Cities with no trendy, hip, or "cool" suburbs/bordering cities. Cities without? (renting, how much)

[bjimmy24]

Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade

Central square.

Somerville is just pure hipster IMO

meh Central Square is kinda lame imo. Inman is better. I don't like any of Somerville to be frank, but I think it passes as "trendy."

[BostonBornMassMade]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

meh Central Square is kinda lame imo. Inman is better. I don't like any of Somerville to be frank, but I think it passes as "trendy."

I like central for the record store, the Middle East and some Indian restaurants that's about it, I like Cambridge maude but I liked it more when it was a Galleria

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

meh Central Square is kinda lame imo. Inman is better. I don't like any of Somerville to be frank, but I think it passes as "trendy."

Truthfully, almost no city has a hip or edgy suburb. Areas that might have been considered hip or edgy 10 years ago are basic yuppie, now. Hipsters aren’t really a thing anymore. Sure, there are pockets of artists and bohemians, but, they tend to be in rundown, semi industrial areas and of major cities, not in the desirable satellite cities.

Oakland is legitimately hip, but only on C – D is it considered a San Francisco suburb.

[jessemh431]

Originally Posted by gladhands

Truthfully, almost no city has a hip or edgy suburb. Areas that might have been considered hip or edgy 10 years ago are basic yuppie, now. Hipsters aren’t really a thing anymore. Sure, there are pockets of artists and bohemians, but, they tend to be in rundown, semi industrial areas and of major cities, not in the desirable satellite cities.

Oakland is legitimately hip, but only on C – D is it considered a San Francisco suburb.

OP said bordering city also. Oakland is a bordering city. Same way LBC is a bordering city of LA IMO and even Hoboken/Jersey City I don't consider full-fledged suburbs.

[frimpter928]

Originally Posted by gladhands

Truthfully, almost no city has a hip or edgy suburb. Areas that might have been considered hip or edgy 10 years ago are basic yuppie, now. Hipsters aren’t really a thing anymore. Sure, there are pockets of artists and bohemians, but, they tend to be in rundown, semi industrial areas and of major cities, not in the desirable satellite cities.

Oakland is legitimately hip, but only on C – D is it considered a San Francisco suburb.

Who is saying it's a suburb? I said suburb OR bordering city. I mean I really don't consider Miami Beach to be suburb of Miami, nor do I consider Santa Monica to be one to LA.

[gladhands]

Originally Posted by jessemh431

OP said bordering city also. Oakland is a bordering city. Same way LBC is a bordering city of LA IMO and even Hoboken/Jersey City I don't consider full-fledged suburbs.

Originally Posted by frimpter928

Who is saying it's a suburb? I said suburb OR bordering city. I mean I really don't consider Miami Beach to be suburb of Miami, nor do I consider Santa Monica to be one to LA.

Even still, most of those aren’t hip. I’ve never been to Long Beach, so I’m going to leave that what are the discussion, but Jersey City, Hoboken and Miami Beach are definitely not hip. Hoboken and JC are desirable to millennial yuppies. Miami Beach comes the closest to being hip, but it’s more glitzy than cool.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by frimpter928

There are a lot of cities in the US that have a lot of trendy suburbs or bordering cities. By that I mean suburbs where people go to hang out for nightlife, that have cool art scenes, are that are a destination for citizens and visitors. For example some cities that DO have them:

LA - Santa Monica, West Hollywood.

Miami - Miami Beach

San Francisco - Oakland

Phoenix - Scottsdale


However, when you look at a city like Chicago, it really has no trendy or hip suburbs or neighboring cities. The closest would be Evanston or Oak Park, and they are very nice suburbs with things to do, but most people would not consider them hip, trendy or cool.

If not trendy or hip, both Evanston and Oak Park are urban and urbane. They very much represent a life style tpe of community that offers a city like vibe, albeit on a smaller scale.

If any suburb in Chicagoland approacges some of the vibe of Nort Side lakefront neighborhoods like Lincoln Park or Lake View, it would be Evanston. With NU, Evanston is a real college town. And there still remains a dose of the funk around Dempster and Chicago Avenue

[VietInKC]

Kansas City: Waldo Area????

I don't think there are any to be honest here.

[TheTimidBlueBars]

Originally Posted by jessemh431

As for Chicago, Evanston actually has a lot going on. I'm not an expert to say if it's "trendy," but it has a large university, it's very urban, it has direct L access, and it has its own beaches. My one time there it seemed pretty cool and Northwestern's prestige and size gave a lot of youth and international vibes to the sizable downtown area.

Oak Park is also building a ton of apartments for young professionals to live in and commute downtown on the L.

Does Houston have "trendy" suburbs? I feel like the city limits are so far out, any areas of high activity will probably be in the city proper, and this goes for a lot of Southern and Western cities.

[PerseusVeil]

For St. Louis it would be University City by default, and a lot of people wouldn't even know why oddly enough. It's because The Delmar Loop is split between U. City and St. Louis proper, which is restaurant and nightlife district next to Washington University.

Clayton also has a lot going for it in terms of the DeMun neighborhood that it shares with St. Louis, in addition to its own downtown. The trouble with downtown Clayton though is that it's essentially the downtown version of one of St. Louis' private drive streets. Hence why its rents in its highrise buildings outpace the city, on average. This is anecdotal, but based on my last apartment search I'd wager that the only part of the city that can truly compete in terms of price are some of the towers in the Central West End.