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.
Well, you already started a thread on that in the UP forum. If people want to get into a more detailed discussion on that, they're always welcome to participate in that thread. But for the most part, I think people are stating why they find one city more urban than the other, and you are free to disagree with those assessments. I think the issue you're having is that you don't like why some people consider Los Angeles the least urban of this bunch.
Ok.. I think what I have a hard time with is the apparent conflation of "urban" and "good urban planning."
Urban planning concepts and ideas keep getting wrapped up into this discussion as if whatever "urban" means is always the desired end goal of planning practice -- that contemporary planning theory and good policy dictates that everywhere should strive to be more "urban." Of course, this is not the case, since planning is actually incredibly nuanced and holistic, and planning every metro area in the world to become a patterned stamping of central Rome throughout their entirety wouldn't be effective. Sure, some aspects of what "urban" seems to mean do make sense to push for in American cities (more density in central/transit areas, greater modal variety on streets, better pedestrian-orientation in urban design, etc.).. but the actual application of these aspects always takes into account economic realities, equity issues, quality of life goals, etc.
I think it would clarify a lot for me if you would explain what you think the greatest value of "urban-ness" is to you. It seems as though it may be primarily about providing a certain type of experience for the resident or visitor. If this is indeed the case, then I think I'm fine just exiting the conversation and only addressing factual errors (as I usually restrict myself).
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
I don't think anyone gets displaced actually. Gentrification in DC is not so much about kicking people out (popular perception) as it is bringing the rich in. At 13th and U, for example, they're razing half of the block to build condos. They're going to raze a section of Florida Avenue and build more condos. They did the same thing at 14th and U. There's some ugly cooperative around 14th and Q that they've wanted to develop for a long time, but all of the owners have to agree to sell, and there are a few who are holding out for multi-million dollar offers (can't blame 'em). They'll sell (eventually) and those too will be razed and replaced by condos.
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
D.C. is not displacing anybody. It's funny when that whole gentrification argument happens in a city like D.C. with such innovative affordable housing laws. Every new building is required by law since 2007 to include a percentage of their units as affordable. I don't know how many of the other cities have that.
Also, all housing projects being redeveloped are part of a combination of either, Hope VI, New Communities, or the Choice Grant. That means, every single redevelopment has a one for one replacement with a 300% density increase for each community. All the housing developments which range from 400-800 units in garden style apartments are all being and have been replaced with 2,000+ units in high-rises.
People leaving home's they own are making huge profits so I don't count that. Let's not act like they aren't upgrading. It's all about density in D.C. in every facet. Those rowhomes are being converted to apartments by the hundreds so they are making money.
Ok.. I think what I have a hard time with is the apparent conflation of "urban" and "good urban planning."
Urban planning concepts and ideas keep getting wrapped up into this discussion as if whatever "urban" means is always the desired end goal of planning practice -- that contemporary planning theory and good policy dictates that everywhere should strive to be more "urban."
I don't think anyone's saying that. People are saying "X, Y and Z" are "urban" and a city that has X but not Y and Z isn't urban (or isn't as urban). It's descriptive rather than normative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220
I think it would clarify a lot for me if you would explain what you think the greatest value of "urban-ness" is to you. It seems as though it may be primarily about providing a certain type of experience for the resident or visitor. If this is indeed the case, then I think I'm fine just exiting the conversation and only addressing factual errors (as I usually restrict myself).
Perhaps you should provide your definition of "urban," that is, if you have one at all. I've written enough in this thread for people to get a sense of where I'm coming from.
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.
It's hard to measure it, because like everything in Los Angeles, DTLA is not very contiguous. The entire area that is surrounded by the freeway loops is pretty intensely built, but some of the areas are a bit of a "no-man's land" due to extreme homeless populations or mostly light-industrial uses. For instance, you have the Arts District (huge developments in the last two years, Google Maps does it no justice) and the Historic Core as two very urban and intensely-developed parts of the city, but they are on either side of Skid Row, which while being pretty intensely built, has almost no value to the majority of society.
As far as DTLA being the most urban part of city, in some ways I think it is, and in others I do not. It obviously has the largest buildings and the most jobs, but I don't necessarily find that to be the driving force in my definition of what is urban.
Also, I thought Dweebo did a chart that shows the units per square mile of all of five of these cities with San Francisco, Los Angeles and Philadelphia the clear leaders. I think there is a difference between structural density and pedestrian-friendly structural density. One of them, Los Angeles does very well - the other, it needs quite a bit of work (though still much better than the vast majority of cities in the U.S.)
Oh and one other thing - like DC, Google Maps is getting to be less and less of a useful tool to point out specific flaws in Los Angeles' fabric - Westlake is seeing quite a bit of development along the Wilshire corridor, and many of the streetviews used in this thread are out of date, making the point a bit moot.
I don't think anyone gets displaced actually. Gentrification in DC is not so much about kicking people out (popular perception) as it is bringing the rich in. At 13th and U, for example, they're razing half of the block to build condos. They're going to raze a section of Florida Avenue and build more condos. They did the same thing at 14th and U. There's some ugly cooperative around 14th and Q that they've wanted to develop for a long time, but all of the owners have to agree to sell, and there are a few who are holding out for multi-million dollar offers (can't blame 'em). They'll sell (eventually) and those too will be razed and replaced by condos.
Exactly, new construction in D.C. is almost completly in empty lots or one story store fronts. It is not people's homes. It's gas stations, dollar store's, check cashing places, one and two story buildings, and parking lots.
It's hard to measure it, because like everything in Los Angeles, DTLA is not very contiguous. The entire area that is surrounded by the freeway loops is pretty intensely built, but some of the areas are a bit of a "no-man's land" due to extreme homeless populations or mostly light-industrial uses. For instance, you have the Arts District (huge developments in the last two years, Google Maps does it no justice) and the Historic Core as two very urban and intensely-developed parts of the city, but they are on either side of Skid Row, which while being pretty intensely built, has almost no value to the majority of society.
As far as DTLA being the most urban part of city, in some ways I think it is, and in others I do not. It obviously has the largest buildings and the most jobs, but I don't necessarily find that to be the driving force in my definition of what is urban.
Also, I thought Dweebo did a chart that shows the units per square mile of all of five of these cities with San Francisco, Los Angeles and Philadelphia the clear leaders. I think there is a difference between structural density and pedestrian-friendly structural density. One of them, Los Angeles does very well - the other, it needs quite a bit of work (though still much better than the vast majority of cities in the U.S.)
I have said many times, the lack of office buildings, cultural institution's, and museums compared to D.C. along with height limits has way more to do with that. I will give you an example, D.C. has the same amount of high-rises as the entire city of Los Angeles. D.C. is 61 sq. miles. LA is 469 miles. Put that into perspective. Do you have any idea how many housing units D.C. would have if it had the same job resident split in its core as LA? It would not be close. D.C. has way more jobs than L.A. along with embassies, museums, etc. etc. in its core. That is valuable space. It's built up more than LA however.
This whole block is being razed to build 8 to 9 story condo buildings. I didn't know it until my wife and I went to eat at Creme and then noticed permits in all of the windows on the block. Then around the corner, this entire block has been demolished.
This is a block away and has also been replaced by condos. If you turn around, the other side of the street has also been replaced by condos (not plans, but actual condos that are now there).
I don't think anyone's saying that. People are saying "X, Y and Z" are "urban" and a city that has X but not Y and Z isn't urban (or isn't as urban). It's descriptive rather than normative.
Thanks for stating this--I wasn't getting this impression. If this is the case then I don't really have much interest in this discussion.
MDAllstar, do you agree?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Perhaps you should provide your definition of "urban," that is, if you have one at all. I've written enough in this thread for people to get a sense of where I'm coming from.
Yeah, I don't have one. But if I were tasked to come up with a definition of "urban" as a degree descriptor (ie as opposed to a type, which the actual adjective is), I would say that it has to do with the intensity with which land is used for human activity and habitation. Population/household density would probably be the primary factor, then probably economic transaction density/activity. I think it would be very hard to determine what parts of an urban system were more urban than others--ie is a marketplace more or less urban than a residential district? I think you'd have to take the entire system into account to determine how urban it is.
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.
