An Apple Store with Exposed Brick?

February 4, 2011 7:51 AM

What cities have successfully integrated the yuppie lifestyle with the historic urban core?

I don't know if I asked that question properly.

I've been to Asheville and to Pasadena, and I love cities that have a historic, higher-density urban core that is actually functioning. This might sound crazy, but seeing an Apple Store in a older building in Pasadena gave me the good kind of shivers.

I don't mean a place where very well-meaning people with a sense of history have put up billboards asking for the community to reinvest in the heart of the city...which is nevertheless mostly a ghost town but for a minor league ball park. I mean an actual, functioning urban community.

Where are some other places like this? Places that combine having come to terms with a fairly trite yuppie existence with the authenticity of the area's history? (Judge me and hate me if you want to...I'm just trying to be honest about what I realize I like).

I know yuppie is mostly derogatory, but I'm tired of getting my coffee at a drive-through as I commute to work. I want to be honest about the fact that I like lattes and yoga and gadgets but that I could enjoy them more not in a little gentrified ghetto of a larger city, but in a smaller or medium sized place where this is the norm.

Are there more places like this?

(No neighborhoods in NYC, please)

posted by jefficator to Home & Garden (77 answers total)

I want to be honest about the fact that I like lattes and yoga and gadgets but that I could enjoy them more not in a little gentrified ghetto of a larger city, but in a smaller or medium sized place where this is the norm.

No, no city will be just yuppies. If you want these things to always be the norm, you'll always be in "a little gentrified ghetto of a larger city", even if its defined relationally and not geographically.
posted by Jahaza at 7:55 AM on February 4, 2011

You've just described the District of Columbia.
posted by General Malaise at 7:57 AM on February 4, 2011 [3 favorites]

I think parts of St. Petersburg and Tampa, FL are getting there. Like said above, it's going to vary from neighborhood to neighborhood.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:02 AM on February 4, 2011

Response by poster: Jahaza you're making a good point and maybe it helps to clarify. I'm not asking for a place that's just yuppies and no one else. That would be horrible (and thinly-veiled racism/classism, etc.)

What I'm trying awkwardly to say is this: I've seen communities where the historic core is a ghost town and you just have affluent people shopping at Banana Republic and Whole Foods in a automotive-friendly suburb fifteen miles up the interstate.

I've also seen communities where intense individuals are building a life around the restoration of historic cores, but doing so with absolutely no money and really nothing more than a commitment to the ideals.

I'm wondering whether there are places more successful at aligning those interests: actually getting people to spend their money in the old part of town. Not because the Chamber of Commerce has created an "entertainment district" to funnel tourists from a convention into a two-square block area, but because because the appraisal of the value of the area has been voted on with the wallets of the community members themselves.
posted by jefficator at 8:06 AM on February 4, 2011

Austin's downtown now has a lot of expensive condos, frou-frou grocery stores, and the like. It's probably on the high-income end of "yuppie," at least for Austin. There's certainly nothing "ghost town" about it in any way.
posted by restless_nomad at 8:09 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

Sounds like Portland and Seattle to me.
posted by proj at 8:10 AM on February 4, 2011 [5 favorites]

So you're looking for places that still have thriving downtowns?

Here are some places I've been to for various lengths of time (months to years) that have very active historic downtown areas where you can do or buy almost anything.

Burlington, VT

Athens, GA

Portland, OR

Petaluma, CA
posted by buckaroo_benzai at 8:12 AM on February 4, 2011

Memphis's South Main district is exactly what you're describing.
posted by raisingsand at 8:14 AM on February 4, 2011 [2 favorites]

Philadelphia? As a longtime Philadelphian I'm always confused when the "nice" parts of other cities are not downtown.
posted by madcaptenor at 8:15 AM on February 4, 2011

General Malaise: "You've just described the District of Columbia."

Depends on who you ask (which, I suspect, is true in a lot of places). DC just had a mayoral primary which was divided almost exclusively on the yuppie / urban core line, and urban development / gentrification is still a hugely controversial issue in most parts of town (Columbia Heights and near northeast especially).

So, does DC function well in the sense that there's a healthy mix of dense residential, light residential, light and heavy commercial and ample access to public transportation? Yes. Did that happen with deference to the city's history? To a certain extent. Did it happen in a way that didn't displace lots of DC's lower-middle class black population? Not really.
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 8:16 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

Response by poster: But the things you like price out people besides affluent well-educated white people. It's kind of how it works. Ann Arbor is somewhat like this, keeping in mind, of course, its relationship to nearby Detroit. I don't think you can get what you're asking for and never feel bad about it or note the racism and classism produced by having it.

I'm not going to disagree with you because I think there is truth in what you're saying.

I am curious, however: wouldn't you agree that pricing-out is going to take place in any community, but the effect is most destructive when it takes the form of newly-minted suburbs pulling the bulk of the tax-base out of the larger urban core?
posted by jefficator at 8:17 AM on February 4, 2011

What about when gentrification forces working families out of their homes either directly or by raising the property taxes beyond what they can bear, pushing them into ever-more-undesirable neighborhoods? We're seeing a lot of that here, and it's pretty nasty.
posted by restless_nomad at 8:19 AM on February 4, 2011

Parts of the east end of Pittsburgh are like this. The Apple store, Whole Foods, etc are all in the Shadyside/East Liberty neighborhoods which is in a dense urban area of mostly 19th century buildings and houses.
posted by octothorpe at 8:20 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

East Nashville
posted by kimdog at 8:21 AM on February 4, 2011

Most of the neighborhoods you're looking for are going to be, by definition, gentrified ghettos in a larger city. They're the places that were skipped over for development fifty years ago, and then later the yuppies moved back because all the nice old buildings came back into style.

Over the Rhine (the downtown neighborhood adjacent to the business district) in Cincinnati is moving that direction. Give it some more time to gentrify and you might see an apple store in one of those old buildings. There's also some of this around the University of Cincinnati campus (for instance, an Urban Outfitters in a beautiful old church).
posted by geegollygosh at 8:23 AM on February 4, 2011

i have to respectfully disagree about washington, d.c.

here, we have "washington" (suits, yuppies, college students, whole foods), and we have "d.c." - the communities that have lived here forever (and in those "other 3 quadrants" that many folks do not enter (i.e., not northwest) (the tea party helped point this out)).

i think what you are asking about is a really complicated question dealing with gentrification, race/class issues. in jamaica plain, a neighborhood in boston, this issue is brewing up exponentionally with a wholefoods replacing hi-lo, an older grocery store selling foods from a variety of cultures.

i think you may get different answers to your question based on which members of the communities in a city you ask.
posted by anya32 at 8:23 AM on February 4, 2011

I think parts of Baltimore could qualify. There are a lot of historic rowhouses (exposed brick included) in revitalized parts of town that have a heavily younger, "yuppy" population.
posted by coupdefoudre at 8:23 AM on February 4, 2011

seconding Philadelphia. Downtown area is pretty yuppie.
posted by bearette at 8:29 AM on February 4, 2011

Savannah's downtown historic district is gorgeous. The area was revitalized a couple of decades ago by SCAD (art school), which yuppie'd things up a good deal. I don't know if I'd really refer to it as hip (I haven't lived there in 7 years), but downtown has got way more going on for it than the surburban wasteland that is the rest of the "city".
posted by phunniemee at 8:29 AM on February 4, 2011

Are you looking for US-only, or do cities from other parts of the world count? There are a lot of cities that do that well in Europe; our Apple Store here in Glasgow is in a grand old building.
posted by Catseye at 8:29 AM on February 4, 2011

I am curious, however: wouldn't you agree that pricing-out is going to take place in any community, but the effect is most destructive when it takes the form of newly-minted suburbs pulling the bulk of the tax-base out of the larger urban core?

But that part has already happened, and is for the most part not the issue anymore. Now urban areas are in vogue, so many affluent people are moving from the suburbs back into the urban areas, and gentrifying communities full of people who weren't able to afford to move to the suburbs a generation or two ago. Ironically, when those people are priced out of their communities, it often pushes them into the older suburbs that generally ring the urban core.
posted by geegollygosh at 8:30 AM on February 4, 2011

I don't think it's clear what you're looking for. Obviously you're looking for urban places with money. Not suburban places. But also not 'gentrified ghettos.' And not cities that are all yuppie all the time. If not suburban, and not a gentrified area, and not an exclusively wealthy area, then what?
posted by jon1270 at 8:31 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

Buffalo NY
posted by Tylwyth Teg at 8:31 AM on February 4, 2011

Boston is like this-- especially Newbury Street, the South End, and large parts of Cambridge and Somerville.
posted by oinopaponton at 8:32 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

Richmond, Va.
posted by AugustWest at 8:34 AM on February 4, 2011 [2 favorites]

Seconding Baltimore. And there's an independent Apple reseller, complete with exposed brick, downtown.

(Disclaimer: I may or may not be the owner.)
posted by CommonSense at 8:34 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

So are you asking for places where rich white folks have gut renovated a bunch of pretty, old buildings and filled them with organic massage studios and Apple stores? Or are you looking for places where mixed-income neighborhoods are thriving in keeping their essential, historic personalities, but have also managed to bring in the amenities that people living there need?

I don't agree that gentrification in the form of new suburbs is more destructive than gentrification that breaks up the social structure of existing urban communities and forces the poor people to move to less desirable areas. I think that the story is going to be different in every city you look at, and in some places, gentrification has been far, far worse for the poor than suburbanization.

In order to get what you want, you're necessarily going to destroy some people's lives and communities in a way that they will never recover from. You're also likely going to provide desperately needed services and amenities to many long-time residents who will come to enjoy the new mix of things. You have to take the good with the bad.
posted by decathecting at 8:34 AM on February 4, 2011

Philadelphia- specifically Old City and Rittenhouse sq
posted by rmless at 8:34 AM on February 4, 2011

Boston? I mean, there are poor/run down inner city neighborhoods in Boston but there are also highly desirable "yuppified" inner-city neighborhoods in Boston. Certainly you can live in a dense historic neighborhood and still get your lattes and yoga classes and Whole Foods in Boston. How much anyone's "come to terms" with that I don't know - see the Jamaica Plain Whole Foods issue anya32 cites above.
posted by mskyle at 8:35 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

Most northern midwestern cities I've seen are like this except for Detroit. A few prominent examples are St Louis, Minneapolis, Chicago, and Milwaukee.
posted by JJ86 at 8:35 AM on February 4, 2011

Also, Portland Maine (Old Port)
posted by rmless at 8:36 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

Istanbul?
posted by wingless_angel at 8:38 AM on February 4, 2011

Oh, if you don't mind non-American cities, then Paris will blow your mind.
posted by oinopaponton at 8:41 AM on February 4, 2011

Response by poster: So are you asking for places where rich white folks have gut renovated a bunch of pretty, old buildings and filled them with organic massage studios and Apple stores? Or are you looking for places where mixed-income neighborhoods are thriving in keeping their essential, historic personalities, but have also managed to bring in the amenities that people living there need?

The problem is I'm not sure how to describe what I mean.

The Gaslamp Quarter in San Diego is lovely. But I know if I lived in San Diego I would never go there. It feels like a place for tourists.

My response is tempered by the fact that your first question is clearly describing a less than optimum situation. But that notwithstanding...yes. I prefer the second option. Harvard Square was a much more interesting place when laws ensured it felt like a neighborhood. Now it is all just banks and high-end bars. So a place that ONLY caters to yuppies is obviously not desirable. (I for one don't have enough money to live like that anyway!)

I can just remember being in Europe and seeing a locally-owned bakery in the market square, across from a H&M, across from a mid-grade supermarket. This seems like a wonderful way to live.
posted by jefficator at 8:42 AM on February 4, 2011

Response by poster: Oh, if you don't mind non-American cities, then Paris will blow your mind.

Paris does blow my mind. I just don't want to be an ex-pat :-)
posted by jefficator at 8:43 AM on February 4, 2011

What about some of the near north neighborhoods of Chicago? Like Old Town, Lincoln Park, Gold Coast?
posted by mullacc at 8:48 AM on February 4, 2011 [2 favorites]

The South End of Boston is a bit like this. Decades ago it was a much poorer neighborhood than it is now. It's full of Victorian-era row houses that were largely spared in the mid-century urban renewal movement, and some of those buildings are still owned by working class folks that couldn't afford to be their own tenants today. My landlord, for instance. Or the guy down the street who owns a building and works as a bank teller.

There's a 1960s era housing development at the edge of the neighborhood with mostly Chinese residents. I get my morning latte and muffin there, at an immigrant-owned cafe that gets a mix of white- and blue-collar customers. Further east there's more condo development, warehouses turned into art galleries, and a major homeless shelter.

Another sign of this mixing is the Berkeley community garden. It started as a urban renewal project where a block of row-houses were demolished, but community resistance to re-development left it as an empty lot for years. Local Chinese residents came and started using it as garden space. Now it is a combination of white families growing flowers, corn and tomatoes, and Chinese ones building elaborate trellises for squashes and bitter melon. The latter never much cared for aesthetics, and so the garden has retained its shanty-town look, the trellises built out of whatever materials were at hand. Some folks hate it; I think it's cool.

Still, the neighborhood is very expensive and yuppified on the whole. Full of fashionable restaurants, high-end furnishings shops, and even a doggie bakery for God's sake. But it's still more affordable and more genuine than the adjacent Back Bay, and more integrated than Chinatown, where the old housing stock is crumbling and giving way to shiny new luxury housing towers.

The other cities that I've been to with similar neighborhoods are New York and San Francisco, and those three are probably the most expensive cities in America. I'm sure this sort of thing has been studied heavily, and I'm curious what causes academics have posited.
posted by serathen at 8:50 AM on February 4, 2011

Another vote for Philadelphia. And though I haven't been there in a few years, I think Baltimore fits, or is in the process of getting there (excluding Baltimore Street downtown, heh).
posted by Anonymous at 8:54 AM on February 4, 2011

Seconding Savannah and St. Petersburg. I live in the first and moved there (because of a job) from the second two years ago. Both still have a long way to go and I really wish Savannah had neighborhood pubs.
posted by mareli at 8:55 AM on February 4, 2011

I'm not sure I fully know what you are looking for, but here's a thought:

A counterexample: Columbus, Ohio. Columbus has areas and neighborhoods that are active as you describe: the OSU campus, Victorian Village, German Village, Short North, Far North, Clintonville, etc. But the core downtown is about as dead as it gets. Downtown Columbus was notorious (the entire time I lived there, 2001-2007) for being closed by around 5pm except for the Arena District.

A few that seem to fit the bill would be cities like Portland, OR, Seattle, Tuscon, Toronto. More counterexamples would be Indianapolis, Dallas, Phoenix, Cleveland.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 8:55 AM on February 4, 2011

I don't really understand what you mean (or why Apple stores are the be all and end all...)

Parts of central London and Manchester do things like this - beautiful cinema buildings become Prets, the grand buildings on Regent St - but they aren't really 'neighbourhoods', more city centres that have adapted over time. Parts of both cities are extremely poor and there are kids in Islington, a bus ride from the old antiques market converted into a Jack Wills, who have never ever been on the tube.
posted by mippy at 9:01 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

I'm wondering whether there are places more successful at aligning those interests: actually getting people to spend their money in the old part of town. Not because the Chamber of Commerce has created an "entertainment district" to funnel tourists from a convention into a two-square block area, but because because the appraisal of the value of the area has been voted on with the wallets of the community members themselves.

Oh! Oh, god, yes, then you want Philadelphia. Hands-down, we've got that.

Mind you, I'm not sure it's necessarily a good thing. At all. But you're definitely describing the city I live in.
posted by Tomorrowful at 9:01 AM on February 4, 2011

In addition to Burlington, Vermont (already mentioned), there are a number of smaller towns in Vermont that I think are great examples of what you are looking for. Montpelier, Middlebury, Brattleboro, and even smaller towns like Vergennes, Randolph, and White River Junction. Even the sprawl capital of the state, Williston, is attempting to create a downtown from scratch. The state has a great Downtown Development Program (which I used to work for) and on the whole, is very committed to keeping historic downtowns vibrant, viable and livable for a wide range of people.
posted by Rock Steady at 9:03 AM on February 4, 2011

Nthing Boston, but it seems like you want a smaller city where the yuppy predominates. Maybe Northamptom, MA or Burlington, VT if you can handle a slightly more hippy vibe.
posted by sk932 at 9:03 AM on February 4, 2011

I second Chicago. Neighborhoods like Uptown and the whole North side have history and increasing diversity. A historic mix of immigrant hoods with unique personalities and intentional lack of big boxes make for an never ending exploration of the city.
posted by patrad at 9:04 AM on February 4, 2011

Best answer: I think the problem is that what you're describing is essentially a transitional neighborhood. You want a place where there are amenities that yuppies want, but not too many actual yuppies there so that other residents are displaced and property values skyrocket. But if you start building good yuppie amenities in a neighborhood, people start wanting to live there. And if people with money want to live in a place currently occupied by people with less money, the former will eventually buy out the latter, and prices will go up to the point where other people, including those who love yuppie amenities but aren't super-rich, can't afford to live there. And then gentrification will be complete.

So basically, any neighborhood that has what you want right now will very likely not have it 3 or 5 or 10 years from now. Because either the yuppie amenities will fail to lure actual yuppies to the area, and the businesses will fold and the neighborhood will go back to being un-yuppified, or the yuppies will succeed and they'll eventually crowd out the non-yuppies. Read Megan McArdle on this. And also check out Jane Jacobs's masterpiece, The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
posted by decathecting at 9:05 AM on February 4, 2011 [11 favorites]

I think I'm looking for the same thing that you are (and it's not here in Phoenix, that's for sure). It's hard to find it in the USA today, due to a confluence of economics, past urban planning trends, and the ubiquity of private automobile transportation. The only places with nice old buildings and a tight urban fabric tend to be lower-income communities that weren't worth the effort to "redevelop" when cheaper options existed on the periphery. Now that some people are reconsidering the wisdom of the stereotypical "American Dream" in light of long commutes, social isolation and poor health outcomes, those overlooked urban communities are becoming more desirable. It's a shame that this gentrification tends to push out the existing residents, but money moves the world. I'm hopeful that over time, we'll reach a more stable and integrated social order; American cities are just so young, and changing rapidly.

Anyway, you won't find whole cities that meet your criteria, but here are some places with neighborhoods that I think you'd like (not necessarily downtown): Seattle, Portland, SF, Oakland, Cincinnati, Chicago, Boston. Also check out college towns on the periphery of big cities; they tend to be more walkable and culturally diverse than the norm.
posted by Chris4d at 9:06 AM on February 4, 2011

Decatur, GA and parts of Wilmington, DE as well.
posted by heigh-hothederryo at 9:08 AM on February 4, 2011

Do you mean a city where people actually live and shop downtown and those homes and shops are somewhat on the nicer end of things, and are situated in the original downtown buildings vs. the downtown being abandoned and everyone living in surrounding neighborhoods or suburbs?

Sounds like what they're trying to make Austin into. As a "native" Austinite, I have conflicting feelings about this, but you might want to check it out if it's what your after.
posted by elpea at 9:10 AM on February 4, 2011

Thirding Baltimore, Fells Point and Mount Vernon specifically (and possibly Hampden, home sweet Hampden!)
posted by capnsue at 9:11 AM on February 4, 2011

N-thing Philly, seconding richmond, VA
posted by assasinatdbeauty at 9:12 AM on February 4, 2011

The Gaslamp Quarter in San Diego is lovely. But I know if I lived in San Diego I would never go there. It feels like a place for tourists.

Thanks for the clarification because I was thinking you were describing the Gaslamp. But you're right, it is too touristy. I live in East Village, which near the ballpark, still has some historic buildings but the bars and restaurants aren't nearly as touristy. However as part of the whole redevelopment of the area, a lot of old-but-not-historically-relevant buildings were torn down and replaced by shiny glass condo buildings.

Hillcrest is an better, more walkable, and cool neighborhood that is almost fits the bill. Except it isn't all that old in the grand scheme of things or part of the city's historic core. Oh, and there's no Apple Store. Those are all in malls.
posted by birdherder at 9:16 AM on February 4, 2011

Your description fits most of the neighborhoods of Seattle.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:19 AM on February 4, 2011

Came here to say that IMHO success is defined when certain neighborhoods have been able to retain their traditional residents and incorporate the yuppies. Boston's South end, North End, and Charlestown neighborhoods are good examples. Lowell, MA, a former mill and manufacturing city has a very successful downtown, Providence RI has certain neighborhoods too.
Cambridge, MA and Somerville, MA don't meet my criteria for success because they tend to be overloaded with student populations rather than homeowners/permanent residents.
posted by Gungho at 9:22 AM on February 4, 2011

Richmond, VA is a good suggestion.
posted by proj at 9:24 AM on February 4, 2011

Portland, OR, obviously. San Francisco except for mid-Market and the TL.
posted by Afroblanco at 9:50 AM on February 4, 2011

Seconding Portland, Maine.
posted by nicwolff at 9:51 AM on February 4, 2011

Hillcrest is an better, more walkable, and cool neighborhood that is almost fits the bill. Except it isn't all that old in the grand scheme of things or part of the city's historic core. Oh, and there's no Apple Store. Those are all in malls.

Seconding this, but with the addendum that San Diego's history as a decent-sized city doesn't really go back all that far anyway. The "historic" buildings in the Gaslamp Quarter only go back to the 1880s or 90s, while Hillcrest came around about 1900 or so as San Diego steadily marched northward after the start of "New Town" on the bay (as opposed to Old Town founded by the Spanish).
posted by LionIndex at 9:52 AM on February 4, 2011

i have to respectfully disagree about washington, d.c.
here, we have "washington" (suits, yuppies, college students, whole foods), and we have "d.c." - the communities that have lived here forever (and in those "other 3 quadrants" that many folks do not enter (i.e., not northwest)

I just left DC after 3 years living there. Sure, there are the people who never leave Georgetown but there are also diverse, vibrant neighborhoods (each with it's own different levels of yuppification attained, obviously) like U Street, Columbia Heights, H Street (the last being where I lived while a "Washington" Hill staffer) where there are coffee shops and yoga studios but also history. But obviously gentrification is a huge issue, as l33tpolicywonk pointed out.
posted by naoko at 10:04 AM on February 4, 2011

Also, Columbia, MO is really nice, although it lost some of its charm in the recession.

I'd imagine that most American college towns would fit your description.

You'd probably like Berkeley.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:22 AM on February 4, 2011

Actually, Berkeley might be your best bet. It has pretty much everything you describe. Plus, it's BARTing distance from the rest of the Bay Area -- which has a pretty healthy economy, especially if you're into tech.
posted by Afroblanco at 10:24 AM on February 4, 2011

The 3rd ward of Milwaukee is exactly what you want*. It's just south of downtown, it has an abundance of coffee shops and yoga lessons and clothing boutiques and brew pubs. Several bus lines run right through it. There's a huge public farmer's market open year round with organic whatnot. Whole Foods is not very far away, and there are other good grocery stores. It's a GLBT friendly neighborhood, however, it is lacking in racial diversity. There are Thai, Chinese, Vietnamese and Indian restaurants within a short drive/bus ride. Most of the buildings are pre-1930, although they have been building condos. It used to be a heavily Italian neighborhood.

Also see the upper east side of Milwaukee (Downer/Prospect/Farwell Avenues), parts of the Bay View neighborhood, Wauwatosa village (Milwaukee suburb, still very urbanized) and Shorewood along Oakland Ave (Milwaukee suburb, very urbanized).

*caveat: we just got 15" of snow
posted by desjardins at 10:28 AM on February 4, 2011

A further note: The 3rd ward of Milwaukee skirts that whole gentrification issue because no one really lived there before - it was mostly warehouses. An art school (Milwaukee Institute of Art & Design) moved in, I'm guessing in the 1980s, and some of the students turned warehouses into living spaces. I remember going to a jazz festival there in the late 1990s, so the "gentrification" must have been in full swing, but I also remember there being a sleazy adult bookstore ("my friend" told me about it) around 2001. That's since closed and there's probably a hair salon or coffee shop in there now.
posted by desjardins at 10:42 AM on February 4, 2011

I'm surprised there's no mention of Toronto so far. There are lots of people who shop weekly at the St Lawrence Market which has had a market going on on that site since 1803. Montreal too - the old city and the modern downtown are somewhat distinct but the old city still has a lot going on. Ottawa - the Byward market, like the St Lawrence, has been a market since forever and for whatever reason there's a very modern mall built across the street from the Chateau Laurier which dates from 1912. I haven't been to Quebec City in a while but I'm pretty sure the historic downtown there is also pretty well-populated day to day.

Even the relatively new prairie towns like Regina and Winnipeg have historic cores with old buildings that aren't total wastelands outside of 9-5 M-F.

Anyway, Toronto. I mean, if you want old+yuppies, holy crap, go visit Cabbagetown.
posted by GuyZero at 10:52 AM on February 4, 2011

Montreal, definitively. Burlington and Montpelier get my vote too. A surprise find for us last was the downtown area in Grand Junction, CO. About as far away as you can get from Strip Mall City....
posted by bluefrog at 11:29 AM on February 4, 2011 [1 favorite]

Capital Hill area in Seattle.
posted by JesseBikman at 12:04 PM on February 4, 2011

Montreal, definitively

Oh, very good point. It's as close to Europe as you can get in North America.
posted by Rock Steady at 12:17 PM on February 4, 2011

Let me reiterate that while Montreal has old & cool down pat, Toronto still have the Canadian leadership for yuppies.
posted by GuyZero at 12:27 PM on February 4, 2011

A few neighborhoods in Baltimore probably qualify. Hampden was a mostly blue collar neighborhood that's seen quite a bit of gentrification, but still has a lot of low and middle income residents. One of the local bartenders summed it up best "Hampden's a weird place. I can be sitting in a restaurant that feels like it's in Manhattan, drinking a $12 cocktail and be looking out the window at a pregnant teenager fighting with her boyfriend about whose turn it is to walk their pitbull."

(disclaimer, I live in Remington/Charles Village)
posted by electroboy at 12:28 PM on February 4, 2011

Baltimore is not like what you see on TV shows. It really has some areas that could match your description - Canton, Federal Hill, Fells Point, Hampden, come to mind instantly. There are awesome universities and hospitals (Johns Hopkins, U of MD), cultural activities, a creative art scene. Close to parks, not far from the ocean. Great place to live.
posted by maxg94 at 1:00 PM on February 4, 2011

I'm surprised there's no mention of Toronto so far.

SHHHHH. If I can ever manage to become a yuppie that's my plan. Don't tell everybody else!
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 1:27 PM on February 4, 2011

There are areas in Oakland, CA that are like this.
posted by phelixshu at 1:56 PM on February 4, 2011

Sorry but I have to disagree with buckaroo_benzai about good old Petaluma. Yes, there is a starbux. That's it. There is no Apple store, there is no place to buy women's clothing unless you either have the money to spend at high-priced boutiques or you're ok with mostly overpriced second-hand clothing, and the stores jefficator says s/he wants to visit are all in the outlying malls or other towns up or down Hwy. 101. Downtown Petaluma is good for restaurants, bars, movies and antiques, and that's pretty much it (*except for the one good locally-owned bookstore*). I would be thrilled for an H&M in Petaluma, but heck, they can't even get a Target built in one of the outlying areas!
posted by Lynsey at 2:40 PM on February 4, 2011

Baltimore is awesome but for me living there was a lot like living in a 3rd world city. I felt this conflict of privilege every day as I was forced to recognize the stark contrast between rich and poor. This despite being a poor grad student. It's nice yet sad and confusing when the addicts on your block greet you by name and then you see a banner across the street advertising "Luxury Loft Living from $340k".

As to the yuppie amenities there, they seemed to be rather wanna-be compared to say D.C. The good stuff, for me, was of the more trashy, dive-y, greasy spoon variety.
posted by mr.ersatz at 2:49 PM on February 4, 2011

DC definitely sprung to my mind on this one right off the bat. The problem is, when the Apple store (or the Whole Foods, etc) moves in, all of those fun, unique yuppie stores you liked are going to start moving out because they can't pay the rent. That has happened in DC *a lot*, and honestly, it's made it into kind of a boring place. You can't really get decent Chinese/Vietnamese/Mexican food in the District anymore because no mom-and-pop establishments can pay the skyrocketing rents. Almost all the businesses in DC are chains -- though in many cases they are the upscale chains like Cosi or Starbucks or Dean and Deluca and all that stuff. The city's also blanketed in the local chains -- like there's a Clyde's in Georgetown and Gallery Place and Chevy Chase, plus the same people own the Old Ebbit Grill and the Tombs and blah, blah, blah. Boring.

I lived in DC a couple years ago and may be moving back soon. If I go back I'm moving to the Virginia suburbs -- at least I'll be able to get a decent Pho there.

(yes, I design my life around noodle soups)
posted by imalaowai at 3:44 PM on February 4, 2011

There's just...tons of metropolitan areas that could fit this bill for you. I don't mean to sound glib, but have you visited many major urban areas? Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC, Chicago, Twin Cities, San Francisco, Austin, Pittsburgh, Seattle, Portland, St. Louis...

The Gaslamp Quarter in San Diego is lovely. But I know if I lived in San Diego I would never go there. It feels like a place for tourists.

Of course not. It's a not a residential neighborhood. It was literally reinvented from a red light district to a tourist/convention district.
posted by desuetude at 10:32 PM on February 4, 2011

I live on the edge of Hampden in Baltimore, and I have a lot of what you're looking for: I can walk to the city's leading French restaurant in Roland Park, to the city's best overpriced, southern-style breakfast, several non-chain coffee shops, too many bars to count, clothing stores, antique stores, a store that sells only shoes and artisanal chocolate, at least 3 wine stores with knowledgeable staff, several grocery stores, and a first-run movie theater inside a repurposed historic building.

However, except for grocery stores, gas stations, and Rite Aids, there are no chains. No Starbucks, no Whole Foods within walking distance (although there's one up the road that they crammed into a historic mill complex), and certainly no Apple store. There are a lot of teen mothers and meth addicts looking for a fix, because this is an urban area with a historic trend away from the blue collar work that once fed the area and now is practically nonexistent.

You take the good with the bad. Such as the fact that my house, which I love, is only 900 square feet. My street is too narrow to ever get plowed. My neighbor is quite clearly a fence selling stolen Wiis on the streets of West Baltimore. But I can walk to the movies and the grocery store, and I can walk my dog into my favorite neighborhood wine shop.
posted by ImproviseOrDie at 5:03 AM on February 5, 2011