More urban LA, SF, DC, Philly, and Boston? (live, place, Atlanta)

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

L.A. = 470 sq miles
Philly = 135 sq miles (less than 30% the size of L.A.'s legal boundaries)
Boston = 45 sq miles
DC = 60 sq miles

The mere fact that you resorted to this is very telling.

It's like the old "San Antonio is bigger than Boston" arguments, in reverse. Ask yourself if any of these cities can maintain 8000 psm over 470 sq miles. Keep in mind that L.A. is giving you a massive head start in the form of a mountain range that cuts the city in two. And L.A.'s city boundaries aren't anywhere near the densest contiguous 470 sq miles in L.A. County.

I see that Bajan has already responded to your weak density argument. Of course everyone knows that LA is 25% less dense than DC, 40% less dense than Philly and a whopping 60% less dense than Boston.

It's only when you begin to manipulate data that you arrive to your desired result. You can't do that! Why? Because the question is not which city has the most dense 60 sq miles or 130 sq miles. The question is which CITY is the most urban. *CITY*. That means we have to look at the entire cities. Even if you want to reduce the whole issue merely to residential density - which as discussed ad nauseum is not the only relevant fact - you have to compare CITY to CITY. You can't take the densest part of one city and compare it to the entirety of another. That is pure statistical manipulation. Or as you like to say "cherrypicking". Either compare city to city, or urban core to urban core. Take your pick. But don't try to convince us with your fuzzy "Ray math".

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

I see that Bajan has already responded to your weak density argument. Of course everyone knows that LA is 25% less dense than DC, 40% less dense than Philly and a whopping 60% less dense than Boston.

It's only when you begin to manipulate data that you arrive to your desired result. You can't do that! Why? Because the question is not which city has the most dense 60 sq miles or 130 sq miles. The question is which CITY is the most urban. *CITY*. That means we have to look at the entire cities. Even if you want to reduce the whole issue merely to residential density - which as discussed ad nauseum is not the only relevant fact - you have to compare CITY to CITY. You can't take the densest part of one city and compare it to the entirety of another. That is pure statistical manipulation. Or as you like to say "cherrypicking". Either compare city to city, or urban core to urban core. Take your pick. But don't try to convince us with your fuzzy "Ray math".

And going by that criteria and more, my order is Philly, SF, LA, Boston DC.

What exactly is your order?

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by munchitup

And going by that criteria and more, my order is Philly, SD, LA, Boston DC.

What exactly is your order?

To be honest it's been awhile since I have been to SF. But from what I remember i would say there is not much difference between SF, Philly and Boston. Washington is slightly behind. LA is further behind.

LA has its own brand of urbanity. But the ubiquitous presence of SFHs, wide streets, strip malls, weak foot traffic and PT, and lack of a dense urban core naturally and obviously reduces its urban feel in comparison to the other cities. I don't know how anyone can seriously debate this.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by munchitup

And going by that criteria and more, my order is Philly, SF, LA, Boston DC.

You're all over the place. You already stated in this thread that DC was "more urban than LA pound for pound." Then you stated in a previous thread that "unlike Boston, you have to actively seek out a car free lifestyle in LA." If DC is more urban than Boston, as you said, and Boston offers an easy car free lifestyle unlike LA, then doesn't that make LA the least urban of all these cities going by your own statements?

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

I see that Bajan has already responded to your weak density argument. Of course everyone knows that LA is 25% less dense than DC, 40% less dense than Philly and a whopping 60% less dense than Boston.

It's only when you begin to manipulate data that you arrive to your desired result. You can't do that! Why? Because the question is not which city has the most dense 60 sq miles or 130 sq miles. The question is which CITY is the most urban. *CITY*. That means we have to look at the entire cities. Even if you want to reduce the whole issue merely to residential density - which as discussed ad nauseum is not the only relevant fact - you have to compare CITY to CITY. You can't take the densest part of one city and compare it to the entirety of another. That is pure statistical manipulation. Or as you like to say "cherrypicking". Either compare city to city, or urban core to urban core. Take your pick. But don't try to convince us with your fuzzy "Ray math".

The fact that you think there's anything fuzzy about my math is embarrassing refusal to accept that L.A. is the densest city on this list.

Maybe this will help you (I doubt it though).

L.A. at 45 sq is denser than Boston. To be fair, the densest 45 sq miles in Boston are not all in its city limits, but L.A. still has the edge regardless.
L.A. at 60 sq miles is FAR denser than D.C.
L.A. at 135 sq miles is denser than Philly

Going by density within city limits is not apples vs apples and you know it. L.A. is up to 10x larger than some of these cities in area.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

To be honest it's been awhile since I have been to SF. But from what I remember i would say there is not much difference between SF, Philly and Boston. Washington is slightly behind. LA is further behind.

LA has its own brand of urbanity. But the ubiquitous presence of SFHs, wide streets, strip malls, weak foot traffic and PT, and lack of a dense urban core naturally and obviously reduces its urban feel in comparison to the other cities. I don't know how anyone can seriously debate this.

I won't deny there are SFHs, or wide streets or even strip malls. But 'weak foot traffic' is just blatantly false.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

You're all over the place. You already stated in this thread that DC was "more urban than LA pound for pound." Then you stated in a previous thread that "unlike Boston, you have to actively seek out a car free lifestyle in LA." If DC is more urban than Boston, as you said, and Boston offers an easy car free lifestyle unlike LA, then doesn't that make LA the least urban of all these cities going by your own statements?

More cherrypicking. I'm not going by "pound for pound" and said it over and over. my list has nor changed. What's your rankings

[jorge112597]

Originally Posted by CaliSon

LOL I don't understand why you guys get all worked up over 2 count them 2 posters that think what they think and though I do think Fitzrovian is a bit more intellectual and listens a little more, the other guy is obviously trolling to get all you guys worked up, him and another ex Philly booster who makes up names like crazy are the only ones who disagree, everyone else is on our side, besides SF where can you find beauty and urbanity like this all in the same city?
Los Angeles Pics (all LA pic posts go here) page 50
Come on guys no need to get all worked up because of a few bad apples, at the end of the day we live in LA,a city that gets overshadowed by no other city, a city that millions of tourists flock to every year, a city that makes history good and bad, a city envied by others, almost perfect year round weather, like one poster had said, when people stop hating on LA is when you have to start worrying for it's always the top dogs that get hated on, take the hate as a reassurance that other cities feel intimidated and belittled when compared to LA.

great post

[gwillyfromphilly]

I'm surprised San Francisco is beating Boston in this poll. I know San Francisco is very urban but I personally wouldn't say San Francisco is more urban than Boston or any other city in the Northeast corridor. I'm also shocked that DC is dead last on the list, DC should be right up there with San Francisco.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

It's hard to change an urban model overnight. Compactness was a practical necessity for eastern cities at the time they were built. What other means of transportation did most people have besides walking? So you had large urban cores in Boston, Philadelphia, NYC and DC that were built specifically and primarily for pedestrian life.

You'd have to change the whole infrastructure of Los Angeles to make it as pedestrian-friendly as Boston or DC. You'd have to eliminate 95 percent of its off-street parking. You'd have to put residences on top of the retail on commercial corridors in order to promote greater walkability. You'd have to scale down the size of the streets. You'd have to provide incentives for about 60% of the businesses in the outer areas to relocate to downtown. It's a tall task.

This is not happening overnight though--this has been an ongoing process from the mid-90s and non. It's a tall task that is being done in various ways and not necessarily in the same way as cities in the East Coast have done it--things such as road-dieting that keeps the size of the road infrastructure, but makes it more open to shared use. Or the large food truck culture that's taken off with those awful surface parking lots doubling as places to eat.