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.
Also, for your interests in nightlife, isn't it nice being able to walk around an urban city like Boston, NYC, Philly, DC or Chicago and just stumbling upon a new restaurant or bar because you heard the music and saw the crowd or read the menu out front? On the west coast that never happens. People have a destination they drive to in their car, park the car, go in the establishment, leave in their car, then drive home and park the car.
Hmm - not sure I'm on board with this. There's no doubt the Northeast is far and away the best area in the country for that kind of urban exploration. But outside of the Northeast there are very few places in the country where you can "walk around an urban city...and just stumble upon a new restaurant or bar because you heard the music and saw the crowd or read the menu out front."
I'd argue that - again, outside the Northeast -the West Coast offers just as many cities as anywhere else where this is possible. SF definitely fits the bill as one of them - I'm not sure how much time you've spent there but up until at least 1 am you can walk around dozens of neighborhoods and discover new bars and restaurants.
Check out this thread I posted for cities with the number of bars open past 1am - SF has the highest concentration per capita of any city and it's very much a "walk around and stumble into things" kind of city: https://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...te-past-3.html
Seattle and Portland are also relatively compact cities that score well - by American standards - in this department of urban exploration. Same goes for Oakland, which has more continuous urban density than most people give it credit for. Say what you will about LA, but compared to virtually all other Sun Belt cities it offers a lot more of this type of urban exploration as well.
Meanwhile, the South - which rightly has been credited in this thread with having a very good lineup of nightlife cities with later last calls, friendly people and famous nightlife strips (6th St., Broadway, Bourbon St., Beale St. etc.) is generally much more car-oriented with minimal transit service and a dirth of true three-dimensional urbanity. Your comment about people driving everywhere is much more applicable to the South than the West Coast. No city in the South approaches even Seattle for transit commute mode share, let alone SF.
The Midwest obviously has Chicago, but outside of that it doesn't have a great lineup of cities for the type of urban exploration you're describing either. Minneapolis is the second best, followed by places with strong bones like Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Cleveland. But those all have major gaps and come nowhere close to providing a great, cohesive urban-exploration-at-night vibe a la the Northeast.
And Florida cities are arguably among the worst in the country for urban exploration. They are the epitome of car-oriented sunbelt sprawl.
The point is you're mixing and matching here. I think we agree that there are various aspects that hurt the party vibe/nightlife energy on the West Coast: the elitist, cliquey, more insular mentality; more pervasive health-conscious lifestyles; and generally widespread 2am last calls.
However, when it comes to urban exploration the West Coast actually has a pretty strong collection of cities with sizeable walkable areas (even underrated places like Sacramento - with its Midtown/Downtown combo). And it has cities with fairly high concentrations of bars open until at least 1am. Compared to cities in other countries, 3-dimensional urban exploration opportunities in US cities outside of the Northeast - especially after 10pm - are pretty stark. Within that spectrum, West Coast cities actually fare pretty well.
Hmm - not sure I'm on board with this. There's no doubt the Northeast is far and away the best area in the country for that kind of urban exploration. But outside of the Northeast there are very few places in the country where you can "walk around an urban city...and just stumble upon a new restaurant or bar because you heard the music and saw the crowd or read the menu out front."
I'd argue that - again, outside the Northeast -the West Coast offers just as many cities as anywhere else where this is possible. SF definitely fits the bill as one of them - I'm not sure how much time you've spent there but up until at least 1 am you can walk around dozens of neighborhoods and discover new bars and restaurants.
Check out this thread I posted for cities with the number of bars open past 1am - SF has the highest concentration per capita of any city and it's very much a "walk around and stumble into things" kind of city: https://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...te-past-3.html
Seattle and Portland are also relatively compact cities that score well - by American standards - in this department of urban exploration. Same goes for Oakland, which has more continuous urban density than most people give it credit for. Say what you will about LA, but compared to virtually all other Sun Belt cities it offers a lot more of this type of urban exploration as well.
Meanwhile, the South - which rightly has been credited in this thread with having a very good lineup of nightlife cities with later last calls, friendly people and famous nightlife strips (6th St., Broadway, Bourbon St., Beale St. etc.) is generally much more car-oriented with minimal transit service and a dirth of true three-dimensional urbanity. Your comment about people driving everywhere is much more applicable to the South than the West Coast. No city in the South approaches even Seattle for transit commute mode share, let alone SF.
The Midwest obviously has Chicago, but outside of that it doesn't have a great lineup of cities for the type of urban exploration you're describing either. Minneapolis is the second best, followed by places with strong bones like Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Cleveland. But those all have major gaps and come nowhere close to providing a great, cohesive urban-exploration-at-night vibe a la the Northeast.
And Florida cities are arguably among the worst in the country for urban exploration. They are the epitome of car-oriented sunbelt sprawl.
The point is you're mixing and matching here. I think we agree that there are various aspects that hurt the party vibe/nightlife energy on the West Coast: the elitist, cliquey, more insular mentality; more pervasive health-conscious lifestyles; and generally widespread 2am last calls.
However, when it comes to urban exploration the West Coast actually has a pretty strong collection of cities with sizeable walkable areas (even underrated places like Sacramento - with its Midtown/Downtown combo). And it has cities with fairly high concentrations of bars open until at least 1am. Compared to cities in other countries, 3-dimensional urban exploration opportunities in US cities outside of the Northeast - especially after 10pm - are pretty stark. Within that spectrum, West Coast cities actually fare pretty well.
Well, this might be so, but the initial thread question was why the major cities on the east coast seem to have more energy as opposed to the same on the west coast. I read this as some semblance of the following east coast cities: NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, DC, Miami, New Orleans, Charlotte, Jacksonville. The west coast cities that come to mind include: LA, Portland, Seattle, San Fran, San Diego, San Jose, Sacramento, and maybe Long Beach or Oakland. In my opinion, there really isn't much of a debate in general energy levels between the two lists, and this is beyond just bar scenes and walkability. Obviously, as you pointed out, the NE cities are the bulk of this energy.
Hmm - not sure I'm on board with this. There's no doubt the Northeast is far and away the best area in the country for that kind of urban exploration. But outside of the Northeast there are very few places in the country where you can "walk around an urban city...and just stumble upon a new restaurant or bar because you heard the music and saw the crowd or read the menu out front."
I'd argue that - again, outside the Northeast -the West Coast offers just as many cities as anywhere else where this is possible. SF definitely fits the bill as one of them - I'm not sure how much time you've spent there but up until at least 1 am you can walk around dozens of neighborhoods and discover new bars and restaurants.
Check out this thread I posted for cities with the number of bars open past 1am - SF has the highest concentration per capita of any city and it's very much a "walk around and stumble into things" kind of city: https://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...te-past-3.html
Seattle and Portland are also relatively compact cities that score well - by American standards - in this department of urban exploration. Same goes for Oakland, which has more continuous urban density than most people give it credit for. Say what you will about LA, but compared to virtually all other Sun Belt cities it offers a lot more of this type of urban exploration as well.
Meanwhile, the South - which rightly has been credited in this thread with having a very good lineup of nightlife cities with later last calls, friendly people and famous nightlife strips (6th St., Broadway, Bourbon St., Beale St. etc.) is generally much more car-oriented with minimal transit service and a dirth of true three-dimensional urbanity. Your comment about people driving everywhere is much more applicable to the South than the West Coast. No city in the South approaches even Seattle for transit commute mode share, let alone SF.
The Midwest obviously has Chicago, but outside of that it doesn't have a great lineup of cities for the type of urban exploration you're describing either. Minneapolis is the second best, followed by places with strong bones like Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Cleveland. But those all have major gaps and come nowhere close to providing a great, cohesive urban-exploration-at-night vibe a la the Northeast.
And Florida cities are arguably among the worst in the country for urban exploration. They are the epitome of car-oriented sunbelt sprawl.
The point is you're mixing and matching here. I think we agree that there are various aspects that hurt the party vibe/nightlife energy on the West Coast: the elitist, cliquey, more insular mentality; more pervasive health-conscious lifestyles; and generally widespread 2am last calls.
However, when it comes to urban exploration the West Coast actually has a pretty strong collection of cities with sizeable walkable areas (even underrated places like Sacramento - with its Midtown/Downtown combo). And it has cities with fairly high concentrations of bars open until at least 1am. Compared to cities in other countries, 3-dimensional urban exploration opportunities in US cities outside of the Northeast - especially after 10pm - are pretty stark. Within that spectrum, West Coast cities actually fare pretty well.
I'd partially agree with you. Yes, Seattle and Portland are good for exploring an urban neighborhood and stumbling upon something new. But in cities like DC, Chicago, Philly and NYC, it's easy to just gather a group of people at a meeting place and wander for a bit to find a restaurant or bar to eat at. You may have an idea in mind, but work your way there and see what's along the route. There are numerous neighborhoods you can do that in. In west coast cities, you're more limited because the urban footprint is often just the immediate downtown area. I'll give you that Sacramento, Portland, Seattle, and SF have good urban footprints to accomplish something similar, just not on the scale of northeast cities.
While SF has a high concentration of bars, the actual regular dining scene closes down very early. I went to college there. Finding something open after normal dinner hours for late night study food was nearly impossible unless you wanted subway or crappy pizza. Many restaurants close by 9pm. There was basically no coffee shop open 24/7 to study at except for one tiny Starbucks. No 24/7 diners I knew of. Plenty of restaurants in LA and the northeast stay open until very late that do not turn into bars at night. Many of the bar/restaurants in SF turn into just bars at night where eating would not be normal.
Overall, though, even if we can argue that SF, Seattle, and Portland provide a quality urban experience on the level of the northeast (which they don't), there's no room for debate on the vibrancy of the cities through the day and night. Northeast cities + Chicago + Miami have more 24/7 life than any city on the west coast. LA is the closest any west coast city can get, but it's still far behind any of the cities on the east coast we've been mentioning.
Well, this might be so, but the initial thread question was why the major cities on the east coast seem to have more energy as opposed to the same on the west coast. I read this as some semblance of the following east coast cities: NYC, Boston, Philadelphia, DC, Miami, New Orleans, Charlotte, Jacksonville. The west coast cities that come to mind include: LA, Portland, Seattle, San Fran, San Diego, San Jose, Sacramento, and maybe Long Beach or Oakland. In my opinion, there really isn't much of a debate in general energy levels between the two lists, and this is beyond just bar scenes and walkability. Obviously, as you pointed out, the NE cities are the bulk of this energy.
The east coast cities I'd consider:
NYC
DC
Miami
Philly
Atlanta
Boston
Baltimore
Tampa
*throw Chicago in the mix because of its ties and history more aligned with the east than west
The west coast cities I'd consider:
LA
Phoenix
SF
Seattle
San Diego
Denver
Portland
Sacramento
Las Vegas
San Jose
The only east coast one that loses easily to most is Tampa, yet I'd still put Tampa above Vegas and Phoenix.
There is nothing more suburban and "low energy" than Phoenix when it comes to large cities. Vegas is only "high energy" in the tourist sense. Those living there are not constantly on the Strip. They're in their sleepy cul de sacs and rarely venture in the lively tourist areas. Meanwhile, people living in NYC, DC, Miami, Philly, etc. regularly venture into the vibrant areas and/or live in them.
LA is the only city that competes with any of the top dogs on the east coast for being "high energy" because the city is more outgoing than most west coast cities and the nightlife is better when it comes to locals (LV is best, but not for locals as much). All the other west coast cities have pockets of fun, high energy neighborhoods, but they can't compare to the top cities on the east coast. I'm not an expert on Atlanta, but I'm assuming in the urban areas it has some pretty good liveliness to it that SJ, LV, and Phoenix don't have. Maybe more on the Denver/SD level.
The east coast cities I'd consider:
NYC
DC
Miami
Philly
Atlanta
Boston
Baltimore
Tampa
*throw Chicago in the mix because of its ties and history more aligned with the east than west
The west coast cities I'd consider:
LA
Phoenix
SF
Seattle
San Diego
Denver
Portland
Sacramento
Las Vegas
San Jose
The only east coast one that loses easily to most is Tampa, yet I'd still put Tampa above Vegas and Phoenix.
There is nothing more suburban and "low energy" than Phoenix when it comes to large cities. Vegas is only "high energy" in the tourist sense. Those living there are not constantly on the Strip. They're in their sleepy cul de sacs and rarely venture in the lively tourist areas. Meanwhile, people living in NYC, DC, Miami, Philly, etc. regularly venture into the vibrant areas and/or live in them.
LA is the only city that competes with any of the top dogs on the east coast for being "high energy" because the city is more outgoing than most west coast cities and the nightlife is better when it comes to locals (LV is best, but not for locals as much). All the other west coast cities have pockets of fun, high energy neighborhoods, but they can't compare to the top cities on the east coast. I'm not an expert on Atlanta, but I'm assuming in the urban areas it has some pretty good liveliness to it that SJ, LV, and Phoenix don't have. Maybe more on the Denver/SD level.
I completely forgot about Atlanta, which to answer your question, in my opinion has a "mid-to-high energy" level overall. You're going a little more inland than what I would personally consider to be coastal, but those are good lists none-the-less.
I completely forgot about Atlanta, which to answer your question, in my opinion has a "mid-to-high energy" level overall. You're going a little more inland than what I would personally consider to be coastal, but those are good lists none-the-less.
True. I just find Phoenix, Vegas, and Denver to have such strong ties to the major west coast cities that it's hard to not include them as culturally west coast. They are not geographically west coast in the same way, but I figure if we're including Chicago because of its strong ties to the east coast, including those as west coast is equal. And a lot of their populations have come from west coasters escaping the higher COL.
Problem is, it is spread out in nodes. LA lacks that downtown and surrounding hoods vibrancy. For example, Downtown and Hollywood are on opposite sides of Central LA. Venice Beach and Echo Park might as well be in different counties. Central LA still has a grip of poverty and it will take considerable gentrification, which I don't think is possible. What with job centers spread out in nodes like they are.
Problem is, it is spread out in nodes. LA lacks that downtown and surrounding hoods vibrancy. For example, Downtown and Hollywood are on opposite sides of Central LA. Venice Beach and Echo Park might as well be in different counties. Central LA still has a grip of poverty and it will take considerable gentrification, which I don't think is possible. What with job centers spread out in nodes like they are.
Yeah, good point. California is geographically huge so it's difficult to connect all the various hubs of activity.
I'd partially agree with you. Yes, Seattle and Portland are good for exploring an urban neighborhood and stumbling upon something new. But in cities like DC, Chicago, Philly and NYC, it's easy to just gather a group of people at a meeting place and wander for a bit to find a restaurant or bar to eat at. You may have an idea in mind, but work your way there and see what's along the route. There are numerous neighborhoods you can do that in. In west coast cities, you're more limited because the urban footprint is often just the immediate downtown area. I'll give you that Sacramento, Portland, Seattle, and SF have good urban footprints to accomplish something similar, just not on the scale of northeast cities.
While SF has a high concentration of bars, the actual regular dining scene closes down very early. I went to college there. Finding something open after normal dinner hours for late night study food was nearly impossible unless you wanted subway or crappy pizza. Many restaurants close by 9pm. There was basically no coffee shop open 24/7 to study at except for one tiny Starbucks. No 24/7 diners I knew of. Plenty of restaurants in LA and the northeast stay open until very late that do not turn into bars at night. Many of the bar/restaurants in SF turn into just bars at night where eating would not be normal.
Overall, though, even if we can argue that SF, Seattle, and Portland provide a quality urban experience on the level of the northeast (which they don't), there's no room for debate on the vibrancy of the cities through the day and night. Northeast cities + Chicago + Miami have more 24/7 life than any city on the west coast. LA is the closest any west coast city can get, but it's still far behind any of the cities on the east coast we've been mentioning.
I'm not sure if you misread my post - I said up front that the Northeast is far and away the best area in the country for 3-D urban exploration in regards to nightlife. There's no reasonable debate to be had there.
However, your characterization of West Coast cities as places where people drive everywhere and which fully lack 3-D urban nightlife exploration didn't really make sense since the West Coast is clearly better than cities in the South, Texas, and South Florida and arguably better than the Midwest (which, outside of Chicago, isn't all that great) in that category. It just seemed like you were singling out West Coast cities for the lack of a 3-D stumble-around-and-discover urban nightlife experience, when you could make a case that it has the best collection of cities for that outside of the Northeast.
We've discussed why the South has some great nightlife cities and is very conducive to a fun party vibe, but it doesn't fit the mold you're describing at all. The South tends to have targeted nightlife districts within cities that are largely car-oriented and not generally very good for pedestrians or urban exploration.
Last edited by Vincent_Adultman; 12-27-2018 at 02:55 PM..
My office starts gain steam at 7:00 am, and most people arrive by 8:00. Granted we're a construction company and our HQ supports jobsites that start at 6:45 on average. But 8:00 is a typical start time for other industries' offices too. Is that also typical on the east coast?
I'm suggesting that we're out and about a similar number of hours, but in the West it's shifted earlier.
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.
