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 LA and Detroit best represent metropolitan areas with small, underdeveloped, or even less desirable downtowns for a metro area its size, with suburbs that are relatively vibrant, bustling, and amenity-filled hot spots relative to its urban core.
IE: In metro Detroit walkable suburban downtowns like Royal Oak and Ferndale are more bustling with restaurants, shopping, barsa, and clubs, than just anywhere in the city of Detroit.
In LA, although (as in Detroit as well) the downtown has seen some major improvements, and is continuing to see that, however it is still a metro area where the hot spots are vibrant walkable urban-suburban "downtowns" (Santa Monica, Westwood, Hollywood, West Hollywood, Pasadena, South Bay)
While I believe compact land use and public transportation are very important things to use our resources more wisely. I just find hot spots for entertainment that deep down have a suburban aesthetic as being more more visually appealing for me. And I have a fascination with these metro areas. I think the LA is the greatest places on earth because there are so many urban suburban areas, and also think metro Detroit is pretty cool (cooler than people realize) because there are some fun, entertainment walkable suburbs that make up for what the city of Detroit lacks.
While huge, dense downtowns of Chicago, New York, Toronto, etc. are for me at least, a great place to visit for a day or two, but thats it.
I love huge metro areas, that have lots of urban-suburban downtown areas to check out and hang out in, but as the skyscraper filled downtowns, I don't find as charming or visually appealing
DC is probably the best example of a metro that has good amounts and quality of both.
I also think that some of the more core centric places are often overlooked for the amount and quality of non core metro centers that can be dense and vibrant within their respective metro.
There are many metros where both the vibrant core and vibrant suburban centers co-exist; at times I see people argue for the more options as a response to less vibrant cores; my argument is always why not have both
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,749 posts, read 23,813,296 times
Reputation: 14660
Dallas. Boring downtown with very little vibrance or pedestrian activity. Drive out of downtown into Uptown, Highland Park, Knox-Henderson, Turtle Creek are all beautiful urban/suburban hybrid like neighborhoods with all the trendy urban offerings that one could ever need.
IE: In metro Detroit walkable suburban downtowns like Royal Oak and Ferndale are more bustling with restaurants, shopping, barsa, and clubs, than just anywhere in the city of Detroit.
Ferndale? That is a bit of a stretch. There is a nice block there along 9 Mile Road by Woodward, but that is all it is. I would put Greektown and Corktown well ahead of "downtown" Ferndale.
Ferndale? That is a bit of a stretch. There is a nice block there along 9 Mile Road by Woodward, but that is all it is. I would put Greektown and Corktown well ahead of "downtown" Ferndale.
What about it? Woodword south of the Ford Freeway in Detroit is better than Ferndale's one intersection.
There are quite a few businesses on Woodward blocks away from that intersection.
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.