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 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Unread 10-27-2011, 11:26 AM
 
816 posts, read 796,010 times
Reputation: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer View Post
Yeah, the devil's in the details as they say. In cities like NYC and DC, most of the well-known and important sites are within their compact, urban cores. However, this didn't seem to be the case during the times I visited LA. Everything was very, very spread out.
Exactly, most attractions and things you would want to do are freaking allover the place. Therefore, if you want to enjoy life there and the things LA offers, you need a car and you are going to spend a lot of time on the roads getting there! On the other side of the scale, New Orleans for instance is low density in terms of population, but very very walkable and most attractions are withing a tiny core footprint.
That is why people say getting around LA is a nightmare.
Nobody is saying LA doesn't have amenities or denies it's development, it's just that actual life there isn't the same at all. Even people in SF hate on LA's planning in the same state. Much less somewhere with the urban buildup and transportation networks of NYC, Toronto or Chicago which completely destroy LA in terms of urban lifestyle.
Some of the LA posters act like people have never been there and try to skew some stats. LA is one of the most visited and popular cities in the U.S., a LOT of us have been there.
It isn't like Kansas City or Minneapolis where you might have a bunch of people who haven't visited.
Places like LA and Orlando get bashed on urban development for good reason, a lot of us have been there (tourist meccas), and we know how it is there.

 
Unread 10-27-2011, 11:28 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
8,397 posts, read 4,287,971 times
Reputation: 2571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gateway Region View Post
LA is NOT urban, anyone who thinks so has not been to NYC, Paris, London, HK, Tokyo, Chicago, etc.
Been to NYC, been to Chicago, lived in Boston for three years. LA is extremely dense, it just doesn't look like an East Coast / European city. It's been discussed a billion times on here about how the density figures are skewed by the Santa Monica Mountains and the San Fernando Valley.

While it is true that many of the really dense areas are not the most desirable, (Westlake, Pico-Union, Historic South Central) places like Hollywood, Los Feliz, Koreatown, Mid-Wilshire, etc are dense, walkable neighborhoods with above average public transportation. These are huge districts too, not some tiny spec on the map.

And Venice Beach is definitely in LA.
 
Unread 10-27-2011, 11:30 AM
 
Location: NY-NJ-Philly looks down at SF and laughs at the hippies
1,152 posts, read 226,566 times
Reputation: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
So there are only like six cities in the world that are urban? Come on.

To say that LA is not urban is ridiculous and ludicrous.

I LOVE chicago. It's one of my favorite cities, but that city turns to low density sprawl a lot quicker than LA does and Chicago is very dense and urban as well.
Did I say those were the only six cities in the world? No, I used those as examples, dont dare try to put words into mouth.

LA is NOT URBAN and its not ridiculous at all. The city has a subway system equal to a metro that should be 3 M, not 18M

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Not desirable?


Hahahaha....The scene below is in the middle of one of the most desirable areas in the entire world.
Looks like the barrios of Mexico City!
 
Unread 10-27-2011, 11:31 AM
 
Location: NY-NJ-Philly looks down at SF and laughs at the hippies
1,152 posts, read 226,566 times
Reputation: 432
Anyone who thinks LA is on the level of Chicago, Tokyo, Sao Paulo, Hong Kong, NY, Munich, Paris, London, Toronto, etc for urbanity/density is a completely delusional.

LA is not even as urban as middle sized cities like Dublin, DC, Amsterdam, Boston, etc.
 
Unread 10-27-2011, 11:32 AM
 
816 posts, read 796,010 times
Reputation: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Been to NYC, been to Chicago, lived in Boston for three years. LA is extremely dense, it just doesn't look like an East Coast / European city. It's been discussed a billion times on here about how the density figures are skewed by the Santa Monica Mountains and the San Fernando Valley.

While it is true that many of the really dense areas are not the most desirable, (Westlake, Pico-Union, Historic South Central) places like Hollywood, Los Feliz, Koreatown, Mid-Wilshire, etc are dense, walkable neighborhoods with above average public transportation. These are huge districts too, not some tiny spec on the map.

And Venice Beach is definitely in LA.
Those places are not desirable though that you mention, and the few places that are have only been so in the last 10 years. More details you won't like, no?
 
Unread 10-27-2011, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
8,397 posts, read 4,287,971 times
Reputation: 2571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gateway Region View Post
LA is not even as urban s the middle sized cities like Dublin, DC, Boston, etc.
false false false false FALSE. You gotta be kidding if you think Boston is more urban than Los Angeles. Plus you are going back to your tried and true "looks like a third world scene" argument... which instantly discredits any argument you make.
 
Unread 10-27-2011, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
6,758 posts, read 7,775,927 times
Reputation: 2611
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfieldian View Post
Exactly, most attractions and things you would want to do are freaking allover the place. Therefore, if you want to enjoy life there and the things LA offers, you need a car and you are going to spend a lot of time on the roads getting there! On the other side of the scale, New Orleans for instance is low density in terms of population, but very very walkable and most attractions are withing a tiny core footprint.
That is why people say getting around LA is a nightmare.
Nobody is saying LA doesn't have amenities or denies it's development, it's just that actual life there isn't the same at all. Even people in SF hate on LA's planning in the same state. Much less somewhere with the urban buildup and transportation networks of NYC, Toronto or Chicago which completely destroy LA in terms of urban lifestyle.
Some of the LA posters act like people have never been there and try to skew some stats. LA is one of the most visited and popular cities in the U.S., a LOT of us have been there.
It isn't like Kansas City or Minneapolis where you might have a bunch of people who haven't visited.
Places like LA and Orlando get bashed on urban development for good reason, a lot of us have been there (tourist meccas), and we know how it is there.
I get all that from an urban planning standpoint that it has many drawbacks. But it's still very urban and I think it's a different kind of urban for those that like driving around in a convertible vs riding subways. I'm personally glad it's not a carbon copy of nyc. That would be boring if all our cities were the same.
 
Unread 10-27-2011, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
8,397 posts, read 4,287,971 times
Reputation: 2571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfieldian View Post
Those places are not desirable though that you mention, and the few places that are have only been so in the last 10 years. More details you won't like, no?
Maybe not desirable to people that can't handle living in an urban area...
 
Unread 10-27-2011, 11:38 AM
 
1,233 posts, read 894,090 times
Reputation: 335
LA is urban in a suburban way and is as dense as NY and Philly suburbs. LA sprawled in the early years being a auto focussed city . It is becoming more urban but will never be like NY or Chicago to many downtowns in LA.
 
Unread 10-27-2011, 11:39 AM
 
816 posts, read 796,010 times
Reputation: 462
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
I get all that from an urban planning standpoint it has many drawbacks. But it's still very urban and I think it's a different kind of urban for those that like driving around in a convertible vs riding subways. I'm personally glad it's not a carbon copy of nyc. That would be boring if all our cities were the same.
No, it isn't.
Very urban is very vague.
I suppose I have to put things in perspective now so here are some points.
What cities do you think are older and get to say or define what urban should be like? Think about it. There have been urbanized cities for over 2000 years.
LA is not urban by California standards, you have an urban gem to the north, you know...this city called San Francisco?
Nor is LA urban by United States or North American standards.

so again, why is LA considered urban? Why does LA get a "pass"...

Most of LA feels like the inner ring suburban areas of the other truly urban cities of the u.s.
face it, LA can not compare with our great nations urban gems. end of story.
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.



All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - 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 - Top