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.
There are more areas of high-rise/mid-rise development than there is probably physical land area in DC. We're talking about massively different scales here. Yes, LA will have more one story homes--but LA is going to have more of pretty much everything compared to a much smaller city.
And the critique wasn't against highrise development--both LA and DC are both headed in the same direction on that one. They're also headed for terrible, hideous architecture.
L.A. does not have an urban structural core as large as D.C. L.A. is polycentric. That is my biggest problem with it. I'm looking for structural density for miles. A true core that spreads for a large distance in every direction without surface parking lots or open space.
My definition of "big city" as you call it is the ability to take the train, walk all over the city without any breaks in the urban form, and not see surface parking lots. That to me is urban. You won't find that in many cities in this country. The car centric design of L.A. is my personal problem with it. Those that like cars love L.A. though which is fine. It's just not my thing. We can be different you know. There is nothing wrong with that.
So you're telling me DC and Portland are more "big city" than LA come on bro
I don't care for SW style housing. I'm not a fan of Mexican architechure if that explains it more. I like taller skinny houses that connect or are closer together which you find in the NE. I don't like yards in the front of houses either. I like houses that come right up to the street. I don't like the roof styles over there either. I'm not a fan of the feel of the neighborhoods on the west coast. I like the NE feel. Just my opinion.
Neutra houses look ok but they are not in the city which is a no go for me. Give me urban and we can talk. Brownstones or highrises.
I can certainly appreciate that. It took awhile for West Coast architecture to grow on me.
But as far as new apartment construction, most of what's going up in LA looks comparable to what's being built in DC. If anything LA may be building even more densely than DC is in terms of units per acre. This seems true even when the buildings are the same height or when the LA building is a little shorter. But we don't have as much planned mixed-use as DC. We don't have anything like CenterCityDC or the Yards. At least not on that scale.
L.A. does not have an urban structural core as large as D.C. L.A. is polycentric. That is my biggest problem with it. I'm looking for structural density for miles. A true core that spreads for a large distance in every direction without surface parking lots or open space.
the core of Los Angeles is bigger than the entire city limits of DC, with much higher population density, very good PT (not as good as DC), and very chaotic, gritty, and plenty of pedestrian traffic.
Hasn't it already been established that L.A. has a higher core building density than DC? There are obvious stylistic differences, but L.A. is the more densely built city by any measure.
I love the projects going up in DC. The Union Station plans = nice. I love modern architecture, and these types of projects are a huge improvement over the crap that went up in US cities in middle of the 20th century.
I have to call MDAllstar out on the projected size of downtown DC. 15 sq miles? No way. That's the size of Manhattan from Battery Park to 96th street at least.
When you add up Dupont Circle, Logan Circle, NOMA, Northwest One, Atlas District, Golden Triangle, West End, East End, Midtown, Museum Complex, SW Eco District, SW Waterfront, and the Capitol Riverfront area, it is atleast 15 square miles if not more. These area's will all be built with the same height and intensity uninterupted making one big downtown.
As for you L.A. comparison, D.C. has the same amount of buildings over 12 stories as L.A. and it's 15% the size of L.A. You can reference skyscraperpage.com for those facts. L.A. just does not compare to D.C. when it comes to buildings and their connectivity. You can walk for miles in D.C. and never see any breaks in the buildings or grass and surface parking lots. No wearhouses either.
the core of Los Angeles is bigger than the entire city limits of DC, with much higher population density, very good PT (not as good as DC), and very chaotic, gritty, and plenty of pedestrian traffic.
I don't think you understand what I mean.
This is what I'm looking for in L.A. There isn't a large area in L.A. that has this building to street relationship. The CBD is tiny.
When you add up Dupont Circle, Logan Circle, NOMA, Northwest One, Atlas District, Golden Triangle, West End, East End, Midtown, Museum Complex, SW Eco District, SW Waterfront, and the Capitol Riverfront area, it is atleast 15 square miles if not more. These area's will all be built with the same height and intensity uninterupted making one big downtown.
As for you L.A. comparison, D.C. has the same amount of buildings over 12 stories as L.A. and it's 15% the size of L.A. You can reference skyscraperpage.com for those facts. L.A. just does not compare to D.C. when it comes to buildings and their connectivity. You can walk for miles in D.C. and never see any breaks in the buildings or grass and surface parking lots. No wearhouses either.
Those are neighborhoods, not a CBD. That's like lumping Westlake and Koreatown with DTLA and calling it a downtown.
When you add up Dupont Circle, Logan Circle, NOMA, Northwest One, Atlas District, Golden Triangle, West End, East End, Midtown, Museum Complex, SW Eco District, SW Waterfront, and the Capitol Riverfront area, it is atleast 15 square miles if not more. These area's will all be built with the same height and intensity uninterupted making one big downtown.
As for you L.A. comparison, D.C. has the same amount of buildings over 12 stories as L.A. and it's 15% the size of L.A. You can reference skyscraperpage.com for those facts. L.A. just does not compare to D.C. when it comes to buildings and their connectivity. You can walk for miles in D.C. and never see any breaks in the buildings or grass and surface parking lots. No wearhouses either.
Sounds unlikely to me. Those numbers are pretty much not true in terms of buildings over 12 stories because skyscraperpage and emporis don't keep very good track of things aside from supertalls and premier projects.
Agree with you that DC has a far smaller prevalence of surface lots and LA needs to change its parking requirements (flip the current minimum to become a new maximum), but DC does have surface lots like here: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Washi...247.6,,0,-0.17
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.
come on bro
