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.
My wife is from South America, and we lived there just before our L.A. experience. Public transportation, although often in substandard vehicles (I wish they'd maintain tires and brakes better), blew away anything in the U.S. in terms of availability, frequency of routes, etc. People took the bus or a taxi somewhere, and walked. The streets were full of people. You bumped into them. You couldn't help it. The whole thing was noise, energy, vibrancy, food for sale, and more. It was almost like Times Square on New Year's Eve, everyday. I'm exagerrating, but not by much.
L.A., in comparison, is a graveyard.
The argument that I get from L.A. boosters is that the city has everything, "you just have to drive a little farther than you would somewhere else to reach it."
Well, OK. I knew that.
But is that "vibrancy"? I call that "suburbia."
On the positive side, I agree with all the comments about L.A.'s natural surroundings. They are beatiful. The ocean, the mountains, everything. If the topic were, "Best natural surroundings," I'd put L.A. either at the top of the list or very close. I mean, it's awesome. And by a lot of other standards, L.A. is one of the top cities in the U.S. Restaurants, etc. But vibrant? I mean, please. Just because your next door neighbor is vibrant, and I have no doubt she is, a force of nature, doesn't make the city that way.
Limiting myself to American cities, I've never lived in New York City, but I have lived within a Metro North train ride of Grand Central Station and used to go into the city. I've also spent a fair amount of time in Boston. L.A. isn't close to that kind of vibrancy. It is off by orders of magnitude, in my opinion.
Ladies and gentlemen here is the issue with people like the above poster, I hear this all the time: "I visited LA" "Where?" "Anaheim"
That's your opinion. I've read this entire thread and haven't seen a more fair methodology.
Where's your list?
This is a horrible methodology. I'm not compiling a list because I haven't visited all these cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101
Honestly, your list was the worst on this entire thread. If you think somewhere like San Diego is super vibrant, or if your list doesn't have NYC #1, that's pretty much automatic disqualification.
Ladies and gentlemen here is the issue with people like the above poster, I hear this all the time: "I visited LA" "Where?" "Anaheim"
No need to delve any further in to this one.
Right, because I never crossed the Alhambra city line. You got me. EDIT: And I lived there, not visited.
Seriously, when you veer off into unreasonable boosterism, it makes you less credible. I mean, you should never start off an article about global warming with the sentence, "This is the most serious problem humankind has ever faced," because, well, it isn't. There's nuclear war, etc. And once you start grandstanding, people doubt everything you say.
So tell me how L.A. is "vibrant". I'm listening. I know there are great things there, world class entertainment, etc. I cited a lot of them. I'm looking for "vibrant".
Right, because I never crossed the Alhambra city line. You got me.
Seriously, when you veer off into unreasonable boosterism, it makes you less credible. I mean, you should never start off an article about global warming with the sentence, "This is the most serious problem humankind has ever faced," because, well, it isn't. There's nuclear war, etc. And once you start grandstanding, people doubt everything you say.
So tell me how L.A. is "vibrant". I'm listening. I know there are great things there, world class entertainment, etc. I cited a lot of them. I'm looking for "vibrant".
You're not passing the sniff test, DTLA has never been dead even in the 80's and 90's when it was at its worst, at night? Yes it was dead because it was a place of homeless (still is) and druggies but during the day it's never been dead and I'm not talking about office workers either. The core of Los Angeles as it stands today is the most vibrant part of the metro with Hollywood coming in 2nd, the fact that you listed Hollywood as vibrant but not the core you're coming off as a CD traveler or someone who drove by downtown at 10pm in the 90's on the 10 freeway. I'm sorry but anyone who would visit the core and say "I saw no one walking" smells of BS.
I keep reading that my list/methodology is horrible, but still haven't heard an objective reason why. Make your argument or get off my quote button.
Because everyone knows that somewhere like Boston or Miami or Chicago is more vibrant than somewhere like San Diego or Portland. Your list is basically ridiculous.
A proper list has to be
NYC
LA
Then probably one of the following- SF, Miami, Chicago
Anyone who is putting San Diego and Portland at or near the top can be safely ignored. San Diego is like the most laid-back major city in the U.S., and has basically no super-vibrant areas.
You're not passing the sniff test, DTLA has never been dead even in the 80's and 90's when it was at its worst, at night? Yes it was dead because it was a place of homeless (still is) and druggies but during the day it's never been dead and I'm not talking about office workers either. The core of Los Angeles as it stands today is the most vibrant part of the metro with Hollywood coming in 2nd, the fact that you listed Hollywood as vibrant but not the core you're coming off as a CD traveler or someone who drove by downtown at 10pm in the 90's on the 10 freeway. I'm sorry but anyone who would visit the core and say "I saw no one walking" smells of BS.
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.
You're not passing the sniff test, DTLA has never been dead even in the 80's and 90's when it was at its worst, at night? Yes it was dead because it was a place of homeless (still is) and druggies but during the day it's never been dead and I'm not talking about office workers either. The core of Los Angeles as it stands today is the most vibrant part of the metro with Hollywood coming in 2nd, the fact that you listed Hollywood as vibrant but not the core you're coming off as a CD traveler or someone who drove by downtown at 10pm in the 90's on the 10 freeway. I'm sorry but anyone who would visit the core and say "I saw no one walking" smells of BS.
First of all, you've confused me with someone else. I haven't said anything about Hollywood. I agree with you. Hollywood has a lot more life than other parts of the L.A. area.
Second, I guess we'll have to respectfully disagree about downtown L.A. You are right about one thing: I didn't see nobody walking downtown, literally. I wrote that way for effect, hoping that anyone who read it would understand that I meant very few people. I guess you missed my point.
I think I'm going to have to reread James Joyce. The first sentence of The Dead is, "Lily, the caretaker's daughter, was literally run off her feet." I always thought that she was probably just standing there, tired. But now you've shown me that she was, literally, run off her feet and knocked down on the ground somewhere. You can't ever assume poetic license. Thank you! I'm always up for learning something new!
So let me explain what I meant without any literary license. If I were lost in Manhattan, and had to wait for an hour on a streetcorner, any streetcorner, I would be entertained by the numerous pedestrians and the life of the city around me, the city's vibrancy, if you will. I am talking about any streetcorner at all, not a streetcorner specifically chosen by a New York booster to convince me of this, that, or the other. In L.A., on the other hand, forced to wait an hour downtown on a random streetcorner, I might think about slashing my wrists, despite the occasional eccentric rambling by me on the sidewalk every five minutes or so. Is that clear?
Now, I'll repeat, lest you think that I'm an L.A. basher, L.A. is a wonderful city with lots of cool stuff, and the right choice for many, many people. The outdoor opportunities especially, the ethnic mix, Hollywood, all of that makes L.A. a world-class, super-interesting, awesome city. But the streets of L.A. are deserted compared to the streets of other large American cities with similar amenities. I can't believe we're arguing this. It's a fact, that's apparent to anyone familiar with the centers of L.A. and say, N.Y., Boston, and Chicago, for starters. Best.
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.
EDIT: And I lived there, not visited.
