Is Santa Monica like Pasadena (Glendale, Burbank: limo, homes, to live in)

[disgruntled la native]

Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz

I always find it funny when people say that cities like SM and Pasadena are walkable. Anyone who's lived in a city that's actually walkable would see Pasadena for the suburb that it is. Santa Monica's beachfront is basically a shopping mall extended along multiple city blocks. SM's beachfront shopping mall / downtown does have a good collections of bars in close proximity, so it is a pretty good place to bar hop and then sit upon the beach buzzed. Besides that area, unless you live on Wishire and enjoy bus commutes that can take up to an hour + to travel any reasonable distance, SM is NOT walkable in the sense that an actual walkable city would defined that term as. And most folks rarely work AND live in SM so hardly anyone is going to rely on SoCal's slow and limited-reaching public transportation to get to work.

So if walkable to you means hour+ commutes each way to work by bus and MAYBE living within a 15 minute walk to a Starbucks and maybe 2 other stores in a strip mall, then by all means, move to Pas/SM/SoCal, but it ain't SF/Boston/NYC.

True that most people don't live AND work in SM, but it is an extremely walkable area. With the exception of the far north and south ends, SM is about as walkable as it gets. Only West Hollywood and Hollywood may be more walkable.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by yby1

Santa Monica is more walkable than that. What about Montana Ave from 7th on to about 17th? There are plenty of places to work in Santa Monica as well.

That guy lives to be wrong about everything. Apparently a city, or subsection of a city, now has to be SF/BOS to be considered walkable. That's just idiotic.

I prefer Pasadena. Less congested and it feels closer to the DTLA/Echo Park/WeHo axis that I historically gravitate to. I'm aware that factually Santa Monica might be closer to some of those areas, but with the awful congestion on the Westside, it doesn't feel that way.

Living near Lake Avenue provides damn near everything you could possibly want in terms of amenities (all walkable despite dopey claims to the contrary) and it lives up to SoCal's famous laidback vibe far better than Santa Monica/Westside does IMO. That's a major plus. They're both top notch though.

[genjy]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

I prefer Pasadena. Less congested and it feels closer to the DTLA/Echo Park/WeHo axis that I historically gravitate to. I'm aware that factually Santa Monica might be closer to some of those areas, but with the awful congestion on the Westside, it doesn't feel that way.

That's how I kind of feel too.

The 110 from Pasadena to Downtown LA is a short, easy drive--that section of the 110 (Arroyo Parkway) is almost never congested until around Chinatown. And from Chinatown, areas like Los Feliz, Echo Park, and Silver Lake are very accessible via Stadium Way, Sunset Blvd, etc.

On the other hand, to and from Santa Monica, the 10 freeway can be quite hellish.

[BRinSM]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Pasadena is better for when you are slightly older and down to earth, appreciate culture (microbrews, museums, performing arts, historic architecture, public transit (gold line), nature (hiking/mountains close by, neighborhoods with secret stairways, etc.)

while i don't disagree with you about pasadena, someone who has simlar interests could also fit in perfectly in santa monica as well. everything you mentioned for pasadena also exists in SM.

[True Freedom]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

I prefer Pasadena. Less congested and it feels closer to the DTLA/Echo Park/WeHo axis that I historically gravitate to. I'm aware that factually Santa Monica might be closer to some of those areas, but with the awful congestion on the Westside, it doesn't feel that way.

don't worry.. people are working tirelessly to create west side traffic here in Pasadena. Awful congestion will be here soon enough.

[disgruntled la native]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

That guy lives to be wrong about everything. Apparently a city, or subsection of a city, now has to be SF/BOS to be considered walkable. That's just idiotic.

I prefer Pasadena. Less congested and it feels closer to the DTLA/Echo Park/WeHo axis that I historically gravitate to. I'm aware that factually Santa Monica might be closer to some of those areas, but with the awful congestion on the Westside, it doesn't feel that way.

Living near Lake Avenue provides damn near everything you could possibly want in terms of amenities (all walkable despite dopey claims to the contrary) and it lives up to SoCal's famous laidback vibe far better than Santa Monica/Westside does IMO. That's a major plus. They're both top notch though.

I would say Pasadena is more linked into DTLA/Echo Park/Silver Lake/Los Feliz than Santa Monica. Also Glendale and Burbank. People in Pasadena have no problem going to DTLA for a show, bar, or dinner but from SM it's a huge pain.

But West Hollywood is definitely closer to Santa Monica in distance, culture, and accessibility. I think Hollywood is the middle ground between the two.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

I would say Pasadena is more linked into DTLA/Echo Park/Silver Lake/Los Feliz than Santa Monica. Also Glendale and Burbank. People in Pasadena have no problem going to DTLA for a show, bar, or dinner but from SM it's a huge pain.

But West Hollywood is definitely closer to Santa Monica in distance, culture, and accessibility. I think Hollywood is the middle ground between the two.

I agree but that Westside wall of traffic is a huge deterrent though - when I lived in Hollywood I went to Pasadena a lot more than I went to Santa Monica. It also doesn't help that there is no viable transit connection between Santa Monica and Central LA (yet). It's a bit of a long-haul but I get to Hollywood / Highland from Pasadena on the Red / Gold Lines in about an hour.

[drunk on kool aid]

To me, Pasadena feels like L.A. in miniature. It has a bustling downtown, expensive hillside neighborhoods overlooking the Rose Bowl, ultra-expensive areas south of Caltech, suburban SFH areas to the east, poorer, grittier areas to the northeast; its own set of museums, higher ed, convention center, industrial areas, automotive dealers, repair shops, etc.

Santa Monica is overall more urban but feels like a part of L.A. rather than a miniature version of it.

They're both primo cities, but growing up here, I felt like both were parts of L.A., with Pasadena feeling no more (or just as) distant as the Valley.

[HyperionGap]

Originally Posted by drunk on kool aid

To me, Pasadena feels like L.A. in miniature. It has a bustling downtown, expensive hillside neighborhoods overlooking the Rose Bowl, ultra-expensive areas south of Caltech, suburban SFH areas to the east, poorer, grittier areas to the northeast; its own set of museums, higher ed, convention center, industrial areas, automotive dealers, repair shops, etc.

Santa Monica is overall more urban but feels like a part of L.A. rather than a miniature version of it.

They're both primo cities, but growing up here, I felt like both were parts of L.A., with Pasadena feeling no more (or just as) distant as the Valley.

I think that's a very accurate description of Pasadena.

Also, I would say that Pasadena is more down to earth than Santa Monica.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

That guy lives to be wrong about everything. Apparently a city, or subsection of a city, now has to be SF/BOS to be considered walkable. That's just idiotic.

I prefer Pasadena. Less congested and it feels closer to the DTLA/Echo Park/WeHo axis that I historically gravitate to. I'm aware that factually Santa Monica might be closer to some of those areas, but with the awful congestion on the Westside, it doesn't feel that way.

Living near Lake Avenue provides damn near everything you could possibly want in terms of amenities (all walkable despite dopey claims to the contrary) and it lives up to SoCal's famous laidback vibe far better than Santa Monica/Westside does IMO. That's a major plus. They're both top notch though.

Agreed. Pasadenas vibe is the culture and "down to earth" that many who talk about LA as being fake are looking for.

Yes central Pasadena has amenities galore, and I will say that Pasadena is still closer to Downtown, Silverlake than Santa Monica is. Go a little west of those areas however, then obviously SM is closer.