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.
This weighted density chart is the best measure of metropolitan level urbanity(dense suburbs), and in that respect LA is behind only NYC and the Bay area. DC boosters, you're kidding yourselves.
However, DC's superior public transportation does make for a more cohesive urban region overall, but on a much smaller scale than LA. In the DMV, once you get outside the beltway the urbanity drops off significantly. LA's urbanity is sustained over a much larger expanse.
Wait, Beverly Hills is a suburb of LA. I was just in Bethesda. They are pretty comparable. Beverly Hills feels more bustling during the day, but doesn't have as many night-time options as Bethesda.
However, DC's superior public transportation does make for a more cohesive urban region overall, but on a much smaller scale than LA. In the DMV, once you get outside the beltway the urbanity drops off significantly. LA's urbanity is sustained over a much larger expanse.
actually, most of the pictures i put up on page 40 were outside the beltway. but either way, you're right, it is more sprawling than if you were closer to dc but isn't that how you want it to be? isn't it you people want the city to have the highest density, while slowly becoming less dense outside the core such as new york, chicago, london, paris, boston, and sf? the fact that the city of la is just about as dense as its suburbs isn't really a great thing. that's probably why traffic sucks so much in these types of cities, not to say dc doesn't have traffic problems.
also, a lot of our development is newer than la. there are still a lot of empty areas that will be developed up soon. nova is going to gain density. there is a lot of pedestrian friendly development here, lots of new big town centers, lots of apartment buildings and lots of townhouses plus an expanding metro system so i think we will be able to handle the sprawl a lot better than la has. i don't know if la expected to have all the problems of suburban sprawl it has today but the dmv is doing a better job in construction development and metro expansion to handle the future.
I live on the east coast. I've been to LA four times and thought it was alright. Not really my cup of tea for living, although it's a nice area for a family vacation.
I prefer cities that are more like east coast and European large cities. San Francisco is better in that regard.
As a city, LA lacks cohesiveness and manueverability. If you don't have a car in LA, you are short. In DC, you don't need a car and all the amenities are with in a core area where there is ample public transportation. Notorious - In cities like DC and NYC, poor people, rich people, old people, young people use PT. Your comment makes no sense.
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.
I Love L.A.
