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.
Yes. I am tired of this. What's the point of always discussing downtown anyways? Cities that have a lame downtown all have an alternative place for shopping and entertainment, as long as they are large enough. It is more according to the city size in terms of what to do and what it can offer. There are several variations but generally the larger the metro area is, the more it can offer. For example, though Detroit is economically depressing, the shopping at Somerset Collection in its suburb Troy is still fabulous, only second to Chicago in Midwest, which is in accordance to its size. Whether the stuff are in downtown or not, it is just the lifestyle of the people in that city and a representation of how the geographic of the city limited the developed areas in the history. All the largest cities have fabulous shopping, dining and entertainment options. You just have to find them somewhere. They are not necessarily downtown, and there is no problem with that. Smaller cities usually have less options, again whether they are downtown or not. It doesn't matter. For smaller cities, if they wanna be more prominent, the best bet is to attract a larger population, therefore form a larger market. Then everything will go there.
On the other hand, more importantly, most vibrant downtowns are vibrant only because they put the shopping/dining/entertainment district right next to their financial district. This is usually due to some geographical/historical reason. It is not a big trick. The financial districts in the US are unanimously boring. They are usually just a few lifeless skysrapers in every city and they are easily recognizable however vibrant its neighbors might be. Whether it is Back Bay of Boston or Union Square of SF, they are close to the financial district but they are not in there. You can totally take that part out and not affect the financial district at all. They don't blend so well after all. So some cities decided to take the fun part (shopping/dining/entertainment) out of downtown and put it somewhere else and leave downtown solely as the financial district, what's the big deal and what's the huge difference that is worthy so much disscussion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradly
Threads like this are annoying..
There is going to be a fight between Chicago and New York.. New York will win.
And ohhhhh my LA has a sucky downtown and so does Phoenix and Albuquerque blah blah blah!!!!
Last edited by fashionguy; 07-02-2009 at 09:16 PM..
Why even go here? Anyone who would even suggest anything other than New York is disingenous. It's like starting a category largest planet, or best golfer alive, or coldest state.
Let's face it, there is a huge North-South divide in this country from east to west. No cities in the south can actually pretend to be real cities.
LA is the one city that really tries, or at least want to feel, like it is a true city. And in many ways it outdoes Miami, Atlanta, and Houston in terms of being an actual city. But is isn't...NYC, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, Philly, etc--these are real cities. Cities in the South of this country (and I don't mean 'the south' as a region, I mean literally the southern half) just arent' quite there yet...
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.
