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.
LB is a beach city imo. Pasadena, Santa Ana, etc.. those are nothing special and you can find the same stuff going on in a multitude of suburbs across the country.
I realize that but that's mostly a function of it being a much larger metro.
Partly. The Bay Area for its size is overall pretty sleepy.
I agree you can find Santa Anas around the country, though there is a strong Latino vibe there. But Pasadena is pretty unique in its setting and history. It has a classy old money vibe that's not snooty at all compared to similar places in the Bay like Palo Alto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431
Can't and won't argue with a lot of this. It's a strange mix of a city, but I think that has to do with the fact that it actually is a pretty large city. It's just overshadowed by LA and enveloped into Greater LA so the fact that it's a large city in its own right gets lost. I personally love Belmont Shore and Naples. I haven't had a chance to explore Broadway, 4th, and 7th now that they've seen so much development, but I'm really hoping to next time I'm back in LA. I have absolutely no interest in moving back to SoCal, but if forced to for some reason, LBC would be a place I'd consider. I think it's held onto its identity somehow even though it's so enveloped by Greater LA. OTOH, Oakland just has a weird mixture of the old Oakland plus new hipsters priced out of SF, and doesn't seem to blend properly. LBC doesn't want to be just another beach city. And compared to the South Bay and West LA, it's much more into its subculture ways, while maintaining an upscale beach vibe in Belmont as well.
Yeah both yours and elchevere posts sums up LBC very well. It's a very weird mix based on location but surprisingly it blends together just fine. There is a lot of untapped potential there that maybe the city is finally starting to realize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elchevere
2018..stayed at the Hyatt at The Pike (was new, for me)and noticed some relatively newer condos...but Pine Avenue seemed like the same 4-5 block stretch that it was when I hung out there 15-20 years ago. Don’t get me wrong, I liked it when I socialized there (much more down to earth than, and a relief compared to snooty Newport Beach) but parts of it—like many areas of CA—started showing their age. My big decision in 2003 was to move to Belmont Shores or San Diego and I chose the latter because it had, and fulfilled more of its potential. Long Beach has a “Seattle” type of vibe to me—which was good. I was pretty friendly with John Morris, Joe Rullo, and Vince(?)—Owner of Blues Cafe and hung out at Churchill's and Kelly’s (now a steakhouse) in Naples....the beach is fairly useless (because of the breakers) but it has a great bike path !
Yeah Pine is relatively the same outside of some new residential buildings. Activity is spreading more south to Ocean and along various east side streets nowadays. If the breakers go away soon you are going to see a much different LBC along the shoreline.
Unfortunately one of the sad things about Long Beach is a lot of the older residential buildings are being bought out and completely renovated on the inside and are followed by rent hikes of a few hundred dollars. Many of the old time residents are being forced out now. This has really ramped up over the last two years. City is trying to put policies in place to limit the hurt for people being forced out. What this does to the LBC vibe remains to be seen.
I'm really struggling to see your point here. You're trying to discount every city on a beach in LA to say that the Bay has more going on?
And I did list other inland locales. You just weren't happy with them. With each and every beach city having a different vibe, plus plenty of inland cities that also have their own vibes, plus the entire urban corridor from Santa Monica to DTLA, there is just more to do in LA. SF is easy to figure out and gets boring. I lived there for 4 years. I felt like I saw everything. I never felt like I saw everything in LA. Been in NYC for 3 years now and I know I'll never see everything here either. Things are closer together in NYC than LA, but it's similar in that there is always a new neighborhood to explore and always a new bar/restaurant/club to try out. SF didn't feel like that. It felt like I'd seen it all.
No. You're highly overrating LA suburbs in general. I get the uniqueness of the beach cities but pretty much everything else is nothing special or anything better than you find in the Bay Area, NYC, or any large metro area. It's just more of the same going on outside of Central LA and the coast.
This is easily one of the stupidest arguments I've heard on C-D, and I've heard a lot of stupid arguments on C-D. LBC and other beach cities can't be considered as benefits to LA because they're on beach? What kinda argument is that? What kinda mental gymnastic are going on your head that this logic is a good logic for boosting SF over LA?
And Pasadena is a really nice city. If you think otherwise, it's your own personal bias because Pasadena is not some generic suburb.
That's not the argument I was making. Maybe calm down and try to read and comprehend my posts a little better. Lets try this again. The vast majority of LA's suburbs are nothing special. Got that? The one's that are are mainly along the coast and they can definitely be included in the better, more unique parts of LA to explore. Still with with me? And those away from the coast compromise a very large portion of the LA metro. Therefore a lot of what you brag about being worth exploring (Sherman Oaks, Burbank, etc..) are really nothing special or unique.
Never suggested Pasadena wasn't a nice city, where on earth do you get this crap? And it's a suburb you can find in a lot of other places with the exact same stores and types of restaurants. Nice yes, unique NO.
No. You're highly overrating LA suburbs in general. I get the uniqueness of the beach cities but pretty much everything else is nothing special or anything better than you find in the Bay Area, NYC, or any large metro area. It's just more of the same going on outside of Central LA and the coast.
Even if we agree to disagree on this point, it's the fact that LA has so many different areas for culture/dining/nightlife. The Bay Area is far sleepier and has far less going on outside of the city of SF compared to what LA has going outside the city of LA. The Bay have an answer for many of the inland cities in Greater LA, then you can also add in the beach cities and it just puts LA over the top. Imagine Oakland, but more laid back, plus a beach--that's LBC. Then you still have all the rest of the beach cities with their own things going on and they all have quite impressive dining and nightlife and cultural opportunities.
If they were more similar in size, maybe this could be an easier comparison on the number of things to do and see. For me, the quantity is much higher in LA and the quality is slightly higher. I prefer the nightlife and amenities for quality in LA, and then it's impossible to deny that LA's size allows it to have tons more options. In the Bay, it seems like everything is pretty centered around the city of SF for nightlife and culture, but it gets pretty old pretty quickly. In just 4 short years, I felt as though I'd seen it all. People looking for a night out in the Bay are almost always going into SF, but then you can't get home at night. In LA, there are numerous nightlife hotspots. The museums and cultural institutions are spread throughout the region. Similarly, in NYC, the nightlife is spread throughout multiple areas of the city itself and there are a few parts of Westchester, LI, and NJ that have good nightlife and dining and cultural experiences as well. It's more heavily reliant on NYC, while LA is more spread out. But it's less reliant on NYC than the Bay is reliant on SF, and then when you're in SF, there really isn't all that much going on. And yes, it's partly due to size. But the quality of the nightlife and cultural institutions just isn't the same either.
Even if we agree to disagree on this point, it's the fact that LA has so many different areas for culture/dining/nightlife. The Bay Area is far sleepier and has far less going on outside of the city of SF compared to what LA has going outside the city of LA. The Bay have an answer for many of the inland cities in Greater LA, then you can also add in the beach cities and it just puts LA over the top. Imagine Oakland, but more laid back, plus a beach--that's LBC. Then you still have all the rest of the beach cities with their own things going on and they all have quite impressive dining and nightlife and cultural opportunities.
If they were more similar in size, maybe this could be an easier comparison on the number of things to do and see. For me, the quantity is much higher in LA and the quality is slightly higher. I prefer the nightlife and amenities for quality in LA, and then it's impossible to deny that LA's size allows it to have tons more options. In the Bay, it seems like everything is pretty centered around the city of SF for nightlife and culture, but it gets pretty old pretty quickly. In just 4 short years, I felt as though I'd seen it all. People looking for a night out in the Bay are almost always going into SF, but then you can't get home at night. In LA, there are numerous nightlife hotspots. The museums and cultural institutions are spread throughout the region. Similarly, in NYC, the nightlife is spread throughout multiple areas of the city itself and there are a few parts of Westchester, LI, and NJ that have good nightlife and dining and cultural experiences as well. It's more heavily reliant on NYC, while LA is more spread out. But it's less reliant on NYC than the Bay is reliant on SF, and then when you're in SF, there really isn't all that much going on. And yes, it's partly due to size. But the quality of the nightlife and cultural institutions just isn't the same either.
I really doubt you spent that much time out of SF except for a handful or two of suburbs, I don't really see why anyone would unless you lived there long term. There are plenty of suburbs in the Bay Area with nightlife but if you live in SF you likely wouldn't bother going to them. What would be the point? You're overhyping these run of the mill LA suburbs because you're more familiar with them.
Partly. The Bay Area for its size is overall pretty sleepy.
Downtown LA is supposed to the urban heart for18 million people and you call the Bay Area 'sleepy'
Lol
Quote:
I agree you can find Santa Anas around the country, though there is a strong Latino vibe there.
Lots of places have a strong latino vibe.
Quote:
But Pasadena is pretty unique in its setting and history. It has a classy old money vibe that's not snooty at all compared to similar places in the Bay like Palo Alto.
The entire 280 corridor from Hillsborough to Los Altos Hills is the 'oldest' money on the west coast outside of San Francisco, back to the railroad barons.
You bring up Palo Alto, where Leland Stanford turned his summer retreat into the top university in the west, haha.
Isweardagod people dont know what theyre talking about
Downtown LA is supposed to the urban heart for18 million people and you call the Bay Area 'sleepy'
Lol
Lots of places have a strong latino vibe.
The entire 280 corridor from Hillsborough to Los Altos Hills is the 'oldest' money on the west coast outside of San Francisco, back to the railroad barons.
You bring up Palo Alto, where Leland Stanford turned his summer retreat into the top university in the west, haha.
Isweardagod people dont know what theyre talking about
Well actually the urban heart of the LA region is a rectangle from Downtown LA to Santa Monica and from I-10/Venice Bl to the Hollywood Hills. This is where people who are "going into town" end up in LA. Just like the region expanded so did the "urban heart". But you speak about DTLA like it's nothing when it's one of the fastest growing urban districts in the nation both in population growth and new developments. DTLA is becoming pretty impressive nowadays with the amount of things going on.
Lots of places have strong Latin vibes yes, but Santa Ana has one of the strongest due to history.
And you completely missed my point about Palo Alto. That area is way more snooty and stuck up than similar old money areas in LA like Pasadena or Sierra Madre.
Downtown LA is supposed to the urban heart for18 million people and you call the Bay Area 'sleepy'
Lol
Lots of places have a strong latino vibe.
The entire 280 corridor from Hillsborough to Los Altos Hills is the 'oldest' money on the west coast outside of San Francisco, back to the railroad barons.
You bring up Palo Alto, where Leland Stanford turned his summer retreat into the top university in the west, haha.
Isweardagod people dont know what theyre talking about
DTLA is not as good as it could be. That's a fact. But LA is much more of a vibrant and 24 hour place than the Bay as a whole. And the stretch of land from Santa Monica/Venice through to DTLA is really the center of LA's vibrancy and it's quite impressive. It just isn't all within the city of LA.
A unique aspect of some LA suburbs is that they're heavily Latino yet quite well-off. Many heavily Latino areas in the US are quite impoverished or at least working class. Are there any areas in the Bay that are like Santa Ana or Whittier (heavily Latino, yet pretty solidly middle-class)?
Coming from LA, though, yes, the Bay is pretty boring and elitist in comparison.
Its just a bit strange that we need to accept LAs watered down urbanism and make all kinds of excuses to forgive it's completely unacceptable downtown, just to justify calling a vast area that stretches from the dt all the way to the coast "urban".
Location: As of 2022….back to SoCal. OC this time!
9,297 posts, read 4,577,093 times
Reputation: 7613
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Its just a bit strange that we need to accept LAs watered down urbanism and make all kinds of excuses to forgive it's completely unacceptable downtown, just to justify calling a vast area that stretches from the dt all the way to the coast "urban".
So...why is LAs downtown "unacceptable" to YOU?
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.
