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.
LA and DC are influential and powerful cities with large populations, strong economies and extreme influence. Not sure I would consider LA "urban", but it is obviously one of the largest cities in the US.
San Francisco is obviously smaller than LA and DC, but it is considerable more dense, if that is how you define "urban". Same with Philly/Boston which are very comparable cities.
SF is actually both a physically smaller and a more populous city than DC. It just goes to show that density by legal city limits is only a small part of the equation. It's why you can see draw a small contiguous area of Los Angeles that is as dense or denser than the physical area of any of the other cities and yet still have a far lower overall density for the city of Los Angeles.
SF is actually both a physically smaller and a more populous city than DC. It just goes to show that density by legal city limits is only a small part of the equation. It's why you can see draw a small contiguous area of Los Angeles that is as dense or denser than the physical area of any of the other cities and yet still have a far lower overall density for the city of Los Angeles.
Agreed city boundaries and density can be decieving
LA, Chicago and Philly are all more dense when given the shrunken boundaries; though SF in the extreme core is more dense, LA is also very dense in the extreme core. The biggest difference is for the others relative to LA the density may be of higher income
among these DC has by far the least dense core, though still dense on US standards
Agreed city boundaries and density can be decieving
LA, Chicago and Philly are all more dense when given the shrunken boundaries; though SF in the extreme core is more dense, LA is also very dense in the extreme core. The biggest difference is for the others relative to LA the density may be of higher income
among these DC has by far the least dense core, though still dense on US standards
Honestly I think Philly is the most urban, followed by SF, but LA has a much larger footprint of urbanity though not as "good" as the ones I mentioned or even Boston for that matter, but I also have to give DC props for it's a very vibrant city with excellent PT something LA can't claim at least for rail PT.
SF is actually both a physically smaller and a more populous city than DC. It just goes to show that density by legal city limits is only a small part of the equation. It's why you can see draw a small contiguous area of Los Angeles that is as dense or denser than the physical area of any of the other cities and yet still have a far lower overall density for the city of Los Angeles.
Yeah. Only L.A.'s denset neighborhoods look like this:
And compare it to DC's 14th most walkable nabe according to Walkscore (Adams-Morgan is clearly not less walkable than Judiciary Square, but that's beside the point):
Even in L.A.'s densest areas, it still feels rather auto-dependent. That's why it doesn't make anyone's short list of "super urban cities" except for the few ardent L.A. supporters in the ether world.
And compare it to DC's 14th most walkable nabe according to Walkscore (Adams-Morgan is clearly not less walkable than Judiciary Square, but that's beside the point):
Even in L.A.'s densest areas, it still feels rather auto-dependent. That's why it doesn't make anyone's short list of "super urban cities" except for the few ardent L.A. supporters in the ether world.
Meh you are arguing aesthetics.
I agree those neighborhoods in LA you posted don't "look" urban by close-minded, East Coast aesthetics of what urban is.
And it goes without saying you picked some prime spots in DC and some less so in LA (Can't tell if it was intentional, but Crescent Heights is an all residential road. One block over is Fairfax Google Maps)
Only Jay-Z videos are more weak than google maps as an argument. As for these "short lists", most appear to be written by folks who ride the short bus.
And compare it to DC's 14th most walkable nabe according to Walkscore (Adams-Morgan is clearly not less walkable than Judiciary Square, but that's beside the point):
Even in L.A.'s densest areas, it still feels rather auto-dependent. That's why it doesn't make anyone's short list of "super urban cities" except for the few ardent L.A. supporters in the ether world.
That part of Koreatown has a density of 44k ppsm. It is far from the densest tract in Koreatown.
The walkscore of the general address you posted is 91. If you are only used to the way East Coast cities look, then it looks suburban. I will admit that is one of the less urban parts of the city (10k ppsm) and mostly single family homes and although it is walkable I am sure most of the residents drive most of the time.
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.
