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.
There's your answer right there. You need to actually have observed a city in order to evaluate it otherwise how could you possibly judge? I lived in Portland and have visited many of the other cities. So far I agree with the other posters who have listed it towards the middle or near the end of their rankings.
Anywho, from the OP:
Rank these cities (and this includes their respective metros as a whole) that you feel are the most vibrant and energetic
If it's metros, then it's probably NYC, LA, and either Bay Area or Miami/South FL taking top 3 spots. Chicago has a lot of vibrant suburbs as well, but I feel like there the party is concentrated in the city and the suburbs sometimes have cute shopping at best but nothing of the sort of energy that you'd find outside the cores of LA, SF, and Miami.
Portland's core is slightly more active in my opinion than Denver's or SD's, but its metro feels tiny and quiet, whereas both Denver and SD feel quite large and have points of higher activity outside of their downtown areas going pretty far out. Denver metro feels huge (A LOT larger than 2.5-3 million).
If it's metros, then it's probably NYC, LA, and either Bay Area or Miami/South FL taking top 3 spots. Chicago has a lot of vibrant suburbs as well, but I feel like there the party is concentrated in the city and the suburbs sometimes have cute shopping at best but nothing of the sort of energy that you'd find outside the cores of LA, SF, and Miami.
Portland's core is slightly more active in my opinion than Denver's or SD's, but its metro feels tiny and quiet, whereas both Denver and SD feel quite large and have points of higher activity outside of their downtown areas going pretty far out. Denver metro feels huge (A LOT larger than 2.5-3 million).
Your feeling does not paint an accurate picture of Chicagoland.
Your feeling does not paint an accurate picture of Chicagoland.
You forgot to add "IMO" at the end of your post, your post is no more factual or accurate than his, IMO Chicagoland trails both LA metro and the Bay Area in vibrancy, I thought that was pretty obvious to anyone who has visited the 3 metros.
Your feeling does not paint an accurate picture of Chicagoland.
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.
San Diego has a fairly decent amount of vibrant areas outside of its core and when you include Tijuana (which is pretty chaotic and gives off a lot of energy) then I think it propels it higher up than some people had it.
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 agree that LA is more vibrant than Chicago overall, but I think you're exaggerating the differences. Long Beach is not very vibrant, Anaheim is basically old sprawl with Disney, Newport/Irvine are just nice, sprawly areas, not that different from equivalents in suburban Chicago.
Hollywood, Venice and Santa Monica aren't really suburban. And only Hollywood is really super-vibrant in a big city way.
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
1. NYC
2. LA
3. tie Chicago/San Fran
4. Las Vegas
5. Boston
6. Philly
7. Miami
8. New Orleans
9. Seattle
10. DC
11. San Diego
12. Portland
13. Houston
14. Denver
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.
