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'm sorry, but Chicago is FAR from intimidating or exhilarating.
I would say New York and Los Angeles are the most exhilarating cities in the United States, followed by possibly Miami or San Francisco.
Exhilarating cities to me are cities that are different or stand out from other cities in this country. I view Chicago as an overgrown Midwestern city. Almost like a very large Milwaukee. I truly fail to see how Chicago is a standout city.
Miami feels exhilarating to me because it is unlike any other city in the United States. It has a tropical, Latin American vibe that no other city has. San Franicsco is exhilarating because it designed like an East Coast city in a West Coast natural setting. Los Angeles in exhilarating because of it's setting and the fact that it has emerged from a barren, small cow-town to a fashion capital, the center of US cinema, a cultural hub, etc. in the space of about 120 years.
Those are my choices.
Yeah. What's so special about Wrigley Field, The Mag. Mile, The Loop, The Sears Tower, The John Hancock Center, The Museum of Science and Industry, The Shedd Aquarium, Soldier Field, The Adler Planiturum, and
Field Museum of Natural History.
And also. San Francisco is not like an east coast city. It is pure California.
Anyone who thinks LA's downtown is more lively than Chicago needs to go back to Chicago.
no one claimed that or even suggested that on this thread as far as I can tell. LA's downtown is a work in progress and I think most people realize that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CubsGiantsIndiansfan2008
And also. San Francisco is not like an east coast city. It is pure California.
It's layout, density, public transit, and urban fabric resemble an east coast city more so than it resembles anything west of the Mississippi River. It's natural setting is very west coast but the city itself is more east coast than west coast. SF is very different than any city in CA. LA and San Diego probably represent the stereotypical CA image more so than SF for various reasons.
As far as I can tell no one has mentioned Downtown Los Angeles in any post, including the one above that you quote. People seem to be comparing the city as a whole and not just the downtown areas, b/c there is a lot more to cities than just the downtown.
It's layout, density, public transit, and urban fabric resemble an east coast city more so than it resembles anything west of the Mississippi River. It's natural setting is very west coast but the city itself is more east coast than west coast. SF is very different than any city in CA. LA and San Diego probably represent the stereotypical CA image more so than SF for various reasons.
Just beacuse a city is urban does not mean it's east coast.
Anyone who thinks LA's downtown is more lively than Chicago needs to go back to Chicago.
No one is talking about Downtown...
People across the world associate Los Angeles with California. And California is associated with Hot Girls on Beaches, Great Weather, Diverse population, and People who run around wild without work...
which is not really true, but when I go to Mexico... everyone wants to go to ... LOS ANGELES...not so much Chicago... when I go to the Philippines everyone wants to go to LOS ANGELES... not so much Chicago. When I go to China everyone wants to go to...San Fracisco.... then LOS ANGELES... The Atmosphere there intimidates most people so it doesn't matter who has a better downtown if people have a more upliffting perciption before they even set foot in Los Angeles then they will mostly likely like Los Angeles more...
and what this is all a superfical opinionated thread there is no fact in this... if Lake Michigan intimidates you then Chicago wins...who is to say you're not intimidated... this is all opinion...
Philly is urban as they come. My ranking order would be NYC, Philly, SF, Chicago and then DC and Boston tie for fifth place because they are smaller.
San Fran, Boston and DC are all almost the exact same size.
Just soes ya' know.
For me it's New Orleans.
Whole lotta fun but with an edge that makes it a little intimidating.
I do have to say that I do not understand the love affair with San Francisco that people on this board exhibit.
Sure it's beautiful but it is pretty small, the houses are mostly white boxes, and the hills are so steep that I could never live on one of them.
Granted I have only been there once but I just didn't see what all the hoopla is about.
San Fran, Boston and DC are all almost the exact same size.
Just soes ya' know.
For me it's New Orleans.
Whole lotta fun but with an edge that makes it a little intimidating.
I do have to say that I do not understand the love affair with San Francisco that people on this board exhibit.
Sure it's beautiful but it is pretty small, the houses are mostly white boxes, and the hills are so steep that I could never live on one of them.
Granted I have only been there once but I just didn't see what all the hoopla is about.
People are dazzled by the scenery, teenage prostitutes, the smell of urine, the ugly people, the history ( read as many places where a joke protest took place in the 60's) drug addicts etc. This is what makes SF special! (I personally would take Boston anyday over SF)
Location: from houstoner to bostoner to new yorker to new jerseyite ;)
4,084 posts, read 12,683,905 times
Reputation: 1974
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDot
I do have to say that I do not understand the love affair with San Francisco that people on this board exhibit.
Sure it's beautiful but it is pretty small, the houses are mostly white boxes, and the hills are so steep that I could never live on one of them.
Granted I have only been there once but I just didn't see what all the hoopla is about.
That's probably because you live in Boston! San Francisco, like Boston, is a rare gem among American cities.
Just beacuse a city is urban does not mean it's east coast.
okay....but it resembles an east coast city more so than anything on the west coast looks wise. So in that sense it's urban fabric is east coast. SF is very different from any city on the west coast. But a lot of other things about SF are definitely CA and west coast. It's a pretty unique city in those respects; it has an east coast look and urban fabric but west coast vibe, culture, and atmosphere.
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.
