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.
That's it, keep talking about row homes and whatnot. Subjective arguments are pretty much all you have. The Central, South, and East L.A. regions total equal 128 completely connected, not cherry-picked sq miles with a population of 1.9 million. That's a similar area of land to Philly's city limits, only more populated.
Subjective? No, it's part of being urban. Nobody from an actual urban area would ever call LA urban. It is suburban sprawl and apartment buildings.
And once again, you bring up population without acknowledging that without giant apartment buildings, Philadelphia alone had over 2,070,000 people when it peaked in 1950, and lost over half a million people since then until this past decade when it finally started gaining again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCalifornianWriter
Seriously, we've got people in Philadelphia now, sitting at home coming up with false reasoning and slanderous libel about our population density?
Yeah, well row-homes aren't endemic to the LA area. So what?
We win again.
Also, try not to bring "illegal immigrants" who "sell tacos" in Koreatown into it. They don't add to our density, people that buy or rent apartments and houses do.
That said, have you ever EVEN BEEN to LA? I don't think so. Sorry Philadelphians, but your not showing brotherly love right now.
Slander? Man you really try way too hard.
No, you don't win. You're suburban sprawl and apartments. We're a colonial established city with rowhomes lining almost every block and amazing architecture that is older than your city has even existed.
We all know what your "density" is due to, and it's not the least bit urban. It's suburban sprawl and apartments.
Yes, they do. You wouldn't have a quarter of the people in your giant-boundaried city (seriously, 500 square miles) if it weren't for them.
We love our brothers. We don't love some little arrogant people who think they're better than us when they aren't.
Have you EVEN BEEN to Philadelphia? I don't think so. You sure as hell didn't grow up in this area. If you had, or if you'd even lived here at any point, you would laugh at people like you who try to talk like LA is urban or like Philadelphia is not a huge city. Let me tell you something, when you're living in a rowhome on a block lined with them in a neighborhood full of them, in one tiny section of the many in Philadelphia and outside of its boundaries, the city feels pretty damn big.
That's it, keep talking about row homes and whatnot. Subjective arguments are pretty much all you have. The Central, South, and East L.A. regions total equal 128 completely connected, not cherry-picked sq miles with a population of 1.9 million. That's a similar area of land to Philly's city limits, only more populated.
This is silly but Ray, you picked populated 129 miles, you realize the 1.6 million in Philly's 134 sq miles include over 30 miles of zero population, 2 airports, ports, refineries, a 13 sq mile park etc.
Also for whatever reason (and maybe beause its built out density was originally much higher) feels more urban somewhow (also SF feels moreso but has less people in the core 48 sq miles).
LA is just wierd in that even though it is urban it never truly feels as developed as other cities, have never been able to totally put my finger on it but there is something to it, nearly everyone can feel it.
This is silly but Ray, you picked populated 129 miles, you realize the 1.6 million in Philly's 134 sq miles include over 30 miles of zero population, 2 airports, ports, refineries, a 13 sq mile park etc.
Also for whatever reason (and maybe beause its built out density was originally much higher) feels more urban somewhow (also SF feels moreso but has less people in the core 48 sq miles).
LA is just wierd in that even though it is urban it never truly feels as developed as other cities, have never been able to totally put my finger on it but there is something to it, nearly everyone can feel it.
So, LA has some of those things in the inner 129 sq Miles are studio parks (movies), regular parks, industrail areas ect.
Subjective? No, it's part of being urban. Nobody from an actual urban area would ever call LA urban. It is suburban sprawl and apartment buildings.
And once again, you bring up population without acknowledging that without giant apartment buildings, Philadelphia alone had over 2,070,000 people when it peaked in 1950, and lost over half a million people since then until this past decade when it finally started gaining again.
Slander? Man you really try way too hard.
No, you don't win. You're suburban sprawl and apartments. We're a colonial established city with rowhomes lining almost every block and amazing architecture that is older than your city has even existed.
We all know what your "density" is due to, and it's not the least bit urban. It's suburban sprawl and apartments.
Yes, they do. You wouldn't have a quarter of the people in your giant-boundaried city (seriously, 500 square miles) if it weren't for them.
We love our brothers. We don't love some little arrogant people who think they're better than us when they aren't.
Have you EVEN BEEN to Philadelphia? I don't think so. You sure as hell didn't grow up in this area. If you had, or if you'd even lived here at any point, you would laugh at people like you who try to talk like LA is urban or like Philadelphia is not a huge city. Let me tell you something, when you're living in a rowhome on a block lined with them in a neighborhood full of them, in one tiny section of the many in Philadelphia and outside of its boundaries, the city feels pretty damn big.
Oh, cool! Gee, rowhouses are amazing! I never saw it before! Get OVER yourself, buddy! Rowhouses don't make a city!
You are just jealous of LA. And it's natural.
Oh, and just 'cause you lost a huge portion of your population at any given time due to loss of industry, doesn't mean you're somehow more qualified to be considered urban.
A quarter? C'mon, you're buying into the stereotype.
Are you a superhero that fights apartments because apartments killed your parents or something? Are you Rowhouse-Man? Wow.
Also, we don't need to argue, just come to LA and see how urban it is. If you do, I can give you a list of places that aren't just apts. or houses.
Also, comparatively speaking, Philadelphia IS alarge city. I wouldn't lie about that; fact is, LA's bigger.
This is silly but Ray, you picked populated 129 miles, you realize the 1.6 million in Philly's 134 sq miles include over 30 miles of zero population, 2 airports, ports, refineries, a 13 sq mile park etc.
Also for whatever reason (and maybe beause its built out density was originally much higher) feels more urban somewhow (also SF feels moreso but has less people in the core 48 sq miles).
LA is just wierd in that even though it is urban it never truly feels as developed as other cities, have never been able to totally put my finger on it but there is something to it, nearly everyone can feel it.
I think the measurement is not good for a head-to-head judgement, but to prove a point about the density of Los Angeles it is a decent barometer.
Basically this boils down to "LA doesn't feel urban by East Coast standards" Which, other than downtown, is true. (EDIT: I should say 'East Coast aesthetics'. I've spent time in all four cities and they are right even with each other IMO.)
I think the measurement is not good for a head-to-head judgement, but to prove a point about the density of Los Angeles it is a decent barometer.
Basically this boils down to "LA doesn't feel urban by East Coast standards" Which, other than downtown, is true.
I think it is because structually Philly was suppose to hold 2,000,000 people, Boston was built to hold 800,000 people DC was build to hold 900,000 people which would be a much higer density than there current population, while LA was built for its current 4 million because it is at peak.
Subjective? No, it's part of being urban. Nobody from an actual urban area would ever call LA urban. It is suburban sprawl and apartment buildings.
And once again, you bring up population without acknowledging that without giant apartment buildings, Philadelphia alone had over 2,070,000 people when it peaked in 1950, and lost over half a million people since then until this past decade when it finally started gaining again.
Slander? Man you really try way too hard.
No, you don't win. You're suburban sprawl and apartments. We're a colonial established city with rowhomes lining almost every block and amazing architecture that is older than your city has even existed.
We all know what your "density" is due to, and it's not the least bit urban. It's suburban sprawl and apartments.
Yes, they do. You wouldn't have a quarter of the people in your giant-boundaried city (seriously, 500 square miles) if it weren't for them.
We love our brothers. We don't love some little arrogant people who think they're better than us when they aren't.
Have you EVEN BEEN to Philadelphia? I don't think so. You sure as hell didn't grow up in this area. If you had, or if you'd even lived here at any point, you would laugh at people like you who try to talk like LA is urban or like Philadelphia is not a huge city. Let me tell you something, when you're living in a rowhome on a block lined with them in a neighborhood full of them, in one tiny section of the many in Philadelphia and outside of its boundaries, the city feels pretty damn big.
I've been to Philadelphia multiple times living with friends (so I'm not unfamiliar with it). I grew up in Los Angeles (so I know how much change it's been through). I live in New York (so I know what an extremely urban city looks like, but I've also lived in extremely urban cities in East Asia so I know other forms of it, too).
Taken percentage wise, Los Angeles the city and the suburbs (though that's true for every city) is not that urban. There are vast suburb like expanses especially in the valley and that's within city boundaries. However, Los Angeles in absolute amounts has large contiguous expanses of very urban environment on the level of the other options presented and that might be the source of contention here.
It may not be rowhomes (though those kind of exist in very small parts of the city), but it is converted warehouses and commercial buildings into lofts, huge stretches of multi-story apartments, and a large assortment of mid-rise condominiums. The equating of rowhomes to urban also doesn't make sense much since there are a lot of cities in the world that no one would point to as suburban despite not having much if any in rowhomes (Tokyo? Shanghai? Hong Kong? Sao Paolo?).
I would argue that Los Angeles does have issues with the way that density is laid out though--pedestrian access to stores is often not directly at the sidewalk, but through a very small parking lot for cars. Also, in several areas such as the Westlake area, the density is kept incredibly high because of many people subdividing fairly small spaces (though if these apartments were rented out as they were originally built for, places like Westlake would still be quite dense since it is a lot of contiguous apartment complexes).
Furthermore, there are other metrics that keep Los Angeles urban besides density. There's a very diverse population. There are a lot of locally owned shops and commerce is fairly bustling. And when we restrict ourselves to the absolute amount of urban expanses (though percentage-wise it's low), Los Angeles also has a comparable mass transit system with an array of commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, express buses, and local buses.
Los Angeles being all sprawl is a myth and has been from the beginning. Yes, it is a lot of sprawl, and yes, the sprawl dwarfs the urban areas. However, the urban areas are still huge. Keep in mind that Los Angeles was already at about two million in population during the streetcar days before Eisenhower placed a strong priority on movement out to the suburbs--and though the density stats looked pretty bad even in the 50s, much of that land was mostly for water rights and projections for future expansion while the actual development was mostly contiguous.
Another thing to note is that Los Angeles's decidedly urban areas in the 80s and 90s were pretty desolate and that might be the impression some have of the urban areas and reason enough to discount LA as an urban city (what good is an urban environment if no one really wants to be there?). Fair enough. However, from the 90s on, the downtown core of Los Angeles and its adjoining areas have seen massive improvements and it really is significant the year to year change. Keep in mind that the first light rail line opened (well, after the streetcars were scuttled decades ago) in 1990, the first subway in 1993, and that the area has continued and still continues to add lines (with one light rail line opening this year actually and construction still occurring for expansions).
I've been to Philadelphia multiple times living with friends (so I'm not unfamiliar with it). I grew up in Los Angeles (so I know how much change it's been through). I live in New York (so I know what an extremely urban city looks like, but I've also lived in extremely urban cities in East Asia so I know other forms of it, too).
Taken percentage wise, Los Angeles the city and the suburbs (though that's true for every city) is not that urban. There are vast suburb like expanses especially in the valley and that's within city boundaries. However, Los Angeles in absolute amounts has large contiguous expanses of very urban environment on the level of the other options presented and that might be the source of contention here.
It may not be rowhomes (though those kind of exist in very small parts of the city), but it is converted warehouses and commercial buildings into lofts, huge stretches of multi-story apartments, and a large assortment of mid-rise condominiums. The equating of rowhomes to urban also doesn't make sense much since there are a lot of cities in the world that no one would point to as suburban despite not having much if any in rowhomes (Tokyo? Shanghai? Hong Kong? Sao Paolo?).
I would argue that Los Angeles does have issues with the way that density is laid out though--pedestrian access to stores is often not directly at the sidewalk, but through a very small parking lot for cars. Also, in several areas such as the Westlake area, the density is kept incredibly high because of many people subdividing fairly small spaces (though if these apartments were rented out as they were originally built for, places like Westlake would still be quite dense since it is a lot of contiguous apartment complexes).
Furthermore, there are other metrics that keep Los Angeles urban besides density. There's a very diverse population. There are a lot of locally owned shops and commerce is fairly bustling. And when we restrict ourselves to the absolute amount of urban expanses (though percentage-wise it's low), Los Angeles also has a comparable mass transit system with an array of commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, express buses, and local buses.
Los Angeles being all sprawl is a myth and has been from the beginning. Yes, it is a lot of sprawl, and yes, the sprawl dwarfs the urban areas. However, the urban areas are still huge. Keep in mind that Los Angeles was already at about two million in population during the streetcar days before Eisenhower placed a strong priority on movement out to the suburbs--and though the density stats looked pretty bad even in the 50s, much of that land was mostly for water rights and projections for future expansion while the actual development was mostly contiguous.
I've been to Philadelphia multiple times living with friends (so I'm not unfamiliar with it). I grew up in Los Angeles (so I know how much change it's been through). I live in New York (so I know what an extremely urban city looks like, but I've also lived in extremely urban cities in East Asia so I know other forms of it, too).
Taken percentage wise, Los Angeles the city and the suburbs (though that's true for every city) is not that urban. There are vast suburb like expanses especially in the valley and that's within city boundaries. However, Los Angeles in absolute amounts has large contiguous expanses of very urban environment on the level of the other options presented and that might be the source of contention here.
It may not be rowhomes (though those kind of exist in very small parts of the city), but it is converted warehouses and commercial buildings into lofts, huge stretches of multi-story apartments, and a large assortment of mid-rise condominiums. The equating of rowhomes to urban also doesn't make sense much since there are a lot of cities in the world that no one would point to as suburban despite not having much if any in rowhomes (Tokyo? Shanghai? Hong Kong? Sao Paolo?).
I would argue that Los Angeles does have issues with the way that density is laid out though--pedestrian access to stores is often not directly at the sidewalk, but through a very small parking lot for cars. Also, in several areas such as the Westlake area, the density is kept incredibly high because of many people subdividing fairly small spaces (though if these apartments were rented out as they were originally built for, places like Westlake would still be quite dense since it is a lot of contiguous apartment complexes).
Furthermore, there are other metrics that keep Los Angeles urban besides density. There's a very diverse population. There are a lot of locally owned shops and commerce is fairly bustling. And when we restrict ourselves to the absolute amount of urban expanses (though percentage-wise it's low), Los Angeles also has a comparable mass transit system with an array of commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, express buses, and local buses.
Los Angeles being all sprawl is a myth and has been from the beginning. Yes, it is a lot of sprawl, and yes, the sprawl dwarfs the urban areas. However, the urban areas are still huge. Keep in mind that Los Angeles was already at about two million in population during the streetcar days before Eisenhower placed a strong priority on movement out to the suburbs--and though the density stats looked pretty bad even in the 50s, much of that land was mostly for water rights and projections for future expansion while the actual development was mostly contiguous.
Oh, cool! Gee, rowhouses are amazing! I never saw it before! Get OVER yourself, buddy! Rowhouses don't make a city!
You are just jealous of LA. And it's natural.
Oh, and just 'cause you lost a huge portion of your population at any given time due to loss of industry, doesn't mean you're somehow more qualified to be considered urban.
A quarter? C'mon, you're buying into the stereotype.
Are you a superhero that fights apartments because apartments killed your parents or something? Are you Rowhouse-Man? Wow.
Also, we don't need to argue, just come to LA and see how urban it is. If you do, I can give you a list of places that aren't just apts. or houses.
Also, comparatively speaking, Philadelphia IS alarge city. I wouldn't lie about that; fact is, LA's bigger.
Yes, they are amazing actually, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
Jealous of what? The only thing anybody likes about LA is the weather and the things they can get out of it. Philadelphia's a real city, with qualities to it that LA could never have.
No, but what it means is that considering that our very urban neighborhoods were mostly built out back then, having more population does not make you even remotely as urban. let alone more.
It's not a stereotype.
Nope, I'm somebody who grew up in an urban area outside of the city that laughs at people like you who think LA is so urban.
LA's not urban.
LA's only "bigger" because it's bigger in area than even NYC is. How is it that somewhere bigger in area than NYC has almost 5 million less people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I've been to Philadelphia multiple times living with friends (so I'm not unfamiliar with it). I grew up in Los Angeles (so I know how much change it's been through). I live in New York (so I know what an extremely urban city looks like, but I've also lived in extremely urban cities in East Asia so I know other forms of it, too).
Taken percentage wise, Los Angeles the city and the suburbs (though that's true for every city) is not that urban. There are vast suburb like expanses especially in the valley and that's within city boundaries. However, Los Angeles in absolute amounts has large contiguous expanses of very urban environment on the level of the other options presented and that might be the source of contention here.
It may not be rowhomes (though those kind of exist in very small parts of the city), but it is converted warehouses and commercial buildings into lofts, huge stretches of multi-story apartments, and a large assortment of mid-rise condominiums. The equating of rowhomes to urban also doesn't make sense much since there are a lot of cities in the world that no one would point to as suburban despite not having much if any in rowhomes (Tokyo? Shanghai? Hong Kong? Sao Paolo?).
I would argue that Los Angeles does have issues with the way that density is laid out though--pedestrian access to stores is often not directly at the sidewalk, but through a very small parking lot for cars. Also, in several areas such as the Westlake area, the density is kept incredibly high because of many people subdividing fairly small spaces (though if these apartments were rented out as they were originally built for, places like Westlake would still be quite dense since it is a lot of contiguous apartment complexes).
Furthermore, there are other metrics that keep Los Angeles urban besides density. There's a very diverse population. There are a lot of locally owned shops and commerce is fairly bustling. And when we restrict ourselves to the absolute amount of urban expanses (though percentage-wise it's low), Los Angeles also has a comparable mass transit system with an array of commuter rail, heavy rail, light rail, express buses, and local buses.
Los Angeles being all sprawl is a myth and has been from the beginning. Yes, it is a lot of sprawl, and yes, the sprawl dwarfs the urban areas. However, the urban areas are still huge. Keep in mind that Los Angeles was already at about two million in population during the streetcar days before Eisenhower placed a strong priority on movement out to the suburbs--and though the density stats looked pretty bad even in the 50s, much of that land was mostly for water rights and projections for future expansion while the actual development was mostly contiguous.
Things like apartment buildings are not urban. They are only urban when they are added to an already urban area. Why are NYC's apartment buildings urban? Because NYC was urban long before its apartment buildings were built. You can't create an urban environment out of apartment buildings and single-family houses.
Of course they don't have rowhomes. They have tenements or giant apartment buildings there. You're also comparing cities that are not comparable to East Coast US cities for many reasons.
Which is again.. not urban.
A diverse population does not make a place urban. Locally owned shops does not make a place urban. Mass-transit doesn't even make an area urban. It's really merely an asset of an urban area and a necessity.
It's not a myth. That is exactly what it is.
2 million.. in 500 square miles.
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.
