Is Santa Monica like Pasadena (Los Angeles, Glendale: neighborhoods, living in, restaurant)

[Cinema Cat]

I'm familiar with Santa Monica, but not with Pasadena. Disregarding the beach (pretend it isn't there), it seems to me that Pasadena might be similar to Santa Monica (but with cheaper housing).

* Both of them are small, independent cities (rather than Los Angeles neighborhoods), with their own city services.

* Both are affluent.

* Both are walkable.

* Both have nice, tree-lined suburban streets.

* Both have a clean, safe, downtown area.

Forgetting about all things beach-related, if one were happy living in Santa Monica, could one be happy in Pasadena?

And forgetting about the beach, what other small, independent cities are similar to Santa Monica? Culver City, I guess. But what else?

[Cali1976]

Pasadena is similar in some ways, but distinct in others. Weather is obviously quite different, and Pasadena is more suburban, more academic, and yes, cheaper. Friends we had in Pasadena felt a little far from the Westside, and tended to stay in Pasadena, or go out Downtown. Nightlife in Pasadena is quieter compared to SM, and the restaurant scene is less varied. Pasadena is very nice, though.

Culver city is great, especially it's little downtown area. It's probably got rougher edges Santa Monica. The beach cities have their own vibes as well. Manhattan very affluent, Hermosa more party oriented, and Redondo somewhere between. West Hollywood is its own city, but it just blends into the Westside.

[fumbling]

Pasadena is more a family oriented suburb, SM is more urban singles action with more to do imho

[disgruntled la native]

In Pasadena you're rather isolated with the eastside and downtown. Santa Monica opens you up to the whole westside, and even into West Hollywood/Hollywood/Miracle Mile.

Not to say there isn't a lot to do in Pasadena - there is - but Santa Monica is actually more centrally located to the happening spots of LA county.

If you are raising a family, Pasadena is probably better off these days. If you're a young(er) couple or single, santa monica is a much better option.

[munchitup]

As said before, Pasadena feels pretty isolated from the Westside. My "range" is mostly DTLA - Koreatown, Northeast LA, Glendale and Hollywood. All those areas are fair game for me to go to and I do find myself frequenting these areas at least a few times a week.

Santa Monica is much closer to all of the Westside and South Bay, so it is more "centrally located", though both of the cities are sort of the periphery of Los Angeles' core (it's just the core leans more westward than eastward, so SM feels a little more proximate).

Santa Monica is a little more urban and I think is going to continue to be more and more urban than Pasadena in the future. The Expo Line arriving has lead to dozens of new large projects, while Pasadena is a little more slow-growth and only has maybe a dozen projects in the works (but they are some pretty cool buildings).

The other thing is that having large hills separate you from the rest of the city like in Pasadena it gives a more isolated feeling, while Santa Monica is seamlessly connected to the entire basin. Not sure if you can see DTLA from Santa Monica but you definitely cannot from Pasadena and that makes it feel a little further out.

Overall I'd say they are pretty close to each other though I think Beverly Hills and Santa Monica are actually more alike while Pasadena and Glendale are more alike. All four of those cities are in the same general category though in my opinion.

[rzzz]

Pasadena feels like you are living in the suburbs but Santa Monica feels like you are living in LA.

[disgruntled la native]

The two posts above me summed it up perfectly.

For your other question, I think Culver City shares a lot with Santa Monica, but is at the same time nothing like it.

[andrecle]

They're both great cities, however I wouldn't say they resemble each other much. If you took away the palm trees and mountains, Pasadena feels like many "old-money" suburbs in the Midwest or on the East Coast. Santa Monica, on the other hand, feels more like stereotypical LA (for good and bad): beachy, touristy, urban, more laid-back, closer to the action, etc. I kind of feel like the type of person who enjoys living in Pasadena wouldn't completely like living in Santa Monica and vice-versa.

[ExeterMedia]

Originally Posted by rzzz

Pasadena feels like you are living in the suburbs but Santa Monica feels like you are living in LA.

Bang on

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by andrecle

They're both great cities, however I wouldn't say they resemble each other much. If you took away the palm trees and mountains, Pasadena feels like many "old-money" suburbs in the Midwest or on the East Coast. Santa Monica, on the other hand, feels more like stereotypical LA (for good and bad): beachy, touristy, urban, more laid-back, closer to the action, etc. I kind of feel like the type of person who enjoys living in Pasadena wouldn't completely like living in Santa Monica and vice-versa.

I think that North of Montana sort of has that feel to it also (if you take away the palm trees and ocean).