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-23-2013 at 08:16 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
