Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, cherry picked off my desktop cause I took it from Runyon Canyon this summer.
In that picture is central LA, almost the entire section. (Silverlake and Los Feliz are missing, as is the Fairfax district. You just can't see them from that vantage point.)
There are probably three or four of those areas in LA. I'm not a homer, I can admit that there are areas of LA that are seriously FUGLY. There are parts of the city I hate, like the West SFV (although most of my distate for LA is the suburban areas like IE and OC) and parts of the Westside.
I can't say it better than Henry Alan did in his last post: To answer the question posed, they are both very urban. As a percentage of the entire city, more of Boston is urban than L.A., but there are large sections of L.A. that exceed Boston in size and population that are just as urban. Two great cities, by far my favorites among the best of American urban landscape.
Being able to walk to everything you need and get things in a timely manner is the key aspect of urbanism. Not density or population. This is why Boston is way more urban than LA. It's more about density of the HOUSING, narrow streets, great public transit, bike lanes, sidewalks, office, retail, etc all in one place.
Being able to walk to everything you need and get things in a timely manner is the key aspect of urbanism. Not density or population. This is why Boston is way more urban than LA.
This is true, and why a large amount of the San Fernando Valley, Westside and far South LA are not very urban. LA is too big to say "it's urban" or "it's not urban". It has more unurban parts than the largest US cities, but it also has just as much (and in a lot of cases more) extremely walkable areas with excellent public transportation.
This is true, and why a large amount of the San Fernando Valley, Westside and far South LA are not very urban. LA is too big to say "it's urban" or "it's not urban". It has more unurban parts than the largest US cities, but it also has just as much (and in a lot of cases more) extremely walkable areas with excellent public transportation.
Look where the Central Los Angeles region is on the mapping LA link. Then look at it on walkscore. Pretty green, eh?
In that area yes, the thing with is in LA, all the amenities you'd want to do are spread out allll over the place and b/c of the size, combined with the huge traffic mess and public transit needs which need to be added, it makes it a lot different lifestyle in the two cities unless you want to really limit yourself in LA. Boston and even SF in your own state is way more centralized. Theres a lot more places that are mixed use retail/housing packed into one place and as far as I know a higher day-long population, plus add in on the students, which as far as I know are not counted in the population #'s. If I recall correctly, I think Boston day-long population is around 1.2 Million, with special event population reaching around 2million.
I am not sure how LA is setup, but in the Bay Area, again if I recall correctly an area like San Jose actually LOSES population during the day.
Location: NY-NJ-Philly looks down at SF and laughs at the hippies
1,144 posts, read 1,295,468 times
Reputation: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico
In that area yes, the thing with is in LA, all the amenities you'd want to do are spread out allll over the place and b/c of the size, combined with the huge traffic mess and public transit needs which need to be added, it makes it a lot different lifestyle in the two cities unless you want to really limit yourself in LA. Boston and even SF in your own state is way more centralized. Theres a lot more places that are mixed use retail/housing packed into one place and as far as I know a higher day-long population, plus add in on the students, which as far as I know are not counted in the population #'s. If I recall correctly, I think Boston day-long population is around 1.2 Million, with special event population reaching around 2million.
I am not sure how LA is setup, but in the Bay Area, again if I recall correctly an area like San Jose actually LOSES population during the day.
WOW, someone on this site actually understands the true definition of urbanity and how urban cities work. I am SHOCKED to find this! And you live in Chicago, which is a truly urban city, no surprise.
In that area yes, the thing with is in LA, all the amenities you'd want to do are spread out allll over the place and b/c of the size, combined with the huge traffic mess and public transit needs which need to be added, it makes it a lot different lifestyle in the two cities unless you want to really limit yourself in LA. Boston and even SF in your own state is way more centralized. Theres a lot more places that are mixed use retail/housing packed into one place and as far as I know a higher daytime population, plus add in on the students, which as far as I know are not counted in the population #'s. If I recall correctly, I think Boston daytime population is around 1.2 Million.
Yeah, Boston is certainly "the hub" as they call it... For the whole New England region. I mentioned it earlier but if Boston was like LA and annexed its surroundings, it would be a much larger "city". (does that make sense)
And about the amenities being spread out, that is sort of an exaggeration. Like I mentioned before, on the Westside, SFV and south LA, you really do need a car or have to be a ward of the buses.
In central LA, you have everything you need. Remember, this is an area of 60 sq miles with 800,000 people. I can walk to everything, take the metro downtown or to other parts of central LA, and use buses to fill in the blanks. I live a comfortable car free lifestyle here in LA, even more comfortable than in Boston.
Yes I would need a car to get to the Westside (until 2015 when the expo line opens) and the SFV, but for the most part I avoid those areas like the plague anyways.
WOW, someone on this site actually understands the true definition of urbanity and how urban cities work. I am SHOCKED to find this! And you live in Chicago, which is a truly urban city, no surprise.
I was too poor in Boston to afford a car. I had to walk and take public transportation everywhere; work, friends houses, interviews, etc. I'm not sure why, and am a little insulted, you think I don't know what urbanity is, just because I disagree with you.
It's not like I hid in my apartment for three years until I could move back to CA.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
