U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: most urban?
SF 128 32.57%
LA 61 15.52%
DC 38 9.67%
Philly 107 27.23%
Boston 59 15.01%
Voters: 393. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 02-05-2012, 02:17 PM
 
5,448 posts, read 3,985,199 times
Reputation: 2218

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Which just means that Los Angeles currently does not have a vital urban core. NYC, DC, Boston, SF and Philly ALREADY have vital urban cores. Big difference, don't you think?
Your going to tell me
THis
Google Maps

and this
Google Maps
isnt urban?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-05-2012, 02:19 PM
 
Location: In the heights
11,406 posts, read 10,193,874 times
Reputation: 4917
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
You could also live in Atlanta, Tampa, Orlando, Charlotte, Nashville, Durham, Richmond, San Diego, Dallas, Minneapolis, Houston, or Birmingham and live a carless existence. Are these cities all as walkable as Boston?

Going AWOC – Atlanta WithOut a Car!

Guess what, Tampa is doable without a car!

Living in Dallas without a vehicle | Texas Energy and Environment Blog | dallasnews.com

Orlando 101: How to get around town without a car - Orlando sightseeing | Examiner.com

Living in San Diego without a car?
They can be, not to the same extent or amount though. Actually, I have lived virtually carless in San Diego and it wasn't too bad.

Anyhow, the scale is different and you should very well know that--it's facetious to even hint that I made a claim that the cities you mentioned were as dense as Boston or Los Angeles. Los Angeles has a larger contiguous portion of dense urban area than any of the cities you mentioned (and in some regards, to Boston as well).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 02:20 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
17,579 posts, read 10,034,466 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4 View Post
Your going to tell me
THis
Google Maps

and this
Google Maps
isnt urban?
Quote:
"They've ruined the city," said Shoup, who often rides his bicycle to work at UCLA. "People don't know why the city looks so ugly and why there are shopping centers in the middle of a giant sea of parking."
Yep. A giant sea of parking in the middle of your city lends itself to a very vibrant urban core.

Last edited by BajanYankee; 02-05-2012 at 02:42 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 02:25 PM
 
Location: L.A./O.C.
574 posts, read 671,858 times
Reputation: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Which just means that Los Angeles currently does not have a vital urban core. NYC, DC, Boston, SF and Philly ALREADY have vital urban cores. Big difference, don't you think?
LA already has a vital urban core and better than these cities (except NYC), i am referring to Donalds core that you seem to worship and probably have already memorized because of all the times you have posted it on this thread
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 02:29 PM
 
Location: L.A./O.C.
574 posts, read 671,858 times
Reputation: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Yep. A giant sea of parking in the middle of your city lends itself to a very virbant urban core.
reply to the google map posts btownboss posted

is it urban?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 02:29 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
17,579 posts, read 10,034,466 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
They can be, not to the same extent or amount though. Actually, I have lived virtually carless in San Diego and it wasn't too bad.

Anyhow, the scale is different and you should very well know that--it's facetious to even hint that I made a claim that the cities you mentioned were as dense as Boston or Los Angeles. Los Angeles has a larger contiguous portion of dense urban area than any of the cities you mentioned (and in some regards, to Boston as well).
Yes, it was facetious.

The only reason this thread keeps going is that "more urban" to urban enthusiasts means "superior." So if Los Angeles is "less urban" than another city, that logically makes it "inferior" to that city. That logic only follows if you accept the premise in the first place. And that's a premise that's naturally going to be accepted by anyone who spends time on a site called "City-Data" arguing about the various aspects of different cities. That's why there's such a visceral reaction to the idea that Los Angeles is less urban than some other place.

Is Los Angeles less urban than Newark, NJ? Yes. Does that make Newark "superior" to Los Angeles? No. I'd much rather live in a much less urban city like Atlanta, Charlotte, Denver or Los Angeles over Newark. "Urbanity" is not about superiority. It's a way, in my mind, to classify how intensive land use is.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 02:31 PM
 
Location: In the heights
11,406 posts, read 10,193,874 times
Reputation: 4917
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
So Los Angeles has addressed all of the issues Shoup discussed in his article since 2004?

Btw, you guys never showed us the non-cherry picked Google map views we asked for. Where are they? Where is this mixed-use urbanity that blows away every city except NYC?
It's addressed all of them to varying extents. There's a much larger downtown population than before, there's been extensions of transit lines (and the building of an entirely new one), the implementation of bus rapid transit, the opening of a lot of stores in the urban setting, the building of the LA Live megacomplex, road diets and services like that, massive changes in zoning regulations (this is probably the most important thing that happened), a voluntary passing of a mass transit-oriented tax on themselves in 2008 (also massive), and a few other things along the way. These are pretty significant changes.

Also, no one claimed that LA blows away every city except NYC. You're asking people to defend a stance they never made.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 02:32 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
17,579 posts, read 10,034,466 times
Reputation: 6195
Quote:
Originally Posted by jorge112597 View Post
reply to the google map posts btownboss posted

is it urban?
Did you see my post where I said that all cities are urban? Or did you just gloss over that in your hyper-emotional rage?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 02:32 PM
 
Location: L.A./O.C.
574 posts, read 671,858 times
Reputation: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Yes, it was facetious.

The only reason this thread keeps going is that "more urban" to urban enthusiasts means "superior." So if Los Angeles is "less urban" than another city, that logically makes it "inferior" to that city. That logic only follows if you accept the premise in the first place. And that's a premise that's naturally going to be accepted by anyone who spends time on a site called "City-Data" arguing about the various aspects of different cities. That's why there's such a visceral reaction to the idea that Los Angeles is less urban than some other place.

Is Los Angeles less urban than Newark, NJ? Yes. Does that make Newark "superior" to Los Angeles? No. I'd much rather live in a much less urban city like Atlanta, Charlotte, Denver or Los Angeles over Newark. "Urbanity" is not about superiority. It's a way, in my mind, to classify how intensive land use is.
the only reason this thread keeps going is because you along with many other NE posters are haters of LA and just dont admit that LA is the most urban of these cities
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 02:34 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,059 posts, read 5,865,636 times
Reputation: 2910
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
It's addressed all of them to varying extents. There's a much larger downtown population than before, there's been extensions of transit lines (and the building of an entirely new one), the implementation of bus rapid transit, the opening of a lot of stores in the urban setting, the building of the LA Live megacomplex, road diets and services like that, massive changes in zoning regulations (this is probably the most important thing that happened), a voluntary passing of a mass transit-oriented tax on themselves in 2008 (also massive), and a few other things along the way. These are pretty significant changes.

Also, no one claimed that LA blows away every city except NYC. You're asking people to defend a stance they never made.
They are cooking up an extension on those taxes for the next election cycle. Will be huge if passed and speed up all mass transit projects.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top