Rank these 15 cities by vibrancy/urban energy (better, comparison, America)

[Justabystander]

Originally Posted by anonelitist

I grew up going to Chicago metro as that was where I had family (only 1 cousin remaining sadly). My experiences north and west of the city are great memories, but let's consider the facts. Chicago doesn't really have an equivalent for:

Santa Monica
Venice
Long Beach
Anaheim (with Disney)
Hollywood or places that busy outside of downtown
Suburbs as big/bustling as Irvine or Newport (bland I know, but still OC is a huge county with lots of moving parts)

I could go on for LA.

Oakland

I think Oakland is the one city that sets Bay Area apart. Everywhere else has an equivalent in Chicagoland, but the fact that Bay Area is that polynodal with cities that big means the activity is definitely more uniformly buzzing all around.

For Miami, the whole area east of 95 up and down the South FL coast is an activity center, just about. Like the Bay Area, the polynodal nature of South FL, with big city nodes, gives credence to the whole metro being more vibrant than Chicagoland. Palm Beach and PBC have a lot of activity centers, as does Fort Lauderdale and Broward County.


I just don't think Chicago on the metro level quite stacks up. LA is simply a no-brainer. In fact, I would argue that as city-centric as New York is, LA metro might be #1.

Ho c

As an Ex-LA guy in Chicago, it is clear you have no idea about what vibrancy the suburbs of Chicago have, home to 6 million people. Schaumburg, Oakbrook/Lombard, Rosemont, Orland Park, Skokie, the O'Hare area, are all substantial office/shopping areas that are congested and vibrant. Evanston and Oak Park are also vibrant, and you forget areas outside of downtown in Chicago such as Lincoln Park and Lakeview, which are comparable to the congestion of Hollywood only nicer. One thing LA lacks for the most part that Chicago suburbs have is a good overall train network connecting different areas, areas far more substantial than areas of "cutesy' shopping which many areas do have in their core downtown areas. You can visit all you want in the past your dead or moved away relatives, but your knowledge is sadly missing here.

[NativeOrange]

I agree about the suburbs of Chicago not being nearly as vibrant. Anyone who has been more than 5 miles out of the core knows you could be "Anywhere, Midwest" really. Shopping malls scattered along highways and sleepy neighborhoods. Some of the older "Main Street" type downtowns are charming as hell, but lack excitement. Every single one just feels like the same formula of a couple dive bars, kitschy gift shops, a bakery. Outside of these little downtowns is nothing but quiet neighborhoods.

Newer, sprawly metros who put an emphasis on the car have much more exciting suburbs, because these are destinations for a lot of residents rather than one central city core. That's not a bad thing, in fact most of you here on C-D would praise the latter.

Please do not compare a place like Schaumburg to Santa Monica. Yikes.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by NativeOrange

I agree about the suburbs of Chicago not being nearly as vibrant. Anyone who has been more than 5 miles out of the core knows you could be "Anywhere, Midwest" really. Shopping malls scattered along highways and sleepy neighborhoods. Some of the older "Main Street" type downtowns are charming as hell, but lack excitement. Every single one just feels like the same formula of a couple dive bars, kitschy gift shops, a bakery. Outside of these little downtowns is nothing but quiet neighborhoods.

Newer, sprawly metros who put an emphasis on the car have much more exciting suburbs, because these are destinations for a lot of residents rather than one central city core. That's not a bad thing, in fact most of you here on C-D would praise the latter.

Please do not compare a place like Schaumburg to Santa Monica. Yikes.

This is kind of a ridiculous response. Yes, 90% of Chicagoland is just bland Midwest sprawl. But 90% of LA is just bland Sunbelt sprawl. Not that different.

Sprawly metros don't necessarily have more exciting suburbs. You don't build "excitement" in the periphery by weakening the core. There isn't really one "exciting" place in Orange County, and we're talking 3 million people. There isn't one downtown in that county that is particularly thriving or noteworthy.

And Schaumburg is a boring sprawly wasteland, while Santa Monica isn't even a suburb, really (and honestly isn't that exciting in the greater scheme of things; it's a few blocks of vibrancy). You're basically comparing one of the most vibrant LA "suburbs" with one of the worst sprawly Chicago suburbs. It would be like comparing Evanston to Irvine.

[steeps]

LA suburbs basically.... but in reality THEIR OWN CITIES are less connected to LA proper then Chicago Suburbs. That basically STILL KNOW THEY ARE AND SEE THEMSELVES AS A SUBURB OF CHICAGO. Whether its Malibu, Pasadena , Beverly Hills , Long Beach or Anaheim CA. Though suburbs.... Outsiders might still see as LA. They are Their own cities to their residents. Some may have work in LA. But most don't have the connection most other cities have as suburbs?. To their principle city proper.

A Schaumburg or Evanston and most others Outside Chicago DO note and see themselves as Suburbs of Chicago . The LA ones I mentioned have RECOGNITION of their Own and a local to them cities WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY SAY A SUBURB OF LA. Outsiders might see Beverly Hills as a Neighborhood of LA? But technically it is not. The others again have already a separate city status to most outsiders already.

It's like LA is Past the stage of having Suburbs. Just a Mass Megalopolis of individual cities. LA proper just the Largest.

So of course someone in Malibu would see Schaumburg as a MERE SUBURB..... but Malibu as FULLY ITS OWN UNIQUE CITY and to say SUBURB IS BENEATH IT.

Saying a Suburb is NOT a lessening word in Most other Metro's. But IS basically as if OUTDATED to say around LA.

DOWNTOWN CHICAGO..... is definitely seen as the CORE OF ALL CHICAGOLAND and the Suburbs have a FULLY CONNECTED ALLIEGENCE TO IT. With LA it is Different. More as many downtowns with one OUTSIDERS see as DOWNTOWN OF ALL LA LAND..... But to Many outside LA proper. It is just the Bigger downtown. Not as much the FULL HEART of the Metro....

Just opinion and assessment of mine. I fully accept if not all others agree. So I wouldn't argue with a local of LALALand to disagree. I couldn't resist.....

[sav858]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

This is kind of a ridiculous response. Yes, 90% of Chicagoland is just bland Midwest sprawl. But 90% of LA is just bland Sunbelt sprawl. Not that different.

Sprawly metros don't necessarily have more exciting suburbs. You don't build "excitement" in the periphery by weakening the core. There isn't really one "exciting" place in Orange County, and we're talking 3 million people. There isn't one downtown in that county that is particularly thriving or noteworthy.

And Schaumburg is a boring sprawly wasteland, while Santa Monica isn't even a suburb, really (and honestly isn't that exciting in the greater scheme of things; it's a few blocks of vibrancy). You're basically comparing one of the most vibrant LA "suburbs" with one of the worst sprawly Chicago suburbs. It would be like comparing Evanston to Irvine.

I wouldn't quite say that, if you were to compare cities and towns outside of each city proper you're likely going end up with a longer list of interesting/vibrant places in Greater LA than Chicagoland. But this thread is about metro areas as a whole and certainly the city of Chicago easily gives the city of LA a run for it's money and on most aspects surpasses it as far as vibrancy/urban energy. So overall it's probably pretty close but suburb wise I think few, if any, areas can compete with LA in that aspect.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by sav858

I wouldn't quite say that, if you were to compare cities and towns outside of each city proper you're likely going end up with a longer list of interesting/vibrant places in Greater LA than Chicagoland.

I agree with this, but I also don't think it contradicts anything I wrote. As a former OC resident, I really like the county, but there aren't really any super interesting/vibrant areas. There are some wealthy areas, some theme park areas, some immigrant areas, all in a pretty sprawly, auto-oriented context.

[unwillingphoenician]

I don't know about all of these cities, but I have a hard time seeing car-culture cities like L.A. (not the only one on the list) as being "vibrant".

My wife and I drove thought downtown L.A. once and thought the same thing at the same time: "There's nobody at all walking on the street."

I don't see how a city can be vibrant with everybody either in their car, at home, or at work, and nobody on the sidewalk but homeless people.

Yes, I know, Venice Beach, etc. but it is not the same. Picture the people walking on an average street in New York and the businesses that cater to that foot traffic. That is a big part of the standard for vibrancy, in my mind at least. Stuck in traffic on the freeway? Not so much.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

I agree with this, but I also don't think it contradicts anything I wrote. As a former OC resident, I really like the county, but there aren't really any super interesting/vibrant areas. There are some wealthy areas, some theme park areas, some immigrant areas, all in a pretty sprawly, auto-oriented context.

I don't really like OC overall so I kind of agree but I think its coastal cities (Laguna, Newport, Huntington, etc..) certainly give it at an advantage over Chicago burbs. They're interesting, scenic (mostly), and vibrant (in a suburban, smaller town way). Anaheim while certainly super sprawly and suburban is generally going to offer more exciting, interesting things just by the fact that it is home to Disneyland and a lame MLB ballpark with a lame MLB team (lol).

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by sav858

I don't really like OC overall so I kind of agree but I think its coastal cities (Laguna, Newport, Huntington, etc..) certainly give it at an advantage over Chicago burbs. They're interesting, scenic (mostly), and vibrant (in a suburban, smaller town way). Anaheim while certainly super sprawly and suburban is generally going to offer more exciting, interesting things just by the fact that it is home to Disneyland and a lame MLB ballpark with a lame MLB team (lol).

I guess we have a different idea of "vibrancy". Yeah, Laguna and Newport are 1000x more scenic than anything in Chicagoland, and probably much more desirable overall, but I don't find them particularly bustling. Newport doesn't have a town center, and Laguna's center is very small. Traffic is actually light in those towns except for weekend traffic, especially in the summers, and particularly along the PCH.

It's actually very hard to get to Laguna. You're basically a local or a leisure visitor. There are only two ways in and out (PCH and Laguna Canyon Rd.).

Anaheim is interesting because of Disney. Besides that it's just lower middle class postwar sprawl.

[Gunion Powder]

The only way I know how to rank them objectively is by urban area density:

Los Angeles
San Francisco
New York
Miami
San Diego
New Orleans
Denver
Portland
Chicago
Seattle
DC
Houston
Philly
Boston