Best Downtowns in Northern California (Oakland, Montclair: stats, population, place)

[Majin]

Originally Posted by the city

Comparing them to other cities in this state around the same size like other southern California cities I think it's dense. Merced, Hanford, Madera, Palmdale, Lancaster, Victorville, Temecula, and Clovis are all not that dense compared to what I saw. Of course, I haven't travelled much and these are just pics but they seem dense for their size of the city in California.

Nothing in that list is a real city. Most socal cities around LA are a lot more dense than any of those bay area cities except berkeley.

[the city]

Originally Posted by Majin

Nothing in that list is a real city. Most socal cities around LA are a lot more dense than any of those bay area cities except berkeley.

When I say dense I mean "real density" not people crammed into small suburban homes. The Bay Are has taller buildings in their downtowns and other areas. And yes there are areas outside of California that have more tall buildings, but the OP mentioned downtowns in Northern California.

[vdy1985]

Originally Posted by the city

Comparing them to other cities in this state around the same size like other southern California cities I think it's dense. Merced, Hanford, Madera, Palmdale, Lancaster, Victorville, Temecula, and Clovis are all not that dense compared to what I saw. Of course, I haven't travelled much and these are just pics but they seem dense for their size of the city in California.

You are comparing BAY AREA cities to Central Valley Agriculture cities and Desert cities. That is your problem with perception.

LA is HUGE. LA metro is hella dense. I'm talking LA, LA, not the IE or OC. But even those, especially OC has its dense parts.

I told you that you should've went to college in the Bay Area or LA or even SD. Would've gave you perspective. Also would have made you appreciate SLO for what it is a bit more.

[vdy1985]

Glendale



Burbank.



Woodland Hills


Pasadena

[the city]

Originally Posted by vdy1985

You are comparing BAY AREA cities to Central Valley Agriculture cities and Desert cities. That is your problem with perception.

LA is HUGE. LA metro is hella dense. I'm talking LA, LA, not the IE or OC. But even those, especially OC has its dense parts.

I told you that you should've went to college in the Bay Area or LA or even SD. Would've gave you perspective. Also would have made you appreciate SLO for what it is a bit more.

Yeah but even LA cities are flatter and not so tall buildings. LA is basically Valley except for West LA where the beach is. Santa Monica is dense and so is Beverley Hills, but those are the only exceptions.

I have driven by Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena's downtown. Yes, they do have tall buildings but compare them to cities in the Bay Area with the same size.

Malibu(13k) vs. Emeryville (10k)
Tustin (70k) vs. Walnut Creek (65k)
Burbank (100k) vs Berkeley (100k)
Pasadena (150K) vs Santa Rosa (150k)
Glendale (200k) vs Fremont (200k)

and Woodland Hills is apart of LA.

[vdy1985]

Bad pic of Burbank up there. Here is a better one.



Downtown Berkeley has like two tall buildings (that aren't even very tall). I think Burbank stacks up well with it for 100K population. Also if you compare Burbank to Hayward, which is also 100K, Hayward loses. Pasadena looks more building dense than Fremont by a mile (Fremont has no real downtown or big buildings at all). I pointed out Woodland Hills, because it sits deep in the very suburban San Fernando Valley... but you are right, it is still LA.

Malibu is just a beach town so of course it won't have buildings like that. Tustin beats Union City.

I'll leave you with a picture of Irvine, in suburban Orange County. Irvine reminds me of some of those 680 corridor cities.

[the city]

Originally Posted by vdy1985

Bad pic of Burbank up there. Here is a better one.



Downtown Berkeley has like two tall buildings (that aren't even very tall). I think Burbank stacks up well with it for 100K population. Also if you compare Burbank to Hayward, which is also 100K, Hayward loses. Pasadena looks more building dense than Fremont by a mile (Fremont has no real downtown or big buildings at all). I pointed out Woodland Hills, because it sits deep in the very suburban San Fernando Valley... but you are right, it is still LA.

Malibu is just a beach town so of course it won't have buildings like that. Tustin beats Union City.

I'll leave you with a picture of Irvine, in suburban Orange County. Irvine reminds me of some of those 680 corridor cities.

Eh, well what about having the most amount of tall buildings in NorCal Cities?

What about San Francisco's downtown vs LA's downtown?

[Dewzy916]

Originally Posted by vdy1985

Glendale



Burbank.



Woodland Hills


Pasadena

Are you Armenian ?

[Majin]

Originally Posted by Dewzy916

Are you Armenian ?

rofl

[the city]

Originally Posted by vdy1985

You are comparing BAY AREA cities to Central Valley Agriculture cities and Desert cities. That is your problem with perception.

LA is HUGE. LA metro is hella dense. I'm talking LA, LA, not the IE or OC. But even those, especially OC has its dense parts.

I told you that you should've went to college in the Bay Area or LA or even SD. Would've gave you perspective. Also would have made you appreciate SLO for what it is a bit more.

How exactly would I appreciate SLO more? You realize that SLO's downtown has more taller buildings than other cities near it's size. Hanford, Davis, El Centro, Lompoc, Madera, Novato, and San Rafael all have shorter buildings in their down.

And yes, I have been referring to downtowns that have tall office buildings that are mid-rise. But not just office buildings, any tall buildings near each other. County court houses, 4-5 stories buildings next to each other, large movie theaters, large retail stores, etc...