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 32.65%
LA 60 15.31%
DC 38 9.69%
Philly 107 27.30%
Boston 59 15.05%
Voters: 392. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-05-2012, 02:51 PM
 
Location: In the heights
11,279 posts, read 10,035,152 times
Reputation: 4844

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
All good steps to take.

But the issue is that Los Angeles has fundamental design issues that will make it very challenging to offer a lifestyle anything close to Boston, Philly or DC. For example, what do you do with all of the restaurants that have parking lots? Do you confiscate the property by eminent domain so that something else can be built there? That's obviously not going to happen. And the existing houses on single-family lots...what are you going to do with those? You just can't bulldoze them and build a whole bunch of 8-floor apartment complexes with retail on the bottom because a few guys on C-D want to have more fun. What about commercial strips that have no residences on top? Do you raze those and then build apartments on top of them so people can have easier access to amenities? How do you address those design issues?
Zoning was changed, property values went up and it was profitable to develop lots that were empty, parking lots, or less dense into greater density--that was pretty much it. Things changed. Also, there was some kind of silver lining with the LA riots in that a lot of the bombed out, more sprawling commercial strip mall lots were redeveloped much more densely than before.

Also, the SFH are only in small pockets in the core, and that's where most of the change is happening. Apartment complexes are where the majority live. It still effectively makes for dense housing. Los Angeles generally has corners and arterial roads for commercial activity, but the dense residential areas are immediately right off of those arterial roads (and oftentimes, you can walk to several of these arterial roads from your home) rather than building residences directly on top of the commercial buildings (also, a lot of these corner/arterial road commercial places are multiple stories or complexes of commercial/retail). It doesn't look the same as east coast cities (though in places within the heart of downtown do look like east coast cities), but it still functions very similarly in terms of dense development and walkable areas.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
You might want to check that. I'm not really in the "track down people's quotes and throw them back in their face" mood today. The biggest problem is that people don't understand the difference between "greater than" and "less than." Saying that Los Angeles is less urban than Boston does not mean that's it's not urban at all.
Fine, maybe some did, I don't agree with them and probably most people, even those are arguing that LA is urban, has stated that it blows the other cities out of the water.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-05-2012, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
17,337 posts, read 9,814,984 times
Reputation: 6059
OyCrumbler is the only person on here with any semblance of objectivity. This discussion would be much more interesting and thoughtful in the urban planning forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 02:55 PM
 
Location: NYC
1,745 posts, read 1,133,598 times
Reputation: 948
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
OyCrumbler is the only person on here with any semblance of objectivity. This discussion would be much more interesting and thoughtful in the urban planning forum.
It took you 50 pages to realize that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 02:58 PM
 
Location: L.A./O.C.
574 posts, read 663,002 times
Reputation: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
What about commercial strips that have no residences on top? Do you raze those and then build apartments on top of them so people can have easier access to amenities? How do you address those design issues?
W hotel hollywood condominiums - Google Maps
has residences on top, and has stores on the bottom and many things in a walking distance

sorry, it doesnt redirect you properly
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 02:59 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
17,337 posts, read 9,814,984 times
Reputation: 6059
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Zoning was changed, property values went up and it was profitable to develop lots that were empty, parking lots, or less dense into greater density--that was pretty much it. Things changed. Also, there was some kind of silver lining with the LA riots in that a lot of the bombed out, more sprawling commercial strip mall lots were redeveloped much more densely than before.
In Paris, you know, they just knocked it all down and started over. It's hard to retrofit something to make it function in a way that it wasn't designed to function. It would be like putting an N54 engine in a minivan and expecting it to handle the twists and turns of the Black Forest like a BMW M5. Sure, you'd get increased performance, but it wouldn't be the same as actually driving a BMW M5.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 03:00 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
5,583 posts, read 2,606,383 times
Reputation: 2982
I don't see how being more car friendly makes L.A. less urban. It's just a lame aesthetics argument.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 03:01 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,018 posts, read 5,751,132 times
Reputation: 2888
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Zoning was changed, property values went up and it was profitable to develop lots that were empty, parking lots, or less dense into greater density--that was pretty much it. Things changed. Also, there was some kind of silver lining with the LA riots in that a lot of the bombed out, more sprawling commercial strip mall lots were redeveloped much more densely than before.

Also, the SFH are only in small pockets in the core, and that's where most of the change is happening. Apartment complexes are where the majority live. It still effectively makes for dense housing. Los Angeles generally has corners and arterial roads for commercial activity, but the dense residential areas are immediately right off of those arterial roads (and oftentimes, you can walk to several of these arterial roads from your home) rather than building residences directly on top of the commercial buildings (also, a lot of these corner/arterial road commercial places are multiple stories or complexes of commercial/retail). It doesn't look the same as east coast cities (though in places within the heart of downtown do look like east coast cities), but it still functions very similarly in terms of dense development and walkable areas.





Fine, maybe some did, I don't agree with them and probably most people, even those are arguing that LA is urban, has stated that it blows the other cities out of the water.
I put LA at third on this list. The LA posters that are the west coast equivalent of you have stated that it blows all other cities out of the water (Oops didn't mean you Oycrumbler .)

I think I am being fairly objective and have in-depth experience on both coasts.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
17,337 posts, read 9,814,984 times
Reputation: 6059
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian View Post
It took you 50 pages to realize that?
Haha. I gotta stop feeding the trolls, I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 03:04 PM
 
Location: L.A./O.C.
574 posts, read 663,002 times
Reputation: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
I put LA at third on this list. The LA posters that are the west coast equivalent of you have stated that it blows all other cities out of the water (Oops didn't mean you Oycrumbler .)

I think I am being fairly objective and have in-depth experience on both coasts.
i said LA is the most urban, but not that its a whole new level of urban, they are close but i believe LA is the most urban
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2012, 03:05 PM
 
Location: L.A./O.C.
574 posts, read 663,002 times
Reputation: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Haha. I gotta stop feeding the trolls, I guess.
look who is talking, the biggest troll on this thread
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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. The time now is 12:20 PM.

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