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.
Pulsating with life, vigor and activity. Los Angeles: People doing more with their lives than anywhere else- life. More people playing sports and exercising than anywhere else- vigor. 16 million cars on the largest freeway network, more ships in and out of the ports, world's most crowded airspace with the large and small, everyone at the beaches, in the mountains- activity. And Google maps will show you urban density. Go ahead, try it.
Shy isn't SD on this list. Even though we don't very much in the way of nightlife, we have loads of others things to offer.
On the list though I would say for the average Amiercan looking for entertaiment, and vibrancy then it is a toss up between Seattle, and San Francisco.
Now if you have lots of money, and are willing to pay the price, then look LA is your ticket. But then again, San Fran, and Seattle are not much better in the whole being cheap dept.
I love living in Seattle and its vibrant but compared to L.A. and S.F. its below those two.
I think they're all pretty vibrant but LA and SF are tops.
After having lived in Seattle for 5 years and currently living in SF, I have to disagree with you. IMO Seattle is more vibrant than Los Angeles and more interesting. I guess it depends on what you call vibrant. For me, vibrant means great restaurants, great distinctive neighborhoods, interesting people, amount of things to do, great shopping, natural beauty, and great excursions from the city. Of course, all three cities have this, but to me, Los Angeles loses to San Francisco and Seattle on one big key - character. Los Angeles, IMO, is almost void of it.
I think San Francisco is the most vibrant, followed by Seattle.
Why are you bringing that into this discussion? Are any of those "vibrant?"
Actually, yes they are very vibrant. I think urban density and distinctive neighborhoods definitely can be classified as exciting, stimulating, lively, energetic, vigorous, and pulsating - all synonyms for "vibrant."
After having lived in Seattle for 5 years and currently living in SF, I have to disagree with you. IMO Seattle is more vibrant than Los Angeles and more interesting. I guess it depends on what you call vibrant. For me, vibrant means great restaurants, great distinctive neighborhoods, interesting people, amount of things to do, great shopping, natural beauty, and great excursions from the city. Of course, all three cities have this, but to me, Los Angeles loses to San Francisco and Seattle on one big key - character. Los Angeles, IMO, is almost void of it.
I think San Francisco is the most vibrant, followed by Seattle.
How funny. I live in Seattle but use to live in LA. OMG I think LA has lots of character and charm imo. LA is a giant behemoth but imo has endless amounts of distinctive neighborhoods, endless amounts of great restaurants, shopping, nightlife and interesting people from around the world. At least the people I've met. The music and nightlife scene alone is unbelievable. Sorry, Seattle has its vibrancy but its nothing compared to LA.
I have to go with San Francisco. This is a great, vibrant place to call home and it has been good for me here. I can't imagine any of the other cities being any better.
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.
