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.
Traveled the world, but in the U.S. here is my take
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. DC
4 Philly
5 Boston
6 Vegas
As far as LA, I know a lot of people like to rip on L.A., but it is just beautiful. I don't consider it vibrant, full of energy at all, but more laid back, natural beauty.
Downtown is always extremely quiet and Hollywood BLVD IMO is kinda dumpy with the endless bong shops, etc.
Not a fan of Santa Monica either. Don't get me wrong the beach with the view north is breathtaking, but the promenade area seems so tacky/suburbia, something I would find in a Chicagoland mall suburbia.
That said, love Pasadena! Again, L.A. is blessed with the most natural beauty along with good weather. There is a reason so many people live there. But I find no energy/vibrancy their. Maybe if I was rich!
How are you not including the Bay Area here? You could definitely make the case that it is top 3, to be honest.
Ughhhh I live in DTLA for part of year. It really isn't that vibrant at night, aside from 6th street and spring but especially compared to other cities central core it lacks true vibrancy. I agree with unwilling and would say Hollywood, even Santa Monica is more vibrant and downtown LA 24/7.
Agreed, and I like L.A. I just don't give L.A. credit for things it hasn't got.
This thread is giving me bad memories. I remember arguing with L.A. boosters in the past (not on this forum, in real life) who tried to convince me that the smog problem had been solved, the traffic wasn't bad, etc.
I mean, I like the place. Argue your strengths. Don't pretend that the weaknesses aren't weaknesses.
That's a really bad way to rank them for many reasons and the list you end up with reflects that.
May I hear your objective reason for disagreeing with my list? The other two posters failed to provide one.
"Vibrancy", as it pertains to cities, is a pretty relative term, so it's nearly impossible to rank all of these cities fairly. As far as I can tell, everyone else is just making guesses.
May I hear your objective reason for disagreeing with my list? The other two posters failed to provide one.
Well, people have said on here that Pasadena rocks, and rightly so.
Is any garden-variety skyscraper housing project in any garden-variety American urban area more "vibrant" than Pasadena, because of greater population density?
If not, I think you need to look to factors other than people/square mile to define vibrancy.
Agreed, and I like L.A. I just don't give L.A. credit for things it hasn't got.
This thread is giving me bad memories. I remember arguing with L.A. boosters in the past (not on this forum, in real life) who tried to convince me that the smog problem had been solved, the traffic wasn't bad, etc.
I mean, I like the place. Argue your strengths. Don't pretend that the weaknesses aren't weaknesses.
Yeah let me tell you a little secret I've learned. NEVER say anything negative about LA on here because the few people from LA on here who think it is that of manhattan when it comes to urban cores will jump down your throat. I'm like you I think LA has some good and unique qualities that make it a world class city, but I am not going to pretend like the negatives of the city don't exist. I tried living in the city without a car for two years but I couldn't do it so I buckled down to buy a car to drive(like everyone else in the city does). I will be honest I really don't think LA is that great of a city compared to all of the cities I've traveled to and the other two cities I've lived in and yes it does have great attractions that are unique to the city, but it being cosmopolitan/urban is not one of them.
Well, people have said on here that Pasadena rocks, and rightly so.
Is any garden-variety skyscraper housing project in any garden-variety American urban area more "vibrant" than Pasadena, because of greater population density?
If not, I think you need to look to factors other than people/square mile to define vibrancy.
Vibrancy already has a definition, but there's obviously no consensus on how it should be applied here.
We can argue opinions until this thread his 100 pages long, but if you're going to contend a point made with facts, you need to have some facts of your own.
Yeah let me tell you a little secret I've learned. NEVER say anything negative about LA on here because the few people from LA on here who think it is that of manhattan when it comes to urban cores will jump down your throat. I'm like you I think LA has some good and unique qualities that make it a world class city, but I am not going to pretend like the negatives of the city don't exist. I tried living in the city without a car for two years but I couldn't do it so I buckled down to buy a car to drive(like everyone else in the city does). I will be honest I really don't think LA is that great of a city compared to all of the cities I've traveled to and the other two cities I've lived in and yes it does have great attractions that are unique to the city, but it being cosmopolitan/urban is not one of them.
Got it, thanks. I like where I live too, but my rose-colored glasses are lost at the moment. I lived in L.A. without a car too, but only needed one bus to get to work.My wife, on the other hand, was farther away, Hollywood, when we lived in Alhambra. The bus drivers went on strike, and she had to take local city buses to get to work. Somehow she figured out how to ride to the edge of one town, catch the bus in the next town, and link together her commute like that. Unbelievable. She had a purse full of bus schedules.
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.