Most lively urban areas

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i sort of thought london might have some of that NYC crush, but i found it surprisingly serene at street level, like closer to walking around an endless boston. granted, i've but scratched the surface of london, but was surprised at the lack of massive, shoving throngs of people. from what i could see i'd much rather live in london than NYC, so it's not like a dig on london.

I think where London shines is the major arterials, very dense and a crush of people. Also Soho, sort of the opposite kind of place with small streets and sidewalks, is extremely vibrant and unique!

But nothing south of the Thames is really worth mentioning from a vibrancy standpoint, while after hours the City is a lot less active than wall street (granted, this possibly wasn't the case 20 years ago). Somewhere like Kensington, Sloane Square had a Boston vibe definitely, pleasant and not too dense. Areas close to the thames (like where the tate britain is located) are quite quiet too, owing perhaps to fact that these are sort of government districts. Islington and Hampstead reminded me of Cambridge Mass and central square a bit, rather than any part of NY. with notting hill, holland park, etc you have the upper class manors intruding into the core, they are nice but don't help the street level density much.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

nashville is a boomtown by every possible measure. condos are going up at a breakneck speed, the boosters (i dont mean on the forum) are in full force and money is being made hand over fist, full stop. not much to hold me back from a brutally honest opinion...thats kind of the “deal” with boomtowns.

broadway gets on my nerves, theres no doubt about it. it kind of annoys me that the least urban areas of nashville are where i always end up hanging out (east nashville dive bar or something) because i just can’t stomach that downtown crowd, often times. i don’t know if you are a nashville native but frankly the non-native crowd pouring into town are the ones that seem to get on my nerves...the “nashbros” i call them. i’m not really even referring to the redneck bachelor/bachelorette parties.

there’s an inherent tension with me re: nashville because its a funny combination of things i really, really like and things that frankly, i hate. my wife is from the area and calls me out on my nashville h8n, i acknowledge that i do sort of pick on it at times. i think it sort of comes with the territory, i hear the same ‘tude in louisville/lexington. its a combination of jealousy/annoyance of the nashville hype-train/boom.

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i also think my nashville ribbings are a pretty new development. i’ve watched friends in bands move there for years now and just thought of it as a good place to base an indie band with great music history, the most interesting service industry around and the entire country music thing generally coexisting. the place of late feels like its taken a hard turn towards a basic-bro onslaught and some kind of aggressive hipster strain thats not the laid-back southern hipster thing at all.

i probably can redeem the place (in my mind) if i just put in a little more work, keep exploring and calm down.

Ya know what, I get it. I really do. That's totally fair, and in a way, your attitude toward Nashville is probably even deserved given all the praise it gets in other circles of our society. I mean I love the city given that it's my hometown and all, but chances are I'd probably agree with most of your criticisms of it. Some things about it absolutely drive me up the wall, and one of those things is the night crowd along Broadway, as you mentioned. Don't get me wrong. I like to drink and party as much as the next guy, but the, as we call them in Nashville, 'woo girl' crowd (who hail from Chicago it seems more and more) are absolute irritants at best.

Truthfully, if I hailed from a city like St. Louis or Louisville I'd probably be irked by all of that Nashville praise and hype too. Because let's be honest. Both cities are just as, if not more, deserving of being hyped than Nashville is, and boast characteristics Nashville could only dream of being able to boast about, like their phenomenal collection of historic architecture, for one.

The bottom line I suppose is that I try to be realistic about my love for the city. I realize that my love for the city is primarily a personal thing derived from personal experiences, and something that someone who isn't from the city will be able to share in. There are a lot of things to like about it, but also a lot of things that are VERY worthy of criticism by locals and outsiders alike. All I personally hope for is that the criticism is fair. But more often than not, at least on SSP, it seems that even when someone makes a comment as banal and mundane as 'Nashville has a relatively lively city center for a place it's size' there are people like Crawford who, probably without even thinking about it or intending anything negative, almost reflexively jump in to knock it down a peg, even though there's nothing inherently false about the statement in question. I guess what I'm saying is, criticize Nashville all you want if it's fair criticism. It deserves it. But don't just be one of those people who reflexively shits on it because it somehow isn't worthy of being discussed along side 'cool' cities.

Anyway, my apologies to all. I didn't mean to take the thread off topic. I'll stop rambling now. Please, Carry on.

[dc_denizen]

but the idea that Nashville is some sort of clone of Raleigh or Charlotte is beyond ridiculous. the fact that it's one of the centers of the recording industry alone gives the nightlife an oomph way beyond these cities. it's also another hipster capital, which charlotte decidedly isn't.

compare nashville with little five points in Atlanta...heh.

Yes there are some touristy bars, but this is same type of thing as you see in austin and nobody hassles Austin for it. I might as well complain about williamsburg bars full of millennial patrons listening to derivative-of-x-era garbage

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

I think where London shines is the major arterials, very dense and a crush of people. Also Soho, sort of the opposite kind of place with small streets and sidewalks, is extremely vibrant and unique!

But nothing south of the Thames is really worth mentioning from a vibrancy standpoint, while after hours the City is a lot less active than wall street (granted, this possibly wasn't the case 20 years ago). Somewhere like Kensington, Sloane Square had a Boston vibe definitely, pleasant and not too dense. Areas close to the thames (like where the tate britain is located) are quite quiet too, owing perhaps to fact that these are sort of government districts. Islington and Hampstead reminded me of Cambridge Mass and central square a bit, rather than any part of NY. with notting hill, holland park, etc you have the upper class manors intruding into the core, they are nice but don't help the street level density much.

soho...i forgot about it, was day-drinkwalking around there. great scale.

the City was an absolutely shock at how empty it was at the time of the day i was there (sunset on a weeknight i think, in summer). in my memories eye its like a ghosttown.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

but the idea that Nashville is some sort of clone of Raleigh or Charlotte is beyond ridiculous.

How is Nashville different from Raleigh or Charlotte? They are almost planning, land use and topography/climate clones. Green, hilly, trees everywhere, modern sprawl everywhere, winding roads from node to node.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

the fact that it's one of the centers of the recording industry alone gives the nightlife an oomph way beyond these cities. it's also another hipster capital, which charlotte decidedly isn't.

What does the recording industry have to do with nightlife? LA is probably the center of the global recording industry, and has very weak nightlife relative to other global megacities.

Don't get what hipsters have to do with vibrancy either. Portland has a lot more hipsters than the Bronx but isn't very vibrant. And nightlife is a poor proxy for overall vibrancy. Vegas and South Beach have terrific nightlife but aren't very vibrant cities. Vegas looks like Phoenix off the Strip.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

compare nashville with little five points in Atlanta...heh.

Yes there are some touristy bars, but this is same type of thing as you see in austin and nobody hassles Austin for it. I might as well complain about williamsburg bars full of millennial patrons listening to derivative-of-x-era garbage

Austin has very poor vibrancy, and isn't that different from Nashville or Charlotte. You're lucky to have sidewalks outside of downtown. NYC vibrancy has nothing to do with Williamsburg bars, which barely even resonate as a component of Williamsburg's overall vibrancy.

Vibrancy is a function of overall citywide street-level activity, not whether some bar strip has people stumbling out to Ubers at 3 AM on weekends.

[dc_denizen]

I was opining on the central areas of these cities, not the urban area as a whole.

having hundreds of musicians with lots of free time=great music in bars and clubs. Young people value this amenity. same thing in Austin. Not the same thing in Charlotte where you have cheap house seekers with families and southern bankers instead of the youth.

"hipsters", by which I mean young people engaged in cultural and musical production and consumption with free time (many being students). Is the upper east side less vibrant than st marks place or williamsburg? yes. is the composition of the population a reason? yes. the upper east side, parts of it at least, are older wealthy people that tend to stay inside a lot, and don't socialize (how many friends that you see often do you have at 40 vs 25?)

Whether or not Portland is more vibrant than the bronx is irrelevant to the discussion. Portland (downtown and in central neighborhoods) is much more vibrant than Charlotte or Raleigh.

williamsburg's vibrancy is due to (hipster) shopping, music, tourists, university students. the same things (in a different form) that drive nashville's vibrancy (or portlands).

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Don't get what hipsters have to do with vibrancy either. Portland has a lot more hipsters than the Bronx but isn't very vibrant. And nightlife is a poor proxy for overall vibrancy. Vegas and South Beach have terrific nightlife but aren't very vibrant cities. Vegas looks like Phoenix off the Strip.

South Beach isn't vibrant? Then very little of the US would qualify and why are we even having the discussion.

[JManc]

Crawford, have you been to any of these towns you are dismissing? Austin? Nashville? I don't think anyone is claiming they are urban meccas but to say they aren't lively or vibrant is BS. And plenty of people barfing out the window of a cab in NY at 3AM as well.

[Centropolis]

uh, i mean theres a sort of social vibrancy uniquely specific to some american cities that isn't neccesarily correlated with tons of urbanity/organic street bustle/street vibrancy. it's sort of annoying in a way for some of us, but i think it should be acknowledged.

i think this is where we all diverge off into the weeds one way or another, sort of shouting at each other above the grass.

[tdawg]

From my experience Nashville should be listed as at least up-and-comer. Lower Broadway bars are already filled with live music and people having fun by late morning on weekdays. I took a trip to Austin and Nashville in April. Austin's downtown is pretty quiet on weekdays. Downtown Nashville is much more happening. I think Crawford is due a visit to Nashville!

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by tdawg

I took a trip to Austin in Nashville in April.

i know that these cities sort of upend our traditional ideas of urban space, etc, but this is getting pretty meta, guys. guys!

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

[London is] like closer to walking around an endless boston

I've had the same thought about London as megaBoston.

And Paris is New York but with DC's aesthetics (except better than DC).

[maru2501]

I always think of Austin as vibrant and then I remind myself I am there during SXSW

[The North One]

Originally Posted by dave8721

South Beach isn't vibrant? Then very little of the US would qualify and why are we even having the discussion.

He's clearly never been to South Beach, it's vibrant all hours of the day.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dave8721

South Beach isn't vibrant? Then very little of the US would qualify and why are we even having the discussion.

I would agree that the U.S. has very little vibrancy, overall.

Miami, to me, does not have much pedestrian activity, outside of a few blocks of South Beach, a bit downtown along Brickell, and a few other suburban nodes, which isn't much for a metro of 6 million. And even South Beach doesn't have heavy daytime pedestrian crowds. You're very unlikely to be walking down Collins at 2 PM and enduring a crush of human activity. It doesn't even have the pedestrian activity of, say, a typical European high street in a city of 50,000.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I've had the same thought about London as megaBoston.

And Paris is New York but with DC's aesthetics (except better than DC).

I sorta agree with this. London is more a Mega Boston or Mega Philly. NYC and Paris don't look alike, at all, but they have similar density, gestalt and quasi-similar feel.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

I've had the same thought about London as megaBoston.

And Paris is New York but with DC's aesthetics (except better than DC).

I agree that London feels Boston-ish in many places, but London does feel very New York-ish around the transit hubs such as Piccadilly, Victoria Station, and others. Boston doesn't really match London there.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i'd like to see an ordering of pacific rim cities. i mean how does hong kong compare to tokyo? where does seoul sit...singapore...are chinese cities vastly overrated? sydney and san francisco? does auckland pack a decent punch for it's size?

Now this is more like it! Problem is, most of these cities are nodular, so comparing "downtown" liveliness will be tough.

Hong Kong is more vibrant than Tokyo: the intensity and diversity of the crowds gives the place more energy and sizzle than can be found in Japanese ordered chaos.

Tokyo is more vibrant than Seoul: Seoul has a lot more wide streets with equally-wide sidewalks than Tokyo has, and is more culturally monolithic - you get less of the crazy subcultures clustering around specific locations like you do in Tokyo.

This isn't politically correct to say, but Taipei to me is the perfect combo of everything Japan and China does right, without most of the stuff Japan and China do poorly. It has that organized chaos layout thanks to its Japanese bones coupled with a Chinese outgoing, friendly, extroverted attitude. If I had to live in APAC anywhere other than Tokyo, it would be Taipei.

Bangkok can feel more vibrant than Tokyo / Seoul, depending on the district, or it can feel is quiet as a nondescript suburb. Parts of the city are super auto-dependent, other parts are typically Asian Mega City urban.

Shanghai is more vibrant than Seoul and the Bund is one of the top "lively" spots in all of APAC. Waaaay more cosmopolitan than you might think.

Beijing is underwhelming in this context, but the pure volume of bodies ensures it still feels more alive than anywhere in NA outside of Manhattan.

Ho Chi Minh is the liveliest APAC city "per capita" in my mind: the scale isn't as impressive as Tokyo or Bangkok, but the French architecture and the explosive, throbbing energy of the Vietnamese people make this place rock and rock hard.

All Aussie cities are gems. If you're a North American urbanist, Sydney and Melbourne are pure joys. Perfectly on par with SF in their centers, with even livelier inner-suburb nodes.

I've never been to Auckland, but the metro is like 40% of New Zealand's population so it must pack above its weight. I don't know Jakarta all that well. The abject and ubiquitous poverty of Manila just makes me sad.

Singapore is less lively than the rest of the Pac Rim mega cities, because it's Singapore and people are so high-strung they barely use half their annual vacation days on average, because I guess work is more fun than watching hundreds of Post Panamax tankers idling a hundred yards out from the beach at Sentosa Island. (there's nothing to do in Singapore once you're over paying too much for non-hawker center meals)

Actually, now that I am thinking about it, Kuala Lumpur is even less lively and vibrant than Singapore. More auto-focused than Bangkok or Jakarta, and at least Singaporeans get drunk.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

downtown, yes. out-downtown districts, not even close. downtown is always swamped with tourists so its kind of like a small downtown crazy jacked up on steroids with redneck bachelorette shitshows.

i mean for instance the plaza in kansas city is about as “lively” as downtown nashville.

Nashville is really getting overrated, which sucks because the city has a beautiful topography and nice people. I think a lot of people will go there expecting so much more, when really it's just an average midsize city with hype. As far as cities within a short drive from Nashville, I think Louisville and Memphis are much more interesting. When you get up to cities like Cincinnati and St. Louis it's really not even close, those cities offer much more without the inflated publicity.

[dc_denizen]

Singapore’s charm is in the suburban nodes.

Penang (Georgetown) is awesome, or was when I visited years and years ago. Love the overseas Chinese urbanism and culture that wasn’t ruined by communism. Sounds like Taipei is similar.