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.
I am surprised so many people are putting Portland dead last. I have never been, but it seems to have a pretty vibrant street scene in the downtown area, more active than anything I have seen in Houston and San Diego. Not disagreeing with folks, just fine it curious. Perhaps when I visit one day I will see for myself.
I'm more surprised at the generosity towards LA so far in something that has to do with being urban.
A car-centric city being place above Chi, Philly, SF, Boston is just weird. And people really can't tell me they buy that whole argument about denser suburbia in the outskirts making a place more urban.
I'm more surprised at the generosity towards LA so far in something that has to do with being urban.
A car-centric city being place above Chi, Philly, SF, Boston is just weird. And people really can't tell me they buy that whole argument about denser suburbia in the outskirts making a place more urban.
I'm surprised by Miami. Outside of the core area right on the waterfront the other 95% of the area is quite spread out and dominated by sprawl and single family homes. Been there a lot and it's a fairly quiet laid back metro.
People just see the stereotype on TV or that sliver of Miami Beach and the waterfront.
I'm more surprised at the generosity towards LA so far in something that has to do with being urban.
A car-centric city being place above Chi, Philly, SF, Boston is just weird. And people really can't tell me they buy that whole argument about denser suburbia in the outskirts making a place more urban.
Even as a city it could give Chicago and San Francisco a run for their money, so if this was isolated to city limits only I could perhaps entertain the idea of Chicago being more vibrant, once you throw in a metro it's a wrap.
Even as a city it could give Chicago and San Francisco a run for their money, so if this was isolated to city limits only I could perhaps entertain the idea of Chicago being more vibrant, once you throw in a metro it's a wrap.
I guess people also walk with their hands and clap with their feet in this imaginary world.
I'm more surprised at the generosity towards LA so far in something that has to do with being urban.
A car-centric city being place above Chi, Philly, SF, Boston is just weird. And people really can't tell me they buy that whole argument about denser suburbia in the outskirts making a place more urban.
I think it has to do with culture, Boston I've heard from people feels like a big town, maybe because people from Southie, Charlestown, Dorchester, Rosindale have no reason to go into town, they will stay in the neighborhoods for anything but a sports game.
In fact, last year when the Mayor of Boston said he was considering moving the St Patrick's Day Downtown due to snow problems in Southie, I literally hear on the News people saying "this isn't a Boston thing, its a South Boston Parade" and other things along that line.
Rank these cities (and this includes their respective metros as a whole) that you feel are the most vibrant and energetic:
Seattle
Portland (Ore)
San Francisco
Los Angeles
San Diego
Denver
Houston
Miami
New Orleans
Chicago
New York
DC
Boston
Philly
Las Vegas
NYC
Chicago/SF
Boston
Philly
DC
LA
Seattle
Miami
New Orleans
Portland
Denver/San Diego
Las Vegas
Houston
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.