Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I didn't "purposefully exclude the middle class." The point was to show the difference in the income distribution among transit ridership in different cities. If you're starting out with 40% of your riders having an HHI of less than $25,000, that doesn't leave much room for everyone else, does it? In transit-oriented cities, you see a much different income distribution in the ridership, which is to be expected since there's: (1) strong job concentration in the core and (2) prohibitively expensive parking in the core. LA has neither so the demographics of the ridership there do not surprise me. More affluent people can simply afford to drive to work. In NYC, DC or Boston, it's much more difficult to do that, so you get a more socioeconomically diverse ridership.
Yea, I acknowledge that it's distributed mostly towards the poor, but that it's also changing. LA is generally a lower income metro area than NYC, DC, Boston or the Bay Area. It's more in line with Philly except LA's generally poor hispanic immigrants rather than poor African-Americans and that in most directions, LA remains poor (and even more so if you keep going east). LA has a lot of jobs, less percentage-wise but pretty good in absolute numbers, along Wilshire and in Downtown, all of which are often terrible to drive to. Parking is better in LA than elsewhere, but is still pricey. LA's general attitude towards transit has been shifting though and you see more than ever a greater diversity of people who take transit.
I have already said LA is urban in downtown. Why bring up Westlake when we are talking about extremely intensely built urban environments? That area can't compare to any of the urban neighborhoods in the N.E. cities. I respect you OyCrumbler and I know you know Westlake is not in the same conversation. Downtown LA, however, is urban and can be compared. It's just such a small area.
Downtown LA is a bit over 5 square miles, though the southeast portion of it is mostly industrial and not mixed-use. 5 square miles is a pretty decent-size. Westlake is a hodge-podge, but it is denser than almost other neighborhood out there in the cities being compared save for probably SF's chinatown. Yea, Westlake is often ugly and the neighborhood is predominantly working class immigrants, but in terms of population, job and retail density along with transit access and just generally having people walking up and down those streets, it's high up there and it's contiguous with downtown LA to the east and somewhat similar Ktown (dense but a bit ratty) to the west.
Yea, I acknowledge that it's distributed mostly towards the poor, but that it's also changing. LA is generally a lower income metro area than NYC, DC, Boston or the Bay Area. It's more in line with Philly except LA's generally poor hispanic immigrants rather than poor African-Americans and that in most directions, LA remains poor (and even more so if you keep going east).
I don't think that has anything to do with the ridership. 40% of the households in the Los Angeles metro area are not earning less than $25,000 per year. And the New York Metro's median HHI is only $5,000 higher than LA's (Chicago's is $6,000 higher), but the ridership in those cities is not nearly as skewed as it is in LA. The ridership is more reflective of the general population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
LA has a lot of jobs, less percentage-wise but pretty good in absolute numbers, along Wilshire and in Downtown, all of which are often terrible to drive to. Parking is better in LA than elsewhere, but is still pricey. LA's general attitude towards transit has been shifting though and you see more than ever a greater diversity of people who take transit.
Comparatively, no, DTLA not have a lot of jobs. And not only does it not have many jobs, but the parking is far less expensive there (which is a product of not having an intensely developed downtown with high property values). When you have a whole lot of people going to a small area that offers little parking, that's when you see transit ridership numbers increase.
Regardless of what our stats were three years ago, D.C. has added more people in the last three years than the entire decade of 2000-2010. My only point for even bringing this up was the fact that D.C.'s core is building up more than any of these cities. The buildings are larger and all infill. Office to residential conversion's don't add anything to the built environment. Taking a one story building and making it 9 stories does however. Did you get a chance to look at the 5X5 mile core of all these cities? What do you think? You know what is happening in D.C. in those area's so what do you think in comparison to the other cities? I thought it was interesting that D.C. was actually built more intense over a longer area that all the cities. We don't have skyscrapers, but we kill in high-rises and midrise apartment/condo and office buildings.
Regardless of what our stats were three years ago, D.C. has added more people in the last three years than the entire decade of 2000-2010.
I see this claim often, but how do we really know this? For the Census, I remember someone coming to my house and asking me questions. But this claim seems to be estimates based on the number of units built in the city (without accounting for outmigration from the District).
Downtown LA is a bit over 5 square miles, though the southeast portion of it is mostly industrial and not mixed-use. 5 square miles is a pretty decent-size. Westlake is a hodge-podge, but it is denser than almost other neighborhood out there in the cities being compared save for probably SF's chinatown. Yea, Westlake is often ugly and the neighborhood is predominantly working class immigrants, but in terms of population, job and retail density along with transit access and just generally having people walking up and down those streets, it's high up there and it's contiguous with downtown LA to the east and somewhat similar Ktown (dense but a bit ratty) to the west.
No, it's not. Maybe from a downtown LA official municipal boundary standpoint, but from a cohesive development standpoint, it is extremely small. Below, you will see an apples to apples comparison of the core in each city. Please, guide your way along these cities over this distance to get an examples of what I mean. Also, you have seen what is moving in D.C. so you know that I am not blowing smoke when I say the entire area shown for D.C. is going to be covered with high-rises and mid-rises. What other city will stretch with that kind of urbanity besides D.C.? If there is one, I would love to see those plans as I love development which you know already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Here is a legit comparison of the size of intense urbanity and the expanse of intense urban development possible in these cities? Not one of these cities will be built out as much as D.C. over these distances. D.C.'s core as I have shown will be more developed with high-rise and low-rise apartments and condo's more than all of these cities. D.C. will not have the highest population density though. We have way more jobs and way more dedicated monuments not to mention height limits that obviously detract from population density as a whole, but at the neighborhood level, D.C. will be pretty dense as the development happens.
This is the point I have been trying to make. I know what can be done in all these cities and if you study these maps, it will shed some light on what I have been saying about the other cities not developing over such a large area compared to D.C. Their core's bump up into single family homes and full rowhome neighborhoods much earlier than D.C. does contrary to popular belief. Like I have said, The area I show below for D.C. will be fully saturated with apartment high-rises and tons of jobs. Which of these other cities will develop over that large an area?
Like I have been saying, D.C.'s height limits are the only reason high-rises are swallowing the city. It will give D.C. a different feel but we have to go urban when you have height limits. You have to build somewhere.
Regardless of what our stats were three years ago, D.C. has added more people in the last three years than the entire decade of 2000-2010. My only point for even bringing this up was the fact that D.C.'s core is building up more than any of these cities. The buildings are larger and all infill. Office to residential conversion's don't add anything to the built environment. Taking a one story building and making it 9 stories does however. Did you get a chance to look at the 5X5 mile core of all these cities? What do you think? You know what is happening in D.C. in those area's so what do you think in comparison to the other cities? I thought it was interesting that D.C. was actually built more intense over a longer area that all the cities. We don't have skyscrapers, but we kill in high-rises and midrise apartment/condo and office buildings.
I agree its growing fast but going from 15-20K to 30-40K mean adding like 20K people per sq mile. That is like 325 400 unit buildings. that is a lot assuming no displacement of other people
LOL at LA being urban. More like urban sprawl which is not the same. If you think LA is on par with cities like Boston, Philly or SF in terms of urban density, you have either never been to LA or have no idea what urban means in the context of which it is being used.
I've lived in Boston and Los Angeles (within both cities, not in the suburbs of either) and I find Los Angeles to be more urban than Boston, and at least on par.
I see this claim often, but how do we really know this? For the Census, I remember someone coming to my house and asking me questions. But this claim seems to be estimates based on the number of units built in the city (without accounting for outmigration from the District).
D.C.'s census population estimates are from new construction and occupancy rates. They are also from birth/death ratio. Cities that don't have tens of thousands of units delivering every year I question. But, cities with tens of thousands of new units delivering every year that are leasing buildings with over 400 units in less than a year is undeniable to question. We are talking about brand new buildings here.
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 register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
