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.
Because you were going on about nightlife areas in LA being larger. What does it matter when those larger areas still don’t have more bars/nightlife establishments? Again that’s just a result of LA being spread out.
But your link shows that bar density doesn't matter much if party cities like Miami and NYC aren't on the list.
It does matter when you’re talking about concentration of establishments that lead to vibrancy. You seem to be talking about something else here.
Yea, you both seem to be talking about different things, but I think what he’s talking about is closer to what I think is more relevant to the topic. Per capita’s an odd thing to go by in some ways.
Yea, you both seem to be talking about different things, but I think what he’s talking about is closer to what I think is more relevant to the topic. Per capita’s an odd thing to go by in some ways.
I've basically just been talking about vibrancy this entire time, never commented on which one I think is better, more wild, rowdy, etc... I don't really care. I do think vibrancy adds to the nightlife scene and as someone mentioned in the other thread about why people care so much about nightlife, a few mentioned how they just like "being out and about in the midst of the nighttime energy". And in that case LA really isn't that great in a lot of its nightlife districts.
I've basically just been talking about vibrancy this entire time, never commented on which one I think is better, more wild, rowdy, etc... I don't really care. I do think vibrancy adds to the nightlife scene and as someone mentioned in the other thread about why people care so much about nightlife, a few mentioned how they just like "being out and about in the midst of the nighttime energy". And in that case LA really isn't that great in a lot of its nightlife districts.
Sure, I can kind of see that. I think a lot of what's made nightlife in LA so much better is rideshare which is surprisingly cheap in LA, and that's not necessarily street vibrancy though that's improved as well. Are you talking about night time vibrancy?
I can see an argument that standard street activity and people walking around is more common/busier in parts of SF than LA earlier in the evening, but nightlife still going to LA overall as SF's nightlife scene is surprisingly muted.
Sure, I can kind of see that. I think a lot of what's made nightlife in LA so much better is rideshare which is surprisingly cheap in LA, and that's not necessarily street vibrancy though that's improved as well. Are you talking about night time vibrancy?
I can see an argument that standard street activity and people walking around is more common/busier in parts of SF than LA earlier in the evening, but nightlife still going to LA overall as SF's nightlife scene is surprisingly muted.
Well it's probably a good thing rideshare is cheap in LA considering you have to travel much longer distances to reach your destination. Yes nighttime vibrancy, which in LA consists mostly of traffic.
I really don't think there is that much of a difference between the two in my experience, but I was never a club person and that's what LA likely does better. How exactly is it "muted"? I guess LA is rowdier, Angeleno's tend to be a bit more trashy/uncouth. So yeah I guess in that sense people in SF are more "muted".
Well it's probably a good thing rideshare is cheap in LA considering you have to travel much longer distances to reach your destination. Yes nighttime vibrancy, which in LA consists mostly of traffic.
I really don't think there is that much of a difference between the two in my experience, but I was never a club person and that's what LA likely does better. How exactly is it "muted"? I guess LA is rowdier, Angeleno's tend to be a bit more trashy/uncouth. So yeah I guess in that sense people in SF are more "muted".
There’s just not that much variety and it’s a bit more buttoned down overall and seems to die down earlier. There’s certainly that in LA as well, but then there’s also more raucous places as well.
There’s just not that much variety and it’s a bit more buttoned down overall and seems to die down earlier. There’s certainly that in LA as well, but then there’s also more raucous places as well.
Definitely dies down earlier than LA.
Ridiculous to say that all of the vibrancy in LA at night is from traffic. What a joke.
Well it's probably a good thing rideshare is cheap in LA considering you have to travel much longer distances to reach your destination. Yes nighttime vibrancy, which in LA consists mostly of traffic.
I really don't think there is that much of a difference between the two in my experience, but I was never a club person and that's what LA likely does better. How exactly is it "muted"? I guess LA is rowdier, Angeleno's tend to be a bit more trashy/uncouth. So yeah I guess in that sense people in SF are more "muted".
L.A. Metro has more rail stops than all of BART and Muni combined (and it is much cheaper and more pleasant to ride). The state of the art freeway system complements this. If you decided to hop in a car and drive in traffic, well, that's on you (as it would be anywhere).
If you were just going around DTLA, Koreatown, and Hollywood (which equals or exceeds all SF nightlife), you would be getting around faster because there is more subway coverage there than in all of San Francisco. The only place I can think of that might present a serious "traffic" situation would be if you just had to go check out Ventura Boulevard and hopped on the 405 from west L.A. (not sure why someone would do this). More options for nightlife, more places that attract people, yes, I guess could mean traffic in some cases. I'll take increased traffic if it means increased destinations.
Well it's probably a good thing rideshare is cheap in LA considering you have to travel much longer distances to reach your destination. Yes nighttime vibrancy, which in LA consists mostly of traffic.
I really don't think there is that much of a difference between the two in my experience, but I was never a club person and that's what LA likely does better. How exactly is it "muted"? I guess LA is rowdier, Angeleno's tend to be a bit more trashy/uncouth. So yeah I guess in that sense people in SF are more "muted".
It depends on where you're trying to go in many places there's ton of nightlife just in close proximity so one doesn't have to travel far if they don't want to, but there's such a huge variety so one may travel just to get a new experience not because they have to.
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.
