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.
DC has a great transit system, probably in contention for number two alongside Chicago. It's one of the things the city does right.
About that point though, try squaring away that DC has more rapid transit (DC gets zero for light rail, but LA has a lot of light rail though serving a lot of commuters) and that its rapid transit also serves as a hybrid commuter rail for its suburbs. On the other side of that equation, try factoring in that Los Angeles is a huge area with a lot of its population in the suburbs, but again, the downtown core that actually has access to mass transit actually uses it. So yea, we can throw in the metro area and the suburban parts of LA, but that's sort of just the legal boundaries issue, yea? When we try to keep it to just the downtown core aren't we effectively keeping out the equivalent of most of the maryland and northern virginia suburbs for DC?
Awwwww, you mad that not a single other person in this thread agrees with you?
No. Just more or less amused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava
The bolded is why nobody takes you seriously.
Kinda like you making statements about New York and then admitting in the same thread that "I've only been once and that was when I was six years old?"
Or your statement that "Blacks and Asians in the Bay Area are one" despite a post (which you never thought I'd see) saying that "there is no relationship between blacks and Asians in the Bay Area."
Hmmm.
I actually thought you had put me on ignore after that. The thought of you squirming at your keyboard after posting quote after ridiculous quote gave me great delight.
The Metro system is also relatively new. It was completed in 1979 just 14 years before the LA system. That's not that big a head start. Besides, DC has more PT commuters when accounting for all modes of transportation, not just rail.
And they don't know there's a subway there because...
Funny you talk about "walkability" when a whopping 81 percent of Angelenos drive to work.
What is 19% of 3.8 million (actually lower though as it's whatever the number of people who have to commute)? Again, this is why it's important to mention the downtown core and how different it is from the San Fernando Valley and the like. It unfortunately makes statistics hard to compare.
DC has a great transit system, probably in contention for number two alongside Chicago. It's one of the things the city does right.
About that point though, try squaring away that DC has more rapid transit (DC gets zero for light rail, but LA has a lot of light rail though serving a lot of commuters) and that its rapid transit also serves as a hybrid commuter rail for its suburbs. On the other side of that equation, try factoring in that Los Angeles is a huge area with a lot of its population in the suburbs, but again, the downtown core that actually has access to mass transit actually uses it. So yea, we can throw in the metro area and the suburban parts of LA, but that's sort of just the legal boundaries issue, yea? When we try to keep it to just the downtown core aren't we effectively keeping out the equivalent of most of the maryland and northern virginia suburbs for DC?
Excellent point. It would be interesting to see how many people in the core area of LA (I'm saying DT, Hollywood, Mid-Wilshire north of Olympic, Westlake, Echo Park, Silver Lake, Los Feliz, East Hollywood and West Hollywood [basically the map of the LA Noir game ])
It is still probably the lowest of the cities being compared, but maybe a little more respectable?
What are you laughing at though? What is more urban than Manhattan? Of course it's a sliding scale. I can say that my definition of urbanity is Manhattan or Paris proper and ask if any of the cities mentioned here qualify--in which case, no, they absolutely would not. Where is the logic behind your argument? And who claimed all places were equally urban?
Landscape isn't just aesthetics, it's also layout and how functionality maps to the layout. Los Angeles has a decent argument here if we are talking about the urban core--certainly it has un-walkable areas just like Philadelphia has essentially un-walkable areas. However, the areas that are walkable and the level of interconnectivity (especially as LA relies heavily on main arterial roads that have dense developments) are competitive with the rest mentioned.
Again, I don't personally like Los Angeles, but I've spent a lot of time there and am going back again next month. Meanwhile, I am living in what is pretty much the most urban and densest city in the US and have visited/stayed in all of the cities mentioned (Philly especially). I will tell you that Los Angeles is walkable as I know people who live that way. They were fairly rare before (again, barring poor Hispanic people), but have become much more common now.
Actually, if there was one city that seems out of its league here, it would probably be DC. I understand that they are doing a lot of construction there, but the fact is DC is still very much a commuter hub filled with offices, monuments, and museums which are fantastic, but don't quite give much of an urban feel. I'd understand not voting for Los Angeles simply because a lot of its urbanity is in strikingly different forms from the other cities, but I don't quite understand the votes for DC as all the other selections have the same form of urbanity as DC, but with just much more intensity.
DC is a commuter hub? What? DC is filled 65% rowhouses. Pound for pound it is more urban than LA.
Funny, I've never seen this "sliding scale" come into play when east coast posters cite the O/A density of their cities to mean that they're more urban despite that they're often full of areas like this:
The "fact" of the matter is that LA's densest neighborhoods are a lot denser than DC's densest and more than rank with Boston's.
Density doesn't mean urbanity. There are places in Asia that have more than 50,000 people per square mile living in slums with no infrastructure. They live in shanty towns. It's dense as ever but not at all urban.
Density doesn't mean urbanity. There are places in Asia that have more than 50,000 people per square mile living in slums with no infrastructure. They live in shanty towns. It's dense as ever but not at all urban.
True but this isn't that case. LA has plenty of structural density.
I do agree that pound for pound DC is more urban overall, but that is not really what most posters are going by on this thread.
What? You don't think DC's population swells with commuters during the work week? Are we talking about the same DC?
Every city in America population swells during business hours. It's not a DC phenomenah.
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.
])
