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)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 10-27-2011, 11:42 AM
 
Location: So California
8,358 posts, read 8,369,144 times
Reputation: 4548

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
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.

I agree. LA's grid layout is actually great for more transit and superblock development. It will continue to change over the years, downtown will continue to stretch south and west along Wilshire all the way to Santa Monica. I would love to see it in 50 years....

 
Old 10-27-2011, 11:43 AM
 
Location: So California
8,358 posts, read 8,369,144 times
Reputation: 4548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfieldian View Post
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 order and get to say or define what urban should be like? Think about it.
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"...

face it, LA can not compare with our great nations urban gems. end of story.

Thats just ridiculous. Its the same fools that try to define urbanism by looking at decaying east coast and rust belt cities.
 
Old 10-27-2011, 11:44 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,471,213 times
Reputation: 3932
Quote:
Originally Posted by ironcouger View Post
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.
I agree LA is too autocentric, especially in the mindset of the residents. The public transportation is really not that bad. It's just that angelinos have this mindset that they have to drive everywhere (though it is slowly changing).

Also cool (but not totally related to the topic) check this:
Downtown L.A. Streetcar alternatives released; community meeting coming next Thursday | The Source
 
Old 10-27-2011, 11:46 AM
 
816 posts, read 1,521,125 times
Reputation: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
I agree. LA's grid layout is actually great for more transit and superblock development. It will continue to change over the years, downtown will continue to stretch south and west along Wilshire all the way to Santa Monica. I would love to see it in 50 years....
Every city will change over the years. How about RIGHT NOW? You don't think other cities have urban improvement and fill in plans?
 
Old 10-27-2011, 11:46 AM
 
Location: NY-NJ-Philly looks down at SF and laughs at the hippies
1,152 posts, read 950,929 times
Reputation: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
Thats just ridiculous. Its the same fools that try to define urbanism by looking at decaying east coast and rust belt cities.
Yet those so called decayed cities by yourself in DC, Boston, Chicago, NY and Philly are more urban than anything on the west coast including Seattle, LA or SF.
 
Old 10-27-2011, 11:47 AM
 
816 posts, read 1,521,125 times
Reputation: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by slo1318 View Post
Thats just ridiculous. Its the same fools that try to define urbanism by looking at decaying east coast and rust belt cities.
No, it's more about looking at cities all around the globe, I have been to over 30 countries and LA is not urban by any definition. Continue to say it is urban and people who have actually seen more than a handful of cities will continue to laugh in your face.
 
Old 10-27-2011, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,471,213 times
Reputation: 3932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfieldian View Post
No, it's more about looking at cities all around the globe, I have been to over 30 countries and LA is not urban by any definition. Continue to say it is urban and people who have actually seen more than a handful of cities will continue to laugh in your face.
So how many times have you been to Los Angeles and where exactly did you go?

It's pretty crazy that I live in a 100+ unit apartment building that was built in the 20s and is surrounded by other 100+ units built in the 20s, yet somehow where I live is suburban. I don't get how you can dismiss a place without every spending a great deal of time there.

For example, I have been to DC and Philly twice each. I would never make a grand sweeping statement about these places because I don't know much about them.
 
Old 10-27-2011, 11:52 AM
 
Location: So California
8,358 posts, read 8,369,144 times
Reputation: 4548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfieldian View Post
No, it's more about looking at cities all around the globe, I have been to over 30 countries and LA is not urban by any definition. Continue to say it is urban and people who have actually seen more than a handful of cities will continue to laugh in your face.

Having been to Paris to London to Tokyo to Sydney.....doesnt change my mind. LA is a relatively young city and you have to have and show some perspective. All you have to do is look at the past 50 years of growth there from sprawl to max out to infill, its happening right before our eyes.
 
Old 10-27-2011, 11:55 AM
 
816 posts, read 1,521,125 times
Reputation: 503
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
So how many times have you been to Los Angeles and where exactly did you go?

It's pretty crazy that I live in a 100+ unit apartment building that was built in the 20s and is surrounded by other 100+ units built in the 20s, yet somehow where I live is suburban. I don't get how you can dismiss a place without every spending a great deal of time there.

For example, I have been to DC and Philly twice each. I would never make a grand sweeping statement about these places because I don't know much about them.
I lived in CA, I have been there dozens of times. It isn't urban, if I lived there since 1960 it still wouldn't be urban. What is your point?
 
Old 10-27-2011, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,471,213 times
Reputation: 3932
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garfieldian View Post
I lived in CA, I have been there dozens of times.
Where? The burden of proof is on you my friend.
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.


Closed Thread

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top