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.
I think at this point in time Los Angeles is the more urban city and just about more urban than anywhere else except for New York. Due to a zoning amendment in the 1970's Los ngeles begin developing with use of less land which started increasing its density tenfold and the quick population growth from decade to decade of course helped also.
Even as of today the metro of Los Angeles is growing by over 1.2 million persons in a decade although most of that growth was in the Inland Empire. I also think its fair to say New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, and Washington DC all have more active downtowns but in the greater context of what urbanity is I view downtowns are the most central neighborhood of the city but not the only one that matters. Los Angeles has plenty and I do mean plenty of areas that make up for what the downtown lacks in compared to other cities. In the broader case the downtown makes up maybe 1% or 2% of the city's respective land area and a smaller chunk of its population, it shouldn't be the the only focus for discussion for any large and vast metro.
This is exactly what I was trying to say in a different post, anyone who focuses on DTLA and just that area and not taking into account Boyle Heights, Echo Park, Silver Lake, east Hollywood, Hollywood, Pico Union, Westlake, Midwilshire, south central and south east LA, Ktown, we got plenty of urbanity in and around DTLA.
To me, urban = downtown and much of your list is more like dense suburban than urban but I get the idea, in L.A. it's all within city borders and part of the grid. In Philly the built-up nature of things that make up the metro spreads over three states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vop
This is exactly what I was trying to say in a different post, anyone who focuses on DTLA and just that area and not taking into account Boyle Heights, Echo Park, Silver Lake, east Hollywood, Hollywood, Pico Union, Westlake, Midwilshire, south central and south east LA, Ktown, we got plenty of urbanity in and around DTLA.
To me, urban = downtown and much of your list is more like dense suburban than urban but I get the idea, in L.A. it's all within city borders and part of the grid. In Philly the built-up nature of things that make up the metro spreads over three states.
Well you probably saying this because for one you've probably never been out here and second y'all probably can't match the overall urbanity within our city limits so y'all only are focusing on downtown
The same can be said for Philadelphia DT though, massive improvements and spikes in property value along with 3rd highest populated DT in the U.S.
Not knocking the sentiment here, as I've already indicated that for the moment Philadelphia gets my vote. But when I read statements like this, or the one often bandied about in Houston threads about TMC being the largest medical center in the world, I just have to laugh. There is no objective meaning behind such statements. I can define a set of circumstances to make any claim correct when I control the terms. And I can easily create a definition of Philadelphia's downtown that makes it the 5th or 10th most populated. It would be no more right or wrong than the one that makes it third most populated.
As for my previous post I wasn't even trying to down philly cause I even gave it props in some pictures I posted but deleted by the mods, all I was trying to refer was to the LA posters arguing about our downtown against philly when we got so much more urbanity outside of it, this is arguing about the whole cities not just downtown.
Both are very urban. LA is very dense, and its density stretches further out than any place other than NY. Philadelphia is very dense, but not so much outside of the city. Philly still feels more urban though because it is a city that is extremely pedestrian friendly whereas LA (as dense as it is) is a city that built itself to not be pedestrian friendly.
Well you probably saying this because for one you've probably never been out here and second y'all probably can't match the overall urbanity within our city limits so y'all only are focusing on downtown
I have spent a fair amount time in LA over the years and in many areas. the developed expanse of LA is way larger than Philly but Philly has a larger urban feeling core (well beyond the DT). It depends on the criteria to me. Beyond even the population density in the "city" part of Philly the developed density is higher, more compact overall. Now LA has amazing consistency in the developed space - though I think part of why people view it a little different is that much of LA feels more like the close in burbs in the older NE cities than is does like the city (obviously there are differences). If the question is which feels like a more more/larger urbanized area it is LA by a landslide. If examining to me what feels like city (and again this my perspective) than to me it would Philly.
The miles of rowhomes in Philly just feel more urban to me as the city. Now again this is my own perspective
and as afar as places I have spent a lot of time in LA, East Hollywood, Hollywood, Midwilshire, and Westlake dont truly feel as urban to me as the continuity in the city/more urban parts of Philly, urban and pretty vibrant and pretty developed, but to me not as urban overall.
Overall LA is maybe the toughest to accurately quantify as it is huge and developed at a very significant level over a wide expanse.
So which city feels more urban on feel, to me it is Philly as to which is a larger urban area the answer is LA
My definition of "urban"? An area of land overflowing with a world class museums, dining, shopping, bars, universities, nightclubs, parks, concert venues, unique attractions, etc, etc.
The Westside of LA, from downtown to Santa Monica, provides more of these than any other area in the country not named Manhattan. Aside from the occasional single family houses, there is very little that says "suburb" about this area.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 09-20-2011 at 06:12 PM..
My definition of "urban"? An area of land overflowing with a world class museums, dining, shopping, bars, universities, nightclubs, parks, concert venues, unique attractions, etc, etc.
The Westside of LA, from downtown to the Santa Monica, provides more of these than any other area in the country not named Manhattan. Aside from the single family houses, there is very little that says "suburb" about this area.
There is some truth to this, to me why LA is hard to perfectly quantify on this metric. Its construct is different.
I agree this area doesnt say suburb though in parts it does feel like it but this stretch in many ways doesnt scream highly urban city either; even a place like Santa Monica (and I love this area) doesnt scream city to me; more feels like a beach town in many ways. Santa Monica could fit along the Jersey shore with no problems and that isnt a bad thing by any means (though am sure many would not like that notion) but love that it is basically a part of LA
LA has more expanse, more of everything over a wider footprint; now to me the most urban parts of Philly feel more urban than the most urban parts of LA
as japp1188 said - on city: Philly on metro: LA
Last edited by kidphilly; 09-20-2011 at 06:50 PM..
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.
