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.
A lot of them can be tied and I agree LA could be higher than Boston. It's really all subjective, but I believe there's more of a bias towards older, denser cities with a lot of historical interest. Then you have cities that may not have much walkability or historical interest, but make up for it in terms of really good outdoor options. A tier system would probably be better than a list.
It why 5-10 miles? That's just as arbitrary as an hour an a half out. DTLA to the Beach is 15 miles and your cutting out major portions of the city. It should be city limits or at least MSA. This is also based on people living in the cities not tourist sites.
A lot of them can be tied and I agree LA could be higher than Boston. It's really all subjective, but I believe there's more of a bias towards older, denser cities with a lot of historical interest. Then you have cities that may not have much walkability or historical interest, but make up for it in terms of really good outdoor options. A tier system would probably be better than a list.
Boston lags behind the other walkable East Coast cities. Most of its "history" is confined a couple of tiny areas, where there isn't actually much to do. It doesn't have the museums that NY and DC has. Its nightlife is subpar and there isn't that much nature in the city. There are beaches, but they're really crappy and, in terms of sand and surf, they're less desirable than Chicago's lake beaches and certainly below Coney Island.
You cannot compare "cities". That is pretty much meaningless. Over half the population of Las Vegas lives in no city and the strip is not in any city either.
And most of the charm of LA is not in the city of Los Angeles.
Other cities are similar. SF for instance is rather dull if you consider only the city. Its strength is the peninsula and the coast very little of which is in the city.
Your thread is not ready for public discussion. Learn a little more and try again.
The amount of things to do within a 5-10 mile radius from the very center of the city:
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philly
4. DC
5. San Fran
6. Boston
7. LA
8. Baltimore
9. Pittsburgh
10. Seattle
11. Miami
12. Minneapolis
13. Portland
14. San Diego
15. New Orleans
16. Atlanta
17. Denver
18. Dallas
19. Austin
20. San Antonio
#'s 16-20 would be splitting hairs. The differences are pretty marginal.
I think we could work with this list, but would make a few adjustments. I would put LA at the 2 or 3 spot. I would also move DC and San Fran ahead of Philly. I would move Miami up to just behind Boston, then Las Vegas. I would also put Seattle ahead of Baltimore and Pittsburgh. San Antonio and Denver should fall off the list replaced by Las Vegas and Houston.
Boston lags behind the other walkable East Coast cities. Most of its "history" is confined a couple of tiny areas, where there isn't actually much to do. It doesn't have the museums that NY and DC has. Its nightlife is subpar and there isn't that much nature in the city. There are beaches, but they're really crappy and, in terms of sand and surf, they're less desirable than Chicago's lake beaches and certainly below Coney Island.
Of the big four Northeast cities, Boston is definitely the least fun IMO. Nightlife wise (bars, clubs, etc.)
NYC is obviously first.
Philly and DC are tied. They can go either way.
Boston is definitely last. Sleepiest big city I've ever been to.
The amount of things to do within a 5-10 mile radius from the very center of the city:
1. NYC
2. Chicago
3. Philly
4. DC
5. San Fran
6. Boston
7. LA
8. Baltimore
9. Pittsburgh
10. Seattle
11. Miami
12. Minneapolis
13. Portland
14. San Diego
15. New Orleans
16. Atlanta
17. Denver
18. Dallas
19. Austin
20. San Antonio
#'s 16-20 would be splitting hairs. The differences are pretty marginal.
Several things wrong with this:
1).Most of the largest cities will have the most to do.Thats not rocket science.So why do cities like Pittsburgh<Baltimore ,Portland,New Orleans rank higher?
2)This metric is ridiculous because most people in any "metro" will go all over the metro for something to do.
3)Is it fair to use this metric when cities in the South and West are more spread out.Ir maybe being "fair" was not the goal.
Several things wrong with this:
1).Most of the largest cities will have the most to do.Thats not rocket science.So why do cities like Pittsburgh<Baltimore ,Portland,New Orleans rank higher?
2)This metric is ridiculous because most people in any "metro" will go all over the metro for something to do.
3)Is it fair to use this metric when cities in the South and West are more spread out.Ir maybe being "fair" was not the goal.
I agree. I hate to say it because it's a nice city, but Pittsburgh is rather boring. Not much to do there.
Baltimore has the inner harbor which is awesome, but that's about it. Portland is beautiful as well, but a rather sleepy city - at least compared to the larger ones. New Orleans does have a TON to do though.
I also think people are forgetting about Orlando. There is a TON to do in Orlando. Nashville has a ton to do. Honolulu is awesome as well.
I think in some order, after thinking about this, the top 20 cities for "things to do" have to be:
NYC
LA
Chicago
DC
San Francisco
Philadelphia
Boston
Miami
Las Vegas
Seattle
Dallas
Houston
Atlanta
New Orleans
Austin
Honolulu
San Antonio
Baltimore
Orlando
Nashville
^^This is in no particular order, but I think this should be the top 20. The rest: Portland, Denver, San Diego, Pittsburgh, Minneapolis, etc. etc.
I agree. I hate to say it because it's a nice city, but Pittsburgh is rather boring. Not much to do there.
Baltimore has the inner harbor which is awesome, but that's about it. Portland is beautiful as well, but a rather sleepy city - at least compared to the larger ones. New Orleans does have a TON to do though.
I also think people are forgetting about Orlando. There is a TON to do in Orlando. Nashville has a ton to do. Honolulu is awesome as well.
Like any legacy city, Pittsburgh has cultural institutions that rival those of a much larger city. I personally think that Pittsburgh nightlife kind of sucks, but there are many who disagree with me. I also don't think you can discount sports, and Pittsburgh is a three-sport city, with a major-conference college team, as well. The city also has one of the nicer urban casinos I've seen. If you're willing to include the metro region, Pittsburgh covers most outdoor activities, including skiing.
There's no way Austin or San Antonio has more to do than Pittsburgh.
You cannot compare "cities". That is pretty much meaningless. Over half the population of Las Vegas lives in no city and the strip is not in any city either.
And most of the charm of LA is not in the city of Los Angeles.
Other cities are similar. SF for instance is rather dull if you consider only the city. Its strength is the peninsula and the coast very little of which is in the city.
Your thread is not ready for public discussion. Learn a little more and try again.
Of course you can compare cities. And I'm sure SF and LA have plenty to do in city limits. There's certainly much more to do in NYC than its suburbs.
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.
