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.
Cities sprawl out with their population and have larger light signatures in space. That's pretty true of cities anywhere. However, at ground level, LA does not seem anything like those cities and is still much closer in form to other US cities.
LA's density at metro is the highest in the country, twice the density of Chicago and four times the density of Boston.
LA is not as dense as foreign urban areas but its the closest to getting there.
Quote:
You should definitely try living in those cities for a bit and you'll see just how sleepy most of the US is
In the US I would never live outside of California. Hawaii and Alaska are nice states and there are some merits to Nevada, Washington, and Arizona but the other 44 states are dumps.
I would like to try Santiago one day so I will hand it to you that you sound like you have more overseas experience than me.
Quote:
The important part is the +. It is unlikely at current growth rates that LA will become particularly similar to Sao Paolo. LA is still growing, but it's not growing that quickly and it's found an outlet out of the LA Basin, SFV, and SGV to sprawl way the hell out into the Inland Empire even while it's infilling. Meanwhile, the infilling of close in suburbs and satellite cities is actually something occurring nationwide and not specific to LA.
Sao Paulo is a better role model for a city like LA than NYC is. You have to understand that LA is a mega metro, the city has an improving central city and the outer reaches of the city are more vibrant and alive than practically any other metro this country has to offer.
Maybe you misunderstand where I come from but I am not trying to say LA is like Osaka, I am trying to say that Osaka or Kyoto or Santiago are better role models for LA to develop than NYC or Chicago. It would be a disaster is LA developed like their eastern American counterparts.
Quote:
Meanwhile, the infilling of close in suburbs and satellite cities is actually something occurring nationwide and not specific to LA.
No city has done it to the scale of LA. Maybe the bay but LA has arguably reached further out and done this.
Quote:
Lowrises and midrises are different from highrises (and allow for different densities which allows for different retail densities that are viable which allow for different modes of mass transit to be viable), and you should keep in mind that the largest bit of growth in LA's metro was out into the Inland Empire.
LA doesn't have the demand for highrise infill like Shenzen. Shenzen is the worlds fastest growing mega metro in 1980 its population was less than 300k and now its shy of 11 million. Lowrise and midrises are more suited for LA's infill, its a pace LA can keep up with.
Quote:
Right now I see the big southern metros (Houston, DFW, Atlanta) as well as the Bay Area, DC and NYC going through development towards polycentralization.
If you drop Atlanta then I would agree with you. Atlanta's real estate market and economy are in no position to keep them in the same pedigree as NYC, DC, Dallas, Houston, or Miami.
If it wasn't for the movie industry i am positive that San Francisco would surpass L.A as the largest city in California. Its just a much more interesting urban city.
If it wasn't for the movie industry i am positive that San Francisco would surpass L.A as the largest city in California. Its just a much more interesting urban city.
You know nothing about LA, do you?
LA grew for petroleum, port, and manufacturing more than it did for Hollywood. LA basically offered more developmental space, more consistent climate, and more navigable waters for port activity than the bay.
Yeah. The Westside-Valley transit alignment is the 4 thousand pound gorilla. The MTA says this is the next project in the planning phase, and I think they put this off until they could show some success on the ground, increase local demand, and lawyer up for the mother of all NIMBY battles.
Yea, I know. It's going to be incredibly hard battle and it's one that's incredibly necessary. The 405 is an obvious cluster**** and mass transit needs to work there. It also doesn't make any sense to pipe people through downtown in order to get among SFV and the Westside.
Yea, I know. It's going to be incredibly hard battle and it's one that's incredibly necessary. The 405 is an obvious cluster**** and mass transit needs to work there. It also doesn't make any sense to pipe people through downtown in order to get among SFV and the Westside.
Well, here's hoping.
Just get ready for a let-down ... I'm willing to wager it ends up being BRT.
LA's density at metro is the highest in the country, twice the density of Chicago and four times the density of Boston.
LA is not as dense as foreign urban areas but its the closest to getting there.
In the US I would never live outside of California. Hawaii and Alaska are nice states and there are some merits to Nevada, Washington, and Arizona but the other 44 states are dumps.
I would like to try Santiago one day so I will hand it to you that you sound like you have more overseas experience than me.
Sao Paulo is a better role model for a city like LA than NYC is. You have to understand that LA is a mega metro, the city has an improving central city and the outer reaches of the city are more vibrant and alive than practically any other metro this country has to offer.
Maybe you misunderstand where I come from but I am not trying to say LA is like Osaka, I am trying to say that Osaka or Kyoto or Santiago are better role models for LA to develop than NYC or Chicago. It would be a disaster is LA developed like their eastern American counterparts.
No city has done it to the scale of LA. Maybe the bay but LA has arguably reached further out and done this.
LA doesn't have the demand for highrise infill like Shenzen. Shenzen is the worlds fastest growing mega metro in 1980 its population was less than 300k and now its shy of 11 million. Lowrise and midrises are more suited for LA's infill, its a pace LA can keep up with.
If you drop Atlanta then I would agree with you. Atlanta's real estate market and economy are in no position to keep them in the same pedigree as NYC, DC, Dallas, Houston, or Miami.
I think you underestimate how alike American cities are collectively compared to cities abroad and closest to is nowhere near close. Also, for the Northeast (not sure about Chicago), a lot of that huge urban spread is because there were a bunch of smaller towns and cities that became connected to their much larger cities through corridors rather than having one large creep of suburbia (LA had that, too, but it also has a lot more places that were developed almost completely as suburban extensions of the city).
LA does have a very diverse metro and it's great in that way while there are other cities that also are polycentric and great in that way. It would actually be a disaster for any megacity to follow the old single center tradition unless there are some incredibly big changes in social structure and/or technology. Large East Coast US cities and European cities have become steadily more polycentric. London has major CBD with Canary Wharf while Paris has a separate skyscraper of its own in La Defense.
New York has been split for a good long while already back when there was already a distinction between Midtown and Downtown, but there's also across the Hudson with Jersey City and the large and growing downtown Brooklyn. In terms of neighborhood, NYC holds a lot more vibrancy for most of its metro than LA does. I'd say Flushing or Astoria or almost any neighborhood in Brooklyn has more activity going on than just about any major district of Los Angeles--and the level of activity is far closer to what you would find in major cities abroad. It's once you get to the peripheries of the metro (where most of the physical land area is, but little of the density--and again that's a distinct feature of the US where we gear people towards fairly intense commutes in their own personal vehicles and is the reason why these far out areas are counted as part of the metros in the first place) does it become about as sleepy as the rest of the US. Also, brace for official census remaps in 2013 in case the commuter ring for the Bay Area and maybe LA gets expanded again.
I bring up Atlanta because it's polycentric not because of its great scale. Again, these cities are all moving towards that--but when we're talking about vibrancy and/or density, NYC and some of its metro is the only one that functions anything like the cities you mentioned.
If it wasn't for the movie industry i am positive that San Francisco would surpass L.A as the largest city in California. Its just a much more interesting urban city.
If Chicago had a pleasant climate and less urban blight (seen the murder rate lately? Maybe you can pull up some YouTube clips on the subject), it's city population would actually rise every decade. Damn you, reality!
But I think everyone should play by the same rules. Subjective or Objective. Opinion and experience VS Facts and boundaries? I don't care either way. I just want to know what I should bring to the discussion.
After going through this thread, you're right. I should've defined something to debate.
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.
