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.
Its going to be really hard for the "San Diego doesn't want or need pro sports" crowd to tap dance around this question. Anyone who has been to a Padre game knows that it is a massive catalyst for general activity downtown.
From what I hear, downtown was not much to write home about in the years prior to the Padres arrival there (look up before and after skyline photos) and its hard to imagine East Village amounting to anything without Major League Baseball.
Really makes you wonder what an additional downtown NFL venue might have done for the place. Guess we'll never know!
I would really love to know where you “heard” that? The Gaslamp Quarter was well established as the premier place for nightlife in San Diego well before Petco Park opened in 2004. I’d say by the mid to late 90’s (early 2000’s at the latest) it took that distinction from Pacific Beach?
Yeah it’s true East Village (wasn’t even called that before Petco) was nothing to write home about, but not downtown as a whole? And in all honesty you’d probably see it filled with residential high rises by 2020 regardless of a stadium as it’s exempt from the 3 story coastal commission height limit, and the way DT was trending?
There’s a reason that spot was chosen, and not the land adjacent to Qualcomm Stadium that many proposed as “East Village” was already earmarked for residential development.
I would really love to know where you “heard” that? The Gaslamp Quarter was well established as the premier place for nightlife in San Diego well before Petco Park opened in 2004. I’d say by the mid to late 90’s (early 2000’s at the latest) it took that distinction from Pacific Beach?
Yeah it’s true East Village (wasn’t even called that before Petco) was nothing to write home about, but not downtown as a whole? And in all honesty you’d probably see it filled with residential high rises by 2020 regardless of a stadium as it’s exempt from the 3 story coastal commission height limit, and the way DT was trending?
There’s a reason that spot was chosen, and not the land adjacent to Qualcomm Stadium that many proposed as “East Village” was already earmarked for residential development.
From a native of the region, also lets remember the Gaslamp is but one part of downtown.
My favorite nightlife place is actually La Jolla, mostly due to The Comedy Store (which used to be in PB).
From a native of the region, also lets remember the Gaslamp is but one part of downtown.
My favorite nightlife place is actually La Jolla, mostly due to The Comedy Store (which used to be in PB).
Well with all due respect to the “native of the region” you spoke to doesn’t know what they’re talking about? I seriously can’t fathom anyone from San Diego saying that unless they’re younger and never went downtown before Petco was built? Even then, unless very sheltered, would’ve known about the Gaslamp? Downtown really started to clean up in the mid 80’s, and was unrecognizable by the early 90’s. I know, my dentist was down there growing up.
And yes the Gaslamp is just one part of downtown, but it’s section right in the heart of it connected to the CBD.
My point was in no way to minimize Austin in any way. Austin has areas where it is superior to DFW and Houston. It was just to point out that there is an image a lot of (again especially white liberals) have of Austin and the inverse image they have of the rest of Texas. I suppose its not completely unlike the image a lot of black people have of Atlanta.
I have no issue with anyone preferring Austin to anywhere else in Texas. A lot of people do and good for them. But hate us or love us for what we are, not what were not. Dont love Austin for being a bastion of international flair and dont love Houston for being super liberal because those dont pan out.
But in the end, if someone has decided a city is full of people like them (which is how many white liberals in California view Austin), they will super impose all positive characteristics on that city without learning anything first.
You have a point, but--and I know we've covered all this before--Houston hasn't done much to market itself and promote its attributes and offerings either; it is arguably the biggest obscure U.S. city and although it has a few similarities with LA (which some would say are mostly superficial), it doesn't really have any strong economic or cultural ties to CA's major urban areas presently. At the same time, because Houston's economy is very much tied to its geography as well as highly and uniquely commodity-driven, it never really had a need to heavily market itself for economic development purposes. Basically, it got to be as large and prosperous as it is without really even trying which is quite the rarity for a Sunbelt city.
Austin, on the other hand, had to put in quite a bit more sweat equity to successfully leverage its assets to experience the growth and prosperity it has been a recipient of over the past several years, and much of that work included extensive marketing and self-promotion. IMO, the pinnacle of that strategy is SXSW which really put the city on the map in a major way both culturally and economically. I'd venture to say that event is most likely the primary reason why Austin is perceived the way it is by some, even if it isn't reflective of everyday reality in Austin. That goes to show the power and influence that an annual signature event (or hosting a high-profile significant event) can have and the benefits it can bring to a place. Interestingly enough, this has relevance to the topic at hand and I'd say it's another piece of evidence in Austin's favor.
Well with all due respect to the “native of the region” you spoke to doesn’t know what they’re talking about? I seriously can’t fathom anyone from San Diego saying that unless they’re younger and never went downtown before Petco was built? Even then, unless very sheltered, would’ve known about the Gaslamp? Downtown really started to clean up in the mid 80’s, and was unrecognizable by the early 90’s. I know, my dentist was down there growing up.
And yes the Gaslamp is just one part of downtown, but it’s section right in the heart of it connected to the CBD.
I’ve been here since the mid ‘80s and worked downtown in the Gaslamp, opened Croces when it was smack dab in the middle of a hilarious sheet show of Navy bars, porn shops, hookers and pimps, well, there was Patrick’s.
Petco Park transformed the East Village positively and while I could support keeping a NFL team here without fleecing the tax paying citizens I could not abide by the plan of a hulking white elephant of a rarely used stadium in super compact, tiny urban block San Diego next to Petco or anywhere downtown. Those “tourist paid only” facilities have a way of leaching on to municipal revenue streams not originally intended for them.
San Diego isn’t a huge sports town, everyone who came LOVED it when we hosted the Super Bowl but the stadium was obsolete and the city wasn’t focused on a new one. I’ve gotten my sports fill since the Chargers left from season tickets to the Padres and Gulls, frequent Aztec (football and basketball) and Torero’s games and catching a couple of Rugby games in 2019. Plenty of other stuff going on and to do in the city. Hell, hopefully if sports comes back there will still be the fantastic sports bars in this beautiful region to take in games year round even if you can’t make it live.
Hosted sporting events can undoubtedly bring a great vitality to cities but the facilities and team owners have a way of frequently plundering good will and civic responsibilities in their host cities. I wouldn’t say its presence or breadth necessarily defines any real city of consequence which hopefully has a bit more going on than clinging to just that.
I’ve been here since the mid ‘80s and worked downtown in the Gaslamp, opened Croces when it was smack dab in the middle of a hilarious sheet show of Navy bars, porn shops, hookers and pimps, well, there was Patrick’s.
Petco Park transformed the East Village positively and while I could support keeping a NFL team here without fleecing the tax paying citizens I could not abide by the plan of a hulking white elephant of a rarely used stadium in super compact, tiny urban block San Diego next to Petco or anywhere downtown. Those “tourist paid only” facilities have a way of leaching on to municipal revenue streams not originally intended for them.
San Diego isn’t a huge sports town, everyone who came LOVED it when we hosted the Super Bowl but the stadium was obsolete and the city wasn’t focused on a new one. I’ve gotten my sports fill since the Chargers left from season tickets to the Padres and Gulls, frequent Aztec (football and basketball) and Torero’s games and catching a couple of Rugby games in 2019. Plenty of other stuff going on and to do in the city. Hell, hopefully if sports comes back there will still be the fantastic sports bars in this beautiful region to take in games year round even if you can’t make it live.
Hosted sporting events can undoubtedly bring a great vitality to cities but the facilities and team owners have a way of frequently plundering good will and civic responsibilities in their host cities. I wouldn’t say its presence or breadth necessarily defines any real city of consequence which hopefully has a bit more going on than clinging to just that.
If you walk down Newport Avenue on NFL gameday, all people are doing is watching football. The beach is an afterthought. I'm assuming a similar scene at other beaches.
The Gulls are one of the top attendance teams in their league.
The Chargers are a legacy NFL franchise from the 1960's with a large fan base.
The Padres are a legacy MLB team with plenty of well known history led by one of the top hitters in the history of the game.
San Diego built a venue called "Sports Arena" in the 1960's which later hosted the NBA all star game, 2 NBA teams and the Final Four.
San Diego is a sports town.
San Diego borders an even larger Mexican city which is even more enthusiatic about sports.
Cities that have far more cultural offerings and general non-sports activities (including beaches and great year round weather) also have more sports teams than San Diego.
Most places are catching on to hipster culture, even places that people didn’t associate with hipster culture at all a long time ago.
Are you serious? I haven't heard anybody talk about "Hipsters," let alone "Hipster culture," in probably 5 years or more. For instance, here's an article describing the slow, lingering death of hipsterdom from 6 years ago:
As a Texan transplanted to California, I agree that hipsters were more of a thing here 10-11 years ago, especially in SF and LA, and were never much of a thing in Texas, except for smatterings in Austin and Dallas as brief trends, but almost completely missing in Houston and San Antonio.
Even so, calling out "Hipster culture" is a bit of a stretch. It was a well ingrained, enduring trend in places like SF, NYC, LA, Portland, Seattle and a few other cities (and mostly contained to specific neighborhoods) that saw its peak around 2011-2012.
You're right to note that Austin was more Hipster-influenced than San Diego, though. Both cities are more geared to Bros (the counter-trend to Hipsters) overall, to my eye, however.
That all said, Austin is a fine place, but I'd take San Diego 10 out of 10 times, all things being equal in the decision. I've spent roughly equal time in both places, and do like them both for the relaxed lifestyles they offer. Both are among my favorite "weekend getaway" type destinations, but both come up short for me as cities to live full-time.
I'd probably even pick San Diego over LA, personally, though I'm surely biased in that opinion because the bulk of my experience with San Diego is fun, leisure trips, versus the many work trips I make to LA every year.
So, for me (in order of preference):
1. Bay Area
2, San Diego
3. Austin (tie)
LA (tie)
5. Houston
6. Dallas
EDIT: Reading through the thread, I understood the OP's question better. Austin is a more important "third city" to Texas than SD is to California, in my opinion.
I'm pretty left-leaning in my politics, which probably influences my ranking. A lot is said about how "liberal" Austin is and how "conservative" San Diego is. In my experience, Socially and politically, the two cities seem quite similar in this respect, though.
PS- on SD as a sports town--I agree-- it's a pretty good one. Austin is, too, for Cowboys and Longhorns fans. Both cities always struck me as primarily football towns. That said, Petco Park is an excellent place to watch a game and I make the trip to do just that, every chance I get. It's always 20-30% or more Giants fans (like me) there, though. :-)
You have a point, but--and I know we've covered all this before--Houston hasn't done much to market itself and promote its attributes and offerings either; it is arguably the biggest obscure U.S. city and although it has a few similarities with LA (which some would say are mostly superficial), it doesn't really have any strong economic or cultural ties to CA's major urban areas presently. At the same time, because Houston's economy is very much tied to its geography as well as highly and uniquely commodity-driven, it never really had a need to heavily market itself for economic development purposes. Basically, it got to be as large and prosperous as it is without really even trying which is quite the rarity for a Sunbelt city.
Austin, on the other hand, had to put in quite a bit more sweat equity to successfully leverage its assets to experience the growth and prosperity it has been a recipient of over the past several years, and much of that work included extensive marketing and self-promotion. IMO, the pinnacle of that strategy is SXSW which really put the city on the map in a major way both culturally and economically. I'd venture to say that event is most likely the primary reason why Austin is perceived the way it is by some, even if it isn't reflective of everyday reality in Austin. That goes to show the power and influence that an annual signature event (or hosting a high-profile significant event) can have and the benefits it can bring to a place. Interestingly enough, this has relevance to the topic at hand and I'd say it's another piece of evidence in Austin's favor.
I completely agree. Austin has done an amazing job of marketing itself. Houston never tried.
Houston's economy is also internationally tied while Austin's is domestic. That doesnt do much to help Houston here.
I completely agree. Austin has done an amazing job of marketing itself. Houston never tried.
Houston's economy is also internationally tied while Austin's is domestic. That doesnt do much to help Houston here.
Houston markets itself, but to business.
For the last ten years Houston has been in the top 5 for relocations to the metro.
For the first half of the decade it was top 3 every year, some of them 1.
I think it has done so well in a business front that it focuses too narrowly on keeping that.
DFW is a ton more well rounded in that it markets itself as a place of business AND also in a pop culture sense.
But even in a business sense DFW is more aggressive at marketing itself than Houston.
Austin for a while was more geared to marketing itself in the pop culture sense than Houston and even Dallas.
But now Austin is just as aggressive at Both just like DFW
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.
