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.
Yeah, one could argue this, but, to me, it's too diffuse to be a true core. It's really a number of important nodes within a relatively concentrated area. But most of the core doesn't look any different from parts of LA outside the core. It's just that the delineated core has proportionally more activity centers.
I actually agree with this. For right now, I'd definitely agree that this whole area is still very disjointed. There still is a delineation even along Wilshire.
Hell, I still feel a HUGE difference between the area west of San Vicente and east of it. Even the addresses suddenly change (from 8000 block to 6000 block..makes no sense AT ALL!)
First thing is first is that we DEFINITELY need a subway line going down Wilshire. The Purple Line has been on hold since forever, and there needs to be more tangible progress on this. Of course, this would most likely result in a shutdown of Wilshire to through traffic, but doing a cost-benefit analysis, the short term losses would definitely be outweighed by a long term gain.
Heck, they're extending the Gold Line down Flower Street in DTLA to 7th and Metro (via an underground tunnel) resulting in a closure of Flower for a lengthy period of time, but given how much PT traffic is started to be centered around 7th and Metro, its the right move. Because this will finally connect Pasadena and Long Beach directly through DTLA. Something I-710 could never do
I actually agree with this. For right now, I'd definitely agree that this whole area is still very disjointed. There still is a delineation even along Wilshire.
Hell, I still feel a HUGE difference between the area west of San Vicente and east of it. Even the addresses suddenly change (from 8000 block to 6000 block..makes no sense AT ALL!)
First thing is first is that we DEFINITELY need a subway line going down Wilshire. The Purple Line has been on hold since forever, and there needs to be more tangible progress on this. Of course, this would most likely result in a shutdown of Wilshire to through traffic, but doing a cost-benefit analysis, the short term losses would definitely be outweighed by a long term gain.
Heck, they're extending the Gold Line down Flower Street in DTLA to 7th and Metro (via an underground tunnel) resulting in a closure of Flower for a lengthy period of time, but given how much PT traffic is started to be centered around 7th and Metro, its the right move. Because this will finally connect Pasadena and Long Beach directly through DTLA. Something I-710 could never do
I don't think the Purple Line extension will require any street closures (the Wilshire BRT line however, will) because they are only using the deep-boring machine as opposed to a cut-and-cover construction method. They are using the cut-and-cover method for half of the Regional Connector through the Financial District, which is why there are some lawsuits filed by companies in the area due to worries about business being affected by Flower being closed partially.
I don't think the Purple Line extension will require any street closures (the Wilshire BRT line however, will) because they are only using the deep-boring machine as opposed to a cut-and-cover construction method.
Ooh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the update on that!
Wilshire DEFINITELY needs some sort of work done to it. The irony beckons, since there are so many plastic surgeons on Wilshire. We should have them do the cosmetic makeover of Wilshire I can see the street becoming our own version of Market Street in SF (multi-use PT street, with underground being subway, above ground being BRT/potential LRT) except much longer, and more epic because it's in LA and has more Dodger than Giants fans (the last sentence is being somewhat facetious, except I still don't like the Giants )
Quote:
They are using the cut-and-cover method for half of the Regional Connector through the Financial District, which is why there are some lawsuits filed by companies in the area due to worries about business being affected by Flower being closed partially.
Most of the businesses around here rely on pedestrian traffic anyways, and aside from one or two buildings, most of the parking lots are facing another street. Arco Plaza is mostly underground, my building has an entrance to the side of it, not necessitating the need for Flower, etc.
There are some small businesses here like pizza parlors, but AFAIK they aren't closing the sidewalks and still can be accessed.
Honestly, there's a town hall meeting about it (got an email about it), but for most businesses on this street, it wouldn't make that much of a difference aside from noise and aesthetics (it will be loud) because its not like there's street parking currently on this street, which I can potentially see being the issue.
There are some small businesses here like pizza parlors, but AFAIK they aren't closing the sidewalks and still can be accessed.
Honestly, there's a town hall meeting about it (got an email about it), but for most businesses on this street, it wouldn't make that much of a difference aside from noise and aesthetics (it will be loud) because its not like there's street parking currently on this street, which I can potentially see being the issue.
I think its just Thomas Properties and the hotel (forgot which one) that is in the area. I'm sure they'll find a solution as Metro seems willing to work with the companies. The Regional Connector is going to be a huge game changer for the network (actually making it a network as opposed to a series of lines that generally meet in the same area) - I can't believe there are some on the LA boards that think this is a less important project. IMO it is second to the Purple Line Extension, but still one of the most important transit projects in the entire country, in fact.
Hahahahahahaha what an interesting thread. Can I join?
I wont argue any order for where these cities should place for size, feel, urban, or whatever because frankly I could honestly careless about that. I just want to shoot down some things that were said earlier in the thread. Well I'll leave the discussions to the rest of you for the other 4 places but I want to talk about where I live. The DMV area is "DC-Maryland-Virginia" although it also includes parts of West Virginia too, this is the general area for this metro. This area has two nexuses with Washington DC and Baltimore. Think of them as two equally tall men on a basketball court on the opposite ends. This is the most balanced metro on the east coast in my personal opinion. Beyond that there's the sea of suburbs in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.
This is all one area in all technicalities but its polarized enough to feel like two. That's the beauty of it. It's population is also beginning to push about 9 million people. http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8293/7...6c1bc046_c.jpg
I'm saying that the scale doesn't reflect the wide gulf in "walkability" between two different neighborhoods. If Adams-Morgan gets a 90 (which is quite ridiculous), then Little Italy should be at 120.
Are there likely to be 5000 tourists trying to get a glimpse of who is on TRL in the way? Forget drug stores, how many drug DEALERS are there? Movie theatres? Don’t need ‘em. Find me the people selling bootlegs. Tell me how many piles of garbage, clusters of dog poop, or busted bicycles I’ll have to step over.
The problem with walkscore is that is gauge is off and what constitutes 100 right now should be moved to 150... Cities scoring 50 now should really be getting around 10.
The problem with walkscore is that is gauge is off and what constitutes 100 right now should be moved to 150... Cities scoring 50 now should really be getting around 10.
I remember seeing scores of 99 and 100 for really dead streets in many major cites. But I guess if it has a sidewalk then it is walkable. LoL.
I remember seeing scores of 99 and 100 for really dead streets in many major cites. But I guess if it has a sidewalk then it is walkable. LoL.
Just looked up their algorithm...
The Walk Score algorithm awards points based on the distance to the closest amenity in each category. If the closest amenity in a category is within .25 miles (or .4 km), we assign the maximum number of points. The number of points declines as the distance approaches 1 mile (or 1.6 km)—no points are awarded for amenities further than 1 mile
lol at still getting points around a mile, lots of places in NYC you can get to everything on your same block below your residence. They need to put it far less than .25 miles, maybe under .1 miles which would be on the same block in most areas.
Also they give points for random amenities...They don't differentiate between a 7/11 vs a Trader Joes or (insert major grocery store), or a laundry mat vs an upscale bar. I can get a lot more of my "daily errands" as they say done at a major grocery store and have no need for a laundry mat/post office/gas station/etc, I'd rather have the neighborhood bar.
Honestly what most people want in their direct walkable areas are a well stocked grocery store, a gym, restaurants, bars, coffee shops and most importantly a subway stop. I'm not even sure if they rate having a subway stop to get to other areas. To me, subway stops to subway stop extends your direct walkable areas, esp when they are all connected in short proximity to each other.
Walkscore is based in Seattle, and they probably have a Seattle centric view of what is considered walkable. Personally I don't think it is necessarily that great, and gets rather suburban looking rather quickly, and has poor transit compared to the cities it is close to.
I mean seriously, they give Seattle a walkable score higher than Washington DC, and within a 1/2 percentage point from Philadelphia or Chicago...
They used to have Seattle higher than both Philadelphia and Chicago.
From a LA website ...
"Keep in mind this ranks walkable NEIGHBORHOODS not cities. I've lived in Chicago, Portland and Seattle and I can assure you, Seattle is NOT more walkable than the other two. One or two neighborhoods are walkable, but the city's steep hills and disconnected layout make it very hard to get around in on foot or by bike. Chicago, on the other hand, is a walker's paradise with most of the 23-mile lakefront preserved as park and a flat, logical grid of streets.
Portland and Chicago also have much better public transportation than Seattle, too!"
I have a hard time believing Seattle even bests LA in walkability, to me it seems as if a slightly more walkable Atlanta if Atlanta were to infill a bit more around DT and Midtown.
I believe it should be quite the opposite, and have Manhattan as the main gauge, and every other city should be compared to it for U.S. purposes.
It rates Printers Row in Chicago as the most walkable area, which is definitely not the case, and virtually dead after 5pm as it borders the loop. And I suppose you could walk over to the loop (it's certianly within their mile threshold), but half the mediocre restaurants there close at 5pm, it's a CBD! I used to live there. It also puts Sheridan Park (by Uptown and a mini hood full of halfway houses and drug rehab places) as the 3rd most walkable area.
I behoove people to never use that silly site as a legitimate resource.
Last edited by grapico; 10-27-2012 at 12:44 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.
(the last sentence is being somewhat facetious, except I still don't like the Giants 
)
