More urban LA, SF, DC, Philly, and Boston? (living, better, place)

[nslander]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

Not necessarily. But when a city of 500 sq miles (and God knows how big in the entire urban area) is dominated by SFH areas to such an extent that it does not have a single pocket of 2 mile radius without them, does that not say something about how urban that city is?

Yes. It says that area has a mix of housing. The end.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

Not necessarily. But when a city of 500 sq miles (and God knows how big in the entire urban area) is dominated by SFH areas to such an extent that it does not have a single pocket of 2 mile radius without them, does that not say something about how urban that city is?

Personally, in Central Los Angeles I think the SFH are not the problem with the lack of continuity in the urbanity. Many of the homes are historic, and very old, great examples of Craftsman, Mediterranean, Spanish Revival, etc.

The strip malls, parking lots and too-wide boulevards are the biggest problems, and have easy solutions. Road diets, reducing parking minimums (or putting it underground) and smart redevelopment are rapidly changing the urban fabric here. I've only lived here a year and things have changed for the better, and it is visually apparent.

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by nslander

Yes. It says that area has a mix of housing. The end.

God nslander, you are so clever. How did I not think of that?

But if one area has a mix of housing with a substantial amount of SFHs and another area has a mix of housing with apt buildings, brownstones and other rowhouses, which area is more urban?

[nslander]

Originally Posted by munchitup

Personally, in Central Los Angeles I think the SFH are not the problem with the lack of continuity in the urbanity. Many of the homes are historic, and very old, great examples of Craftsman, Mediterranean, Spanish Revival, etc.

For our some of our East Coast friends: the emboldened words are types of houses.

[CaliFool]

that's funny, because I end up thinking that people in la are not picky enough. some nice things come from the place, but so does a tremendous amount of junk. the fact remains that northeasterners take dense, walkable cities for granted

Originally Posted by polo89

I can't lie, if I'm in LA, and I see a crosswalk, and places of interest lined up and down Hollywood Blvd and Highland, the LAST thing I'll be thinking about is "Man, In NYC, we'd be at a steak and Hoagie place by now", "Man, where can I get some chowder like back in Boston". People from "up there" are too picky.

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by munchitup

Personally, in Central Los Angeles I think the SFH are not the problem with the lack of continuity in the urbanity. Many of the homes are historic, and very old, great examples of Craftsman, Mediterranean, Spanish Revival, etc.

The strip malls, parking lots and too-wide boulevards are the biggest problems, and have easy solutions. Road diets, reducing parking minimums (or putting it underground) and smart redevelopment are rapidly changing the urban fabric here. I've only lived here a year and things have changed for the better, and it is visually apparent.

All true. I have to say though munchitup, your posts sometimes make me chuckle. You obviously want LA to change into something that it's not. It's not gonna happen! Not in our lifetime anyway. The strip malls, the parking lots, etc. -- that's LA's DNA. Embrace it pal, or get out.

[nslander]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

God nslander, you are so clever. How did I not think of that?

But if one area has a mix of housing with a substantial amount of SFHs and another area has a mix of housing with apt buildings, brownstones and other rowhouses, which area is more urban?

Without using any other criteria, subjective or otherwise, whichever area is more densely populated.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

All true. I have to say though munchitup, your posts sometimes make me chuckle. You obviously want LA to change into something that it's not. It's not gonna happen! Not in our lifetime anyway. The strip malls, the parking lots, etc. -- that's LA's DNA. Embrace it pal, or get out.

Exactly. Why doesn't he just move to SF?

[nslander]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

All true. I have to say though munchitup, your posts sometimes make me chuckle. You obviously want LA to change into something that it's not. It's not gonna happen! Not in our lifetime anyway. The strip malls, the parking lots, etc. -- that's LA's DNA. Embrace it pal, or get out.

As somebody who has seen the city change over the last 30 years, please know you have no idea what you are talking about.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

All true. I have to say though munchitup, your posts sometimes make me chuckle. You obviously want LA to change into something that it's not. It's not gonna happen! Not in our lifetime anyway. The strip malls, the parking lots, etc. -- that's LA's DNA. Embrace it pal, or get out.

The fact is that I keep up on development news in the city I live in.


Do you really think a parking lot is an immovable force? There was a parking lot here: West Hollywood, CA - Google Maps right around the corner from my house, will be this soon: Another Hollywood Evolution: 1800 Whitley Breaks Ground - Circle of Life - Curbed LA

Or a strip mall / drive through burger joint?

http://la.curbed.com/archives/2011/1...ul_la_life.php

Or how bout an ugly car oriented shopping center / strip mall?

WeHo's Jons-Replacing Mixed-Use Project Set to Start Next Month - DevelopmentWatch - Curbed LA