More urban LA, SF, DC, Philly, and Boston? (live, largest, bigger)

[killakoolaide]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Your argument is based purely on aesthetics. Los Angeles is the densest urban area in the United States.

Density is not the end all be all of urban feel. Infrastructure design and developement is at the heart of urbanity. Density is created when relatively high property values meet relatively liberal zoning policies. Property values are in part raised by infrastructure developement/upgrades. Natural assests are the other property value determinants. Coastal California is naturally blessed, so it has intrinsically high property values, but the inland desert does not have the natural assets of the coast, and poor infrastructure, its density comes from basically non-existant zoning regulations. Phoenix also has a denser urban area than Philly, but does that make it more urban? NYC, Paris, London are not the densest cities in the world, but they are the most urban because they have the most advanced and fully developed infrastructure.

In the US, NYC, Philly, and Boston have pound for pound the most fully developed infrastructure, they also have extremely strict zoning laws in their suburbs, an anti-growth mentality that only continues to push already high property values up. If and when those metros ever relax their zoning even slightly, they will boom in a way unseen in a century. The longer a place is able to restrict growth and developement, in the name of preservation, the more impressive it will be when the market finally forces its hand. IMHO, a metro like DC is booming prematurely and selling itself short in the long run. Once its growth levels off and stagnates/declines, other metros will see growth and developement that will dwarf it in both size and scope. These patterns of growth that seem like relatively new developments, are actually repeating cycles.

[2Easy]

Regarding rail walkability, another blogger had done a comparison of all LA rail stations, including light rail and the Orange line BRT. He got a very slightly different heavy rail number than GGW, so not sure how accurate it is. The worst is predictably the green line, which runs in a freeway median and ends in an aerospace business area. Surprised that the blue line did so poorly, but one of my complaints regarding walk score is the I think that it somewhat under counts urban, minority areas. In short walkscore criteria are not necessarily the same as someone from those areas might have. That aside here are LA's scores for each line:

Average Walk Score for each line:
Purple Line: 93
Red Line: 91
Expo Line (LA-Culver City): 81
Silver Line: 79
Gold Line: 78
Orange Line (including extension to Chatsworth): 70
Blue Line: 69
Green Line: 57
Systemwide average Walk Score: 75. Not too bad.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by killakoolaide

Density is not the end all be all of urban feel. Infrastructure design and developement is at the heart of urbanity. Density is created when relatively high property values meet relatively liberal zoning policies. Property values are in part raised by infrastructure developement/upgrades. Natural assests are the other property value determinants. Coastal California is naturally blessed, so it has intrinsically high property values, but the inland desert does not have the natural assets of the coast, and poor infrastructure, its density comes from basically non-existant zoning regulations. Phoenix also has a denser urban area than Philly, but does that make it more urban? NYC, Paris, London are not the densest cities in the world, but they are the most urban because they have the most advanced and fully developed infrastructure.

In the US, NYC, Philly, and Boston have pound for pound the most fully developed infrastructure, they also have extremely strict zoning laws in their suburbs, an anti-growth mentality that only continues to push already high property values up. If and when those metros ever relax their zoning even slightly, they will boom in a way unseen in a century. The longer a place is able to restrict growth and developement, in the name of preservation, the more impressive it will be when the market finally forces its hand. IMHO, a metro like DC is booming prematurely and selling itself short in the long run. Once its growth levels off and stagnates/declines, other metros will see growth and developement that will dwarf it in both size and scope. These patterns of growth that seem like relatively new developments, are actually repeating cycles.

On Phoenix--that city lacks a dense urban core that matches Philly's, to go with its uniform density, its not the same as Los Angeles in this regard. Truth is Bajan, despite his sarcasm, is largely correct--the arguments against L.A. are based almost exclusively on aesthetics. Just because L.A.'s densest areas are relatively unpolished and unknown, doesnt mean they don't exist. But I can see arguments in favor of SF, Philly, and to a lesser extent, Boston(it's a big stretch to include D.C.; there are some borderline rural areas within 8 miles of its core. Much as I love our nations capital, it's not like the others on this list). Having said that, none of these cities feel as freaky big as L.A., but their super dense areas are what everyone thinks of when they envision those cities. Not so with Los Angeles.

[kidphilly]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

On Phoenix--that city lacks a dense urban core that matches Philly's, to go with its uniform density, its not the same as Los Angeles in this regard. Truth is Bajan, despite his sarcasm, is largely correct--the arguments against L.A. are based almost exclusively on aesthetics. Just because L.A.'s densest areas are relatively unpolished and unknown, doesnt mean they don't exist. But I can see arguments in favor of SF, Philly, and to a lesser extent, Boston(it's a big stretch to include D.C.; there are some borderline rural areas within 8 miles of its core. Much as I love our nations capital, it's not like the others on this list). Having said that, none of these cities feel as freaky big as L.A., but their super dense areas are what everyone thinks of when they envision those cities. Not so with Los Angeles.

Actually a very good post; cant say I really disagree with any points

And very much agree on the freaky big comment in reagrds to LA; very true; in some ways the expanse of LA feels larger than NYC; now the apex of urbanity is a whole other story

[75 South]

Good original post and equally good response.

Originally Posted by kidphilly

Actually a very good post; cant say I really disagree with any points

And very much agree on the freaky big comment in reagrds to LA; very true; in some ways the expanse of LA feels larger than NYC; now the apex of urbanity is a whole other story

[HockeyGuy85]

LA isnt the most dense by any stretch, however, when it comes to URBANITY, as a whole, its a much larger urban area than the other 4 cities. That being said, I voted LA.

SF, Philly, DC, and Boston however, are more centralized and dense.

The only reason I voted LA is because its larger in area.

[HockeyGuy85]

As for actual bustling downtowns, density, etc. then its San Francisco, with an honorable mention to Philly.

IMO, and ive been to them all and lived in NYC, the four best downtowns (CBDs) in the country are NYC, Chicago, SF and Philly.

[btownboss4]

Just a note, the MBTA and MTA are the only 2 transit systems with Light Rail, Heavy rail, Commuter Rail, Bus and Ferry

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by HockeyGuy85

LA isnt the most dense by any stretch, however, when it comes to URBANITY, as a whole, its a much larger urban area than the other 4 cities. That being said, I voted LA.

SF, Philly, DC, and Boston however, are more centralized and dense.

The only reason I voted LA is because its larger in area.

I think you'd be surprised just how dense LA can be... it definitely has the highest amount of 20k+ ppsm census tracts out of these cities.

I will stand by the statement LA is the densest of the 5 cities.

[HockeyGuy85]

Originally Posted by munchitup

I think you'd be surprised just how dense LA can be... it definitely has the highest amount of 20k+ ppsm census tracts out of these cities.

I will stand by the statement LA is the densest of the 5 cities.

SF, Philly and Boston are definitely more dense and bustling downtowns though, even after evening. LA is virtually dead after 5.

Urbanity can be looked at in different degrees. LA is more urban simply because of sheer size, but if we're talking density and people in a given area, SF, Philly and Boston are easily ahead. DC as well.

If I want an urban experience, id also rather live in SF or Philly.