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.
They gave you some man.... You did not include NYC and ALL place it #1 (spare us you forgot after this many post mentioning NYC to you). You place Portland and San Diego above Chicago..... another told you.
Then I WILL ADD YOU PLACE HOUSTON ABOVE PHILLY AND BOSTON......
Now don't say you got no objective reasons to disagree..... You claim suburbs using WHOLE METROS are why. But even Philly has MANY VERY VIBRANT Suburbs and Boston has Suburbs that have HIGH SPIKES IN DENSITY.
Or as you said YOU BASE YOUR LIST ON DENSITY???
CHARTS SHOWING DENSITY MAPS SOMEONE MADE.... HOUSTON HAS SOME OF THE LOWERST SPIKES IN DENSITY....THESE ARE METROS TOO....
Boston -- http://www.city-data.com/forum/membe...ensity-map.png
This is the argument I was waiting for, and I definitely see your point. The only remaining question would be if the nod should be given to cities with numerous nodes of vibrancy or those with a moderate but more sustained level. In my personal opinion, it would go to the latter. Speaking from experience, I've lived in Atlanta, a city that (like Boston), had several nodes and town centers outside of the core. It even had heavy rail connecting some of these areas. Still, the metro felt slower paced to me than Houston, which had a more evenly distributed population.
Did I ever say it was? For you to list Santa Monica more vibrant than the core 24/7 warrants a permanent ignore list
Excuse me? You don't think downtown Santa Monica/3rd street and ocean av. is vibrant both day and night? Alrighty then...
Also the fact that you just referred to DTLA as "the core" made me chuckle a little.
Probably exaggerating. My memories and experiences in greater Chicago (I routinely return, but never leave the city) consist of winter weddings, white Christmases, playing in the 2-3 acre yard of my uncle's, going shopping in Highland Park, Northbrook, trips into the city, etc. The suburbs never seemed super exciting - in fact to me they had almost a more serene feel to them. Graceful leafy neighborhoods everywhere. I'm not even talking too far out of the city where we used to be pulled around on sleds on a tractor. That to me is Chicago, and I find it appealing. I don't see that happening in CA cities.
Schaumburg - boring (surface lots, car dealerships, malls, big box stores, and 1-2 lone high rise/mid-rise office towers)
Oakbrook - boring (surface lots, malls, big box stores, and 1-2 lone high rise/mid-rise office towers)
I don't know the other suburbs, but while two above you chose are "big" suburbs in Chicago, their equivalents in LA (Irvine, Newport, Glendale, Burbank, etc) are MUCH larger and while also suburban, just more active overall. There is absolutely nothing vibrant about Schaumburg. St. Charles, IL is more vibrant than that, while smaller.
Lincoln Park and Lakeview are still "city". They are neighborhoods. I put them in that dense stretch of 14 miles to Evanston. LA has a denser stretch of 16 miles miles to Santa Monica. Any of the top cities listed (NYC, LA, SF, Philly, DC, Boston) have equivalents for Lincoln Park and Lakeview. If we were ranking just cities, the vibrancy of these neighborhoods would come more into play.
Agreed. Irvine is better compared to Schaumburg. As are Glendale, Burbank, Newport, and probably a good few more (City of Orange?). Evanston and Santa Monica are better comps.
To me, all of those LA cities mentioned are more virbant than their comps in greater Chicago.
I just think with close to 20 million people (or more?) feeding greater LA, its suburbs, etc, you're going to have more metro vibrancy than an area fed by less than 10 million people. Bad argument on form, but should still be pointed out.
This
I lived In Chicago for ten years. LA metro has much more going on than Chicago metro.
LA is easily second.
Excuse me? You don't think downtown Santa Monica/3rd street and ocean av. is vibrant both day and night? Alrighty then...
Hmmm.... It's pretty close honestly. SaMo at night unless your on Main Street or downtown does die down. DTLA dies down too in areas except 7th, spring , little Tokyo, & arts district. It's pretty comparable unless your soley looking at the tourist friendly areas.
If you were to extend the core from DTLA to western. Then there are many areas that are more vibrant than SaMo.
Excuse me? You don't think downtown Santa Monica/3rd street and ocean av. is vibrant both day and night? Alrighty then...
Also the fact that you just referred to DTLA as "the core" made me chuckle a little.
DTLA is the core, it's not where the wealth is but it is def the core. If you look at old maps of LA then it would be a no brainier why people would feel that way. BTW the "core" isn't just DTLA but areas east, west, south, and north of DTLA. Places like Boyle Heights, historic south central, Westlake, highland park. Etc.
If anything the westside are the orginal suburbs of the USA and a major reason why most southern cities are designed they way they are to this day.
Hmmm.... It's pretty close honestly. SaMo at night unless your on Main Street or downtown does die down. DTLA dies down too in areas except 7th, spring , little Tokyo, & arts district. It's pretty comparable unless your soley looking at the tourist friendly areas.
If you were to extend the core from DTLA to western. Then there are many areas that are more vibrant than SaMo.
You put it in a pretty good light. I have lived in DTLA and yeah 7th and 6th and spring, especially in the area around 7th and grand is pretty vibrant but to me Santa Monica is more vibrant. I also feel when you ask locals(or at least my friends) where they want to go for a night out West LA is always higher up on the list than DTLA. I personally like going to DTLA more just because I like bars(especially the new New Orleans bar) but as a whole I really get a way more vibrant and lively vibe when i'm in weho, SaMo, ect.
You put it in a pretty good light. I have lived in DTLA and yeah 7th and 6th and spring, especially in the area around 7th and grand is pretty vibrant but to me Santa Monica is more vibrant. I also feel when you ask locals(or at least my friends) where they want to go for a night out West LA is always higher up on the list than DTLA. I personally like going to DTLA more just because I like bars(especially the new New Orleans bar) but as a whole I really get a way more vibrant and lively vibe when i'm in weho, SaMo, ect.
I can not stand hanging out in west la. It's expensive and overrated. Only transplants seem to have good things to say. Koreatown is more vibrant than any of those places. Yet it has yet to be mentioned. There are parts of mid city that maybe aren't as vibrant are pretty damn vibrant. Nobody has mentioned echo park, or silver lake, or highland park.... Hell even lemiert park is vibrant. Since you live in/near DTLA. I wold suggest you drive down Broadway in east LA and eat at Los Cincos putos. You may not feel like your on the east coast. But you will have the best carnitas you've had in your life AND explore and area of Los Angeles you probably never considered going before.
The thing about LA is that it's an open book. The more you try to do stuff outside your comfort zone, the more you'll be rewarded.
But back to the topic. I'll say LA is probably 2nd in terms of MSA. Long Beach has 400,000 people yet nobody has mentioned how vibrant Long Beach can be. Hell, places like freaking Manhattan beach have no comparison outside Miami.
I can not stand hanging out in west la. It's expensive and overrated. Only transplants seem to have good things to say. Koreatown is more vibrant than any of those places. Yet it has yet to be mentioned. There are parts of mid city that maybe aren't as vibrant are pretty damn vibrant. Nobody has mentioned echo park, or silver lake, or highland park.... Hell even lemiert park is vibrant. Since you live in/near DTLA. I wold suggest you drive down Broadway in east LA and eat at Los Cincos putos. You may not feel like your ok the east coast. But you will have the best carnitas you've had in your life AND explore and area of Los Angeles you r probably never considered going before.
Aren't most of the new residents in Mid City/Koreatown and DTLA transplants, as well? I can't stand this theory that transplants are responsible for all that's bad. Without transplants, places like Austin, Charlotte, and Orlando would be backwaters today. Without transplants, if we were to leave LA up to its own devices, I wonder what the urban landscape would look like today.
You just sound like you have a big old chip on your shoulder against other people who have something you don't.
Excuse me? You don't think downtown Santa Monica/3rd street and ocean av. is vibrant both day and night? Alrighty then...
Also the fact that you just referred to DTLA as "the core" made me chuckle a little.
Well Koreatown is the closest thing LA has a 24/7 district, and I consider it part of the core, neither Hollywood or Santa Monica come close to being 24/7, actually none of LA is, the only 2 cities that have a good portion that could be considered 24/7 is LV and NYC.
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.
