Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 167 31.87%
LA 71 13.55%
DC 45 8.59%
Philly 165 31.49%
Boston 76 14.50%
Voters: 524. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-19-2013, 08:00 PM
 
364 posts, read 618,793 times
Reputation: 230

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
This isn't a preference thread, which is why I post facts and figures wherever I can.

I much prefer Los Angeles and its layout to Boston's--that isn't going to persuade you that its more urban, is it? Likewise, the pics with the brown brick buildings and narrow streets with bodegas on every corner, don't do much for me on my end.
LA is not urban until it is 100% EASILY livable without a car - stop trying to pass that sunbelt suburban strip mall filled sprawled town off as a urban city!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-19-2013, 08:06 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,828 posts, read 9,408,272 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold As War View Post
From walkscore..........

Boston - 79.2
Philly - 74.1
DC - 72.2
LA - 65.9

Try again, Ray!
Those three cities combined are less than half the size of Los Angeles's 469 sq miles. Easier to keep a high average when you're tiny in size.

If you did the walkscore for the Wilshire/Santa Monica Corridor (66 sq miles, population one million) I have no doubt the average score would be in the mid to high 80's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2013, 08:06 PM
 
364 posts, read 618,793 times
Reputation: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Those three cities combined are less than half the size of Los Angeles's 469 sq miles. Easier to keep a high average when you're tiny in size.

If you did the walkscore for the Wilshire/Santa Monica Corridor (66 sq miles, population one million) I have no doubt the average score would be in the mid to high 80's.
Not my problem strip malls in that town add to the sprawl.

What is the DT in LA? Laying on a beach?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2013, 08:15 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,828 posts, read 9,408,272 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
It's laughable to even suggest LA is more walkable than any of those cities mentioned.
Not my algorithm. Walk Score *- Get A Walkability Score For Any Address

I'm just posting their findings. Their top 6 "walkable cities", based strictly on official city limits are:

NYC
SF
CHI
BOS
PHI
DC

I doubt anyone has a problem with that list. So why the incredulity over L.A.'s numbers? Doesn't it make sense that a city of L.A.'s density and size would have the concentration of amenities to match?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2013, 08:37 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,828 posts, read 9,408,272 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold As War View Post
Not my problem strip malls in that town add to the sprawl.

What is the DT in LA? Laying on a beach?
?????

Los Angeles scores relatively low due to its massive borders. 66 isn't even that bad for a city of 3.8 million. That's basically the size of good sized urbanized area--think Boston or DC's UAs score a 66?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2013, 08:42 PM
 
Location: London, U.K.
886 posts, read 1,562,884 times
Reputation: 828
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwillyfromphilly View Post
To be fair, LA does have a much larger land area than those other cities which gives it the opportunity to have more densely populated areas throughout its city limits. Anyway, I don't see how having a larger population makes a city more urban.
No it doesn't. L.A. exceeds the population of all these cities, in 50 miles or 200 miles and has a higher density. Please, don't go there with the city stats, a third of the city is uninhabitable mountain ranges, bringing those densities down.

Why don't you visit Sawtelle Row or West L.A. on a Saturday morning and tell me how many cities in the US feel as claustrophobic and crowded as that.

It's a little pet project for you. Get to work.

Last edited by BLAXTOR; 06-19-2013 at 08:53 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2013, 08:47 PM
 
364 posts, read 618,793 times
Reputation: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
?????

Los Angeles scores relatively low due to its massive borders. 66 isn't even that bad for a city of 3.8 million. That's basically the size of good sized urbanized area--think Boston or DC's UAs score a 66?
Lol, a all time low by Angelino's. drrrrrr!

A 66 means LA had the 13th best walkscore for American cities yet is the 2nd largest city by population. Screams suburban to me!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2013, 08:49 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
2,412 posts, read 2,471,633 times
Reputation: 531
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold As War View Post
LA is not urban until it is 100% EASILY livable without a car - stop trying to pass that sunbelt suburban strip mall filled sprawled town off as a urban city!
SF, DC, Philly, nor Boston have a larger urban strech than this one in Los Angeles

This photo explains why Metro is building the Westside/Purple Line Extension | Metro's The Source
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2013, 08:56 PM
 
Location: In the heights
37,115 posts, read 39,327,883 times
Reputation: 21197
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cold As War View Post
LA is playing catch up
Well, yea. Its urban parts are pretty good compared to much smaller metros such as the ones mentioned, but its sheer size means it should be quite a bit closer to NYC--but it definitely isn't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-19-2013, 09:01 PM
 
364 posts, read 618,793 times
Reputation: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by L.A.-Mex View Post
SF, DC, Philly, nor Boston have a larger urban strech than this one in Los Angeles

This photo explains why Metro is building the Westside/Purple Line Extension | Metro's The Source
Nothing in LA is urban - there is not any street activity!

I challenge an LA supporter to post a picture of an urban area with tons of people walking on streets

• no cheating - this means no parades, lakers games, beaches, sporting events, riots or any special event of any Kind. Post a picture of "everyday LA".

I have made this challenge before and not one LA supporter accepted. Why? Because they can't find any pictures depicting this.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:13 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top