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 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?
I wouldn't generalize all of CA based on LA, though. San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and several other sections of the Bay Area are very urban by any standard
As for LA, it certainly has pockets that are quite urban - no doubt. On the whole, though, it doesn't quite have the streetscape or connectivity of a truly urban city yet - not to say itll never get there.
The reason why people say LA is not a very dense city is because it doesn't have the feature that makes "dense" cities be what they should be like New York, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. LA doesn't have good walkability, except for a few small areas.
If you can see, LA's entire city only has a walkscore of 65. While it isn't as sprawling as many other suburbs outside LA, that isn't enough to support a car-free lifestyle. One can have a lot of density, but if it doesn't have good transit and walkability, it will be known as having the aspects of sprawl still even with relatively high densities.
Take this with a grain of salt... The average walkscore is 65 yes, and that is not great (although still pretty good compared to most cities) but I think the key is looking at the number of 85+ neighborhoods. My address is a 99 on walk score. I can get to almost anywhere in the central core of Los Angeles in two boardings. If it wasnt for my wife's job requiring a car, we would be carless. Much like our 100+ co-tenants who share the 30 space parking lot.
Los angeles has lots of very unwalkable, even bordering on rural neighborhoods (palisades, hollywood hills, bel aire, tujunga, woodland hills, west hills) and they bring down the average.
No big deal, what city did you live in?
My point is perspective on where its been and obviously where its heading.
I've lived in several denser cities, not just in CA. It doesn't matter. There is nothing to do with perspective. You can objectively match up LA with other urban cities in the U.S. and come to same conclusions.
I wouldn't generalize all of CA based on LA, though. San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and several other sections of the Bay Area are very urban by any standard
As for LA, it certainly has pockets that are quite urbab - no doubt. On the whole, though, it doesn't quite have the streetscape or connectivity of a truly urban city yet - not to say itll never get there.
Who is generalizing, I have complimented SF several times in this thread already and used it to make several strong points, that it can not even match up on urbanity within it's own state, much less the rest of the U.S.
I've lived in several denser cities, not just in CA. It doesn't matter. There is nothing to do with perspective. You can objectively match up LA with other urban cities in the U.S. and come to same conclusions.
It only matters for perspective. You may be one of these guys who flew in for business once a month for six months and claim to have "lived" there.
The point is there isnt a pure definition of urban. For that matter San Diego is urban, Miami is urban Dallas is urban all to varying degrees.
New York and LA are the only two cities in the US that have that massive city feel. Its different than SF or Chicago or DC....
I've lived in several denser cities, not just in CA. It doesn't matter. There is nothing to do with perspective. You can objectively match up LA with other urban cities in the U.S. and come to same conclusions.
So you were lying when you said you lived in CA. What's that going out my window? Oh yeah, your credibility.
It only matters for perspective. You may be one of these guys who flew in for business once a month for six months and claim to have "lived" there.
The point is there isnt a pure definition of urban. For that matter San Diego is urban, Miami is urban Dallas is urban all to varying degrees.
If you were to compare SD and LA on urbanity, LA would pummel San Diego. San Diego seems to be more typical of what all the LA-haters (cause that's what they are) are stereotyping it as.
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.
