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.
You make a solid point but I think the stats will end up backing LA as structurally dense in comparison to Boston, DC, Philly, and SF. NY is another beast though.
Not even remotely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
No way is that 35 million person dream megapolis as consistently developed populated as the L.A. urban footprint. There's tons of super low density areas between Philly and NYC. Don't know why you keep selling it as Tokyo/Yokohama II.
It most definitely is. It's the most populated place in the country and holds I believe a quarter of the population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly
Century City? Tysons in suburban NOVA blows Century city out of the water.
I really like Santa Monica but it doesnt feel like a core central city, great area though
And Orange county, well is somewhat dense and developed but overall personally this is hell to me, not a city and not space. misses on either aspect I personally like
The OC and the like environs are the least desirable areas of the LA area personally
Burbank is another that doesnt really feel very impressive to me, actually feels to err toward suburban. I dont really know Glendale or Pasadena well enough to make judgement
Not sue these are the best aspects of urbanity, job centers sure but all cities, even those with cores have multiple cbds so to speak.
In that respect what about KOP, Wilmington, Cherry Hill, Conshohocken etc.
FWIW apartments can be urban and things can be urabn without rowhomes but not sure the areas you mentioned put a best foot forward on urbanity
It's the fact that they try to create "urban" out of apartments and suburban sprawl.
Rowhomes aren't the be-all-end-all of urban, of course. They're just a great way to show what real "urban" is as opposed to a place with either apartments or sprawl.
LA's density is a watered-down form of it is my point. It may stretch longer but that's a) not taking into account how much population the Delaware Valley lost or the many undeveloped or underdeveloped areas of the metro in between very dense areas and b) it's not ever the kind of urban density that exists throughout the Delaware Valley.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
I agree with all this; what I'm saying is stats will point towards LA being structurally dense in its core compared to the other cities.
Am all good just in no way see DC as urban as chicago. DC isnt as urban as Philly or Boston let alone Chicago so found the comparison odd. Dont think many see DC as a top 6 on urbanity (to me 7th) actually whereas no one typically places Chicago beyond 3rd with many considering number 2. I have yet to find anyone who thinks DC is second most urban no matter how many sq ft of office space is in DT DC
You have ADD or just skimming posts? My post is talking about the nature or development in DC and Chicago being similar and your reading that I am saying DC is as urban as Chicago?
To be sure DC is smaller than Chicago and less dense, its just over half the population of Chicago. 10 million to about 6 million give or take. However the loop is the main business center of Chicago and the neighborhoods around the loop are the most dense in Chicagoland just as downtown DC is the main business center in DC area and the neighborhoods around it are dense and the further you go out the density for both metros drop but drops in a more consistent manner than that of a Boston which has a very urban core but drops in density fast the further you go out. My point is DC and Chicago maintain similar development in that they both have strong and dense cores and while their suburbs drop off in density the further you go out, they do so slower than that of Boston.
Do you understand or follow what I was saying now? BTW I dont see DC top 5 either which IMO are NY, LA, Chicago, SF then Philly or Boston ahead of DC.
re-look at your math again; you actually contradicted yourself in what I qouted above
I may actually dig deeper as it doesnt pass the sniff test and you are saying there is a 725 sq mile area that is all above 10K ppsm, oh you just did
It maintains consitent UA throughout the whole of the 35 million yes; some area get down toward the 1k ppsm range though there is an area between Philly and NYC that is about 1,000 sq miles and about 6.8 million people (this excludes the over 10 million within the cities on either end of this space)
If your experience between these two is the NJ turnpike then no you havenet seen the developed space; that road bypasses it (for a reason, it was easier to put the road where the people are not)
Not all 725 sq miles are over 10,000+, where did I contradict myself? Thats the average for those neighborhoods, the densest being Koreatown, the least dense Pasadena. The neighborhoods that ARE over 10,000+ total 285 sq miles.
Funny you crap on cities like Burbank, while touting Philadelphia/NYC a continuous super megapolis. Please. Whats the density of Mercer County (225 sq miles between Phily and NYC)? How is that anywhere near as consistent as L.A.'s footprint?
You're confusing me with someone else, I have never spoken of any 'apartment buildings' prior to this post in my several month history on this blogging site
I never said you did. I said you can't call a place that is nothing but apartment buildings and sprawl (LA) "highly urban".
You have ADD or something? My post is talking about the nature or development in DC and Chicago being similar and your reading that I am saying DC is as urban as Chicago?
To be sure DC is smaller than Chicago and less dense, its just over half the population of Chicago. 10 million to about 6 million give or take. However the loop is the main business center of Chicago and the neighborhoods around the loop are the most dense in Chicagoland just as downtown DC is the main business center in DC area and the neighborhoods around it are dense and the further you go out the density for both metros drop but drops in a more consistent manner than that of a Boston which has a very urban core but drops in density fast the further you go out. My point is DC and Chicago maintain similar development in that they both have strong and dense cores and while their suburbs drop off in density the further you go out, they do so slower than that of Boston.
Do you understand or follow what I was saying now? BTW I dont see DC top 5 either which IMO are NY, LA, Chicago, SF then Philly or Boston ahead of DC.
Development yes though to me Philly and Boston would be the same dynamic just with smaller cbds
In this regard Chicago (especially if one considers scale) is more like Philly and Boston unless you are saying residential subruban though to me Chicago is more like LA in this regard (nearly continuous similar suburban development)than DC. DC is more a hybrid parts older NE style and parts more sunbeltish (esp the burbs) DC has many peaks and valleys compared to Chicago based on my experience. And many parts of Fairfax, or Montgomery feel a lot more like burbs in NYC and Philly than Chicago and places like Reston and Sterling and Rockville (or even SS, Bethesda, Crystal City, Roslyn, Tysons) feel a tad more sunbeltish if that makes sense. So I guess outside of CBD sq footage I dont see the comparison to Chicago for DC
I never said you did. I said you can't call a place that is nothing but apartment buildings and sprawl (LA) "highly urban".
What is your definition of sprawl? Tokyo stretches for dozens and dozens of miles at pretty consistent densities from the core with mostly apartment buildings and single family homes. Is that "sprawl"?
DC's a bit trickier. Its main purpose is as the nation's capital so because of that it's not quite as urban as the East Coast cities that are older than it. Still, yes it is urban in parts without a doubt.
What is your definition of sprawl? Tokyo stretches for dozens and dozens of miles at pretty consistent densities from the core with mostly apartment buildings and single family homes. Is that "sprawl"?
No. Tokyo is extremely urban compared to LA.
You can't really compare cities in other countries to cities in the US anyway except in places like Canada and Australia and other places where the population is almost entirely not indigenous to their country.
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.
