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 would say that is pretty close but the 4th ranked city for nightlife in my opinion is still LA year round. I just don't like dealing with with cold weather when I'm trying to have nightlife fun, especially at night when it gets colder every second. NYC is first, Miami ranks second and Las Vegas third. I'm just not into gambling and clubs as some people. I also like having the beach and all the sexiness that goes with that close by. It seems to make a lot of nights, and days for that matter, more interesting..
I'm just really big on the idea that the year round accessibility of nightlife is super important, which is why I ranked LA fourth, even though they have a 2.a.m. last call. I also value night time vibrancy more than daytime vibrancy for many reasons. I find more things that I prefer doing I do when it's dark. That could be just because when i get off work i spend most of my time doing things i enjoy more than in the daytime.
Just the fact that we are talking about super new cities relatively speaking and considering them at the top of only a couple of dense nightlife spots in the U.S. is actually quite amazing. They were built with cars in mind and are pretty young, yet have the greatest pedestrian numbers at night in the U.S. by far, except NYC. Usually around the world most older cities have the best nightlife.
I prefer to go a little too crazy on the nightlife factor almost exclusively in the U.S. I just find it safer as I know the areas better and there are rarely any language barriers if things go wrong. Since there are only a couple of high density nightlife areas in the U.S. i naturally had to pick South Florida. NYC gets a little to cold for me and i can't afford to be a NYC/Miami snowbird. I already said the reasons why I prefer Miami to Vegas earlier, but there are many more reasons.
If i didn't like South Florida as much I wouldn't spend as much time there but I really do find it super unique to the U.S. Heck, it's even unique to the entire world. There are only two or three major first world cities in a tropical setting throughout the entire world, and it has a unique combination of a bunch of factors I prefer, great nightlife being near the top. South Beach gets compared to NYC nightlife for certain things. Imagine how dense those things must be since the entire area is just a few long streets, and NYC is in beast mode.
Even though they have a 2.a.m. last call, the scale of LA is massive and there is always something going on somewhere. It's just hard to find it sometimes. The entertainment district in South Beach actually has no last call time at all and is huge factor in things going later into the night. It just adds a whole energy to the area if you know what I mean and i think you do.
It really depends on what you like for nightlife. My favorite nightlife cities in the US are older cities: NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, and New Orleans. I find Vegas and Miami to be too one-dimensional and superficial, even if they do go all night.
Even though they have a 2.a.m. last call, the scale of LA is massive and there is always something going on somewhere. It's just hard to find it sometimes. The entertainment district in South Beach actually has no last call time at all and is huge factor in things going later into the night. It just adds a whole energy to the area if you know what I mean and i think you do.
I live in South Beach and it absolutely does have a last call at 5:00AM.
The general consensus is that the 8 most vibrant and urban cities in the US are some order of: NYC, Chi, SF, Philly, Boston, DC, then maybe Seattle and in a very polycentric way LA.
Outside of these cities, which would you say are the most walkable/vibrant, etc?
Doesn't it always seem like Oakland Baltimore and New Orleans is overlooked?!?!?!?!?!?!
Doesn't it always seem like Oakland Baltimore and New Orleans is overlooked?!?!?!?!?!?!
Where do you think they should rank?
In my mind, all three are pretty sold urban cities. Baltimore is the strongest of the three from a density/vibrancystandpoint. My impression of Oakland is it is midsized mostly mid-density housing with a so so downtown core. NO has the tourism district which is obviously very vibrant. But the city overall is pretty mid density. I would say all three rank below Seattle which is probably the bottom of the top 8. Although Baltimore has a more cohesive urban built environment.
For me the question is how does Baltimore compare to Miami, Denver, Portland, Atlanta and the other cities that have been mentioned? I tend to think it ranks below Miami given massive Miamis tourism industry, although Bmore is much more organically urban. But I dont think the lead is necessarily clear cut and could go either way.
What's going on in Miami really is remarkable as far as it's urban reinvention. The newly constructed Brickell City Centre and the All-Aboard transit systems are some of the few game changers. If they could get their act together for that science museum near Bayside, than that'd be an extra point towards Miami.
That whole area from Bayside, to Flagler, Brickell, Edgewater, Wynwood, Overtown, Little Haiti, is over-going a ridiculous renaissance. For a while, most of the urbanism was South of Flagler in Coconut Grove, Coral Gables, South Miami. But the aforementioned neighborhoods renaissance completing Miami's cycle into an urban, vibrant, walk-friendly city. This same urban renaissance is happening in the satellite cities North of Miami in the rest of the metro.
Fort Lauderdale, Hollywood, Pompano, Delray, West Palm, have all revamped their downtowns and are trying to revamp the adjacent neighborhoods to their downtowns. They've already broke ground on the All-Aboard transit stations that'll connect all their downtowns, 60miles North from Miami.
From a metrowide standpoint, not many MSA's are overgoing the urban revamping on the scale of South Florida is doing it.
I think the top contenders are Portland, Miami, Baltimore, and San Diego. There are a cluster of other cities that are pretty close after these, but these four are the closest.
I think the top contenders are Portland, Miami, Baltimore, and San Diego. There are a cluster of other cities that are pretty close after these, but these four are the closest.
Yeah, I think this would be my top 4, although I could see a case for Minneapolis in place of Portland. All 4 represent different types of urbanism/vibrancy.
Baltimore is like a mini-Philly. Old school urban city.
Miami is like a mini-LA. Not traditionally urban, but fairly consistent density with walkable/vibrant nodes.
Portland is like a mini-Seattle. A traditionally less dense city of single family homes with a very strong/vibrant downtown core. Lots of new infill and far less disinvestment than some older legacy cities, which makes it more vibrant than some more architecturally urban cities.
SD is a hybrid of a mini LA and a mini Seattle. Lots of core centric infill, but with walkable tourist, urban village nodes like La Jolla, Corronado, etc.
I'm inclined to rank Baltimore and Miami above the other two. But there isn't a clear cut winner in my book. Interlinked core centric urbanism is more efficient (more than the sum of its parts). than polycentric. But aggregation can't be ignored entirely.
Yeah, I think this would be my top 4, although I could see a case for Minneapolis in place of Portland. All 4 represent different types of urbanism/vibrancy.
Baltimore is like a mini-Philly. Old school urban city.
Miami is like a mini-LA. Not traditionally urban, but fairly consistent density with walkable/vibrant nodes.
Portland is like a mini-Seattle. A traditionally less dense city of single family homes with a very strong/vibrant downtown core. Lots of new infill and far less disinvestment than some older legacy cities, which makes it more vibrant than some more architecturally urban cities.
SD is a hybrid of a mini LA and a mini Seattle. Lots of core centric infill, but with walkable tourist, urban village nodes like La Jolla, Corronado, etc.
I'm inclined to rank Baltimore and Miami above the other two. But there isn't a clear cut winner in my book. Interlinked core centric urbanism is more efficient (more than the sum of its parts). than polycentric. But aggregation can't be ignored entirely.
I'd probably bring Seattle down into and towards the top of this bracket than with the others.
I'd probably bring Seattle down into and towards the top of this bracket than with the others.
Yeah, I could see that. In the grand scheme of things I would definitely see Seattle having more in common with Portland than a city like NYC or Chicago. But, IMO. Seattle is first in its class.
I guess I see it as:
Tier 1 NYC
gap in scale and intensity
Tier 2 Chicago
gap in scale, but not intensity
Tier 3 SF or Philly then Bos
Tier 3a. DC basically on par with the other tier 3, but lacks the centralized mixed use core.
Gap in intensity
Tier 4: Seattle - not on par with DC, Bos but the closest outside the top 6 on transit and walkabity.
Tier unrankable: LA, Miami. Dense and walkable nodes, but very inefficient auto centric urban design.
I would have put Baltimore on par with Seattle 5 years ago. But IMO Seattle has been pulling away in development, urban amenities, transit, while Baltimore has been more mixed in terms of progress.
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.
