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 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: most urban?
SF 152 32.27%
LA 69 14.65%
DC 43 9.13%
Philly 140 29.72%
Boston 67 14.23%
Voters: 471. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-26-2013, 08:29 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,306,919 times
Reputation: 6288

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Rank based on Urbanity:

Transit

1. Washington DC
2. Philadelphia
3. Boston
4. San Francisco
5. Los Angeles

City Proper Density

1. San Francisco
2. Boston
3. Philadelphia
4. Washington DC
5. Los Angeles

Metro Area Density

1. Los Angeles
2. Philadelphia
3. San Francisco
4. Washington DC
5. Boston

Walkable

1. Philadelphia
2. Boston
3. Washington DC
4. San Francisco
5. Los Angeles

Downtown

1. Philadelphia
2. Boston
3. San Francisco
4. Los Angeles
5. Washington DC

Overall:

1. Philadelphia
2. Boston
3. San Francisco
4. Washington DC
5. Los Angeles
No way is L.A. last in city proper density--you could make a strong argument that it takes the top spot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-26-2013, 08:53 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,731 posts, read 39,530,948 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Exactly. L.A. gets penalized for breaking the mold, and that's fine. But don't tell me density is just another component to urbanity and it's no big deal, because that's a cop-out.
It's one component but not the only. If it's the only, we might as well just ask "more dense" rather than "more urban". IMO, I'd penalize it, but its higher density and size makes it for it partially. I don't really have any personal experience with it, so it's hard for me to judge how big the penalty should be. It seems a bit of a stretch than LA is noticeably less urban than Boston. But there are too many variables. One is much bigger, the other has a nicer form. I'll note by weighted housing density from center, Los Angeles is rather similar to San Francisco, Philly and a bit less than Chicago:

Population-weighted Density by Distances from City Hall

Quote:
No particular order
New York City
Mexico City
Chicago
Toronto
Philadelphia
San Francisco
Boston
Montreal
Washington DC

The two most densely populated cities in NA? NYC and MC.
The two most urban cities (by far) in NA? NYC and MC.
I suspect Vancouver is denser than DC. It's another interesting oddball. From its new design it felt a bit less urban than an older city (large stretches not so intensively development, a bit scattered), but unlike Los Angeles, it's rather downtown-focused. There must be a few other smaller Mexican cities that could also make that list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2013, 09:43 PM
 
Location: Vineland, NJ
8,385 posts, read 9,927,057 times
Reputation: 5229
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
No way is L.A. last in city proper density--you could make a strong argument that it takes the top spot.
Don't forget that I separated city proper from metro area. As you can see LA came in first place when it came to MSA. In regards to strictly city proper, LA might win on the stat sheet when it comes to have extremely density in small pockets of the city but when you factor in the entire city compared to the others cities listed, LA does not feel as dense as any of those cities and especially places like Philly and San Francisco. Pound for pound, those cities are more compact and have a much smaller land area. LA normally beats out most cities in this type of category and most certainly beats out all of these cities mentioned when it comes to metro area density but when you look at the reality of it, how can anyone seriously say LA(city proper) feels more dense than any of those cities listed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2013, 10:03 PM
 
507 posts, read 632,497 times
Reputation: 293
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Don't forget that I separated city proper from metro area. As you can see LA came in first place when it came to MSA. In regards to strictly city proper, LA might win on the stat sheet when it comes to have extremely density in small pockets of the city but when you factor in the entire city compared to the others cities listed, LA does not feel as dense as any of those cities and especially places like Philly and San Francisco. Pound for pound, those cities are more compact and have a much smaller land area. LA normally beats out most cities in this type of category and most certainly beats out all of these cities mentioned when it comes to metro area density but when you look at the reality of it, how can anyone seriously say LA(city proper) feels more dense than any of those cities listed.
For the exception of SF, yes LA feels more crowded and dense then the others period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-26-2013, 11:48 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,306,919 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
Don't forget that I separated city proper from metro area. As you can see LA came in first place when it came to MSA. In regards to strictly city proper, LA might win on the stat sheet when it comes to have extremely density in small pockets of the city but when you factor in the entire city compared to the others cities listed, LA does not feel as dense as any of those cities and especially places like Philly and San Francisco. Pound for pound, those cities are more compact and have a much smaller land area. LA normally beats out most cities in this type of category and most certainly beats out all of these cities mentioned when it comes to metro area density but when you look at the reality of it, how can anyone seriously say LA(city proper) feels more dense than any of those cities listed.
I've been to DC, and it's a really nice city. It doesn't feel anywhere near as dense as Los Angeles, even with its high daytime population. The "city" ends relatively quickly and the "suburbs" begin just as fast. The dividing lines are clearer out East. Ditto Boston. Taken all together, they don't feel close to the size of Los Angeles.

I can't comment on Philly, I've never been. Based on the numbers, it will feel bigger than either Boston or DC. I won't know until I visit. SF feels larger than DC or Boston too. South SF, Oakland seem a bit more hectic than the areas surrounding DC and Boston, which feel more quaint. Oakland almost feels like an outer borough to (relax New Yorkers, on a smaller scale). The thing about San Francisco is, you can find a nice street, up on Russian Hill for example, and from that vantage point clearly see the size difference between it and Los Angeles. That's why I give L.A. the nod even though it doesn't have anything with the combination of high-density and urbane sophistication of Northeast San Francisco. Those polished areas are generally east of La Brea Avenue.

Check out this vid. Right at the start, you'll notice that DTLA, which has been referred to as "tiny" so many times I've lost count, is actually much larger than most people think. It's not The Loop or anything, but tiny it's not. From the 2:50-4:00 minute you see the underrated structural density of Westlake/Mid-Wilshire/Koreatown with Beverly Hills/Century City/Wilshire Corridor in the horizon:


It is thrilling to take a helicopter ride around downtown Los Angeles. - YouTube
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2013, 12:34 AM
 
364 posts, read 501,429 times
Reputation: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
I've been to DC, and it's a really nice city. It doesn't feel anywhere near as dense as Los Angeles, even with its high daytime population. The "city" ends relatively quickly and the "suburbs" begin just as fast. The dividing lines are clearer out East. Ditto Boston. Taken all together, they don't feel close to the size of Los Angeles.

I can't comment on Philly, I've never been. Based on the numbers, it will feel bigger than either Boston or DC. I won't know until I visit. SF feels larger than DC or Boston too. South SF, Oakland seem a bit more hectic than the areas surrounding DC and Boston, which feel more quaint. Oakland almost feels like an outer borough to (relax New Yorkers, on a smaller scale). The thing about San Francisco is, you can find a nice street, up on Russian Hill for example, and from that vantage point clearly see the size difference between it and Los Angeles. That's why I give L.A. the nod even though it doesn't have anything with the combination of high-density and urbane sophistication of Northeast San Francisco. Those polished areas are generally east of La Brea Avenue.

Check out this vid. Right at the start, you'll notice that DTLA, which has been referred to as "tiny" so many times I've lost count, is actually much larger than most people think. It's not The Loop or anything, but tiny it's not. From the 2:50-4:00 minute you see the underrated structural density of Westlake/Mid-Wilshire/Koreatown with Beverly Hills/Century City/Wilshire Corridor in the horizon:


It is thrilling to take a helicopter ride around downtown Los Angeles. - YouTube

LA is large, not urban..... Too many parking lots in downtown visible


Welcome to real urbanity



New York City Aerial Stock Footage Demo Reel - YouTube

Last edited by Cold As War; 07-27-2013 at 12:51 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2013, 01:04 AM
 
187 posts, read 352,781 times
Reputation: 184
The funny thing is the thread isn't about NYC urbanity, I find it strange that it needed to be brought up when someone defends LA urbanity. Why does this always happens? It sounds like envy to me.

So let me say this to be clear, anyone in their right mind from Los Angeles knows it can't be compared to the overall built density of Manhattan. Also for that matter nor can any other city in the USA, not Chicago, Philly, or San Francisco. None can't match the urban environment of Manhattan so let keep NYC out of this thread as I thought it was between LA, SF, DC, Philly, and Boston.

Last edited by LA Fan; 07-27-2013 at 01:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2013, 02:09 AM
 
187 posts, read 352,781 times
Reputation: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold As War View Post
Why be envy of strip malls, smog and a failing economy?
Grow up!

There is no need for me to get into a juvenile debate over such ignorant and untrue comments. I like talking to people who have an interest in learning truths not those who feel to need to put down another (in this case another city) to make themselves feel as if they are better. I believe they are envious of something, like those who have penis envy.

I blame myself because I should have already known better by reading your already dumb comments. You're rather happy being ignorant with you opinions, have a nice life. Have your fun I have nothing else further to say to you.

BTW where is your source that LA has a failing economy prove it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2013, 10:39 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,306,919 times
Reputation: 6288
Lol @ posting a New York video. Who flippin' cares?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-27-2013, 10:44 AM
 
Location: In the heights
20,055 posts, read 21,663,568 times
Reputation: 10175
Quote:
Originally Posted by the Instigator View Post
For the exception of SF, yes LA feels more crowded and dense then the others period.
There are parts of Philly that feel denser and more crowded than anything in LA to me. However, I think LA's rate of change in the urban parts we've discussed has been accelerating, so it's quite possible that'll change in a very short span of time.
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 $104,000 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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:30 AM.

2005-2018, 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top