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 Yamanote Line is 38 sq miles with multiple hubs located in it. That's not a small area of land.
That's almost exactly the same size as Manhattan + Brooklyn/Queens waterfront. What's your point? Both are the highrise cores of their respective regions. You can add the Jersey City waterfront too.
Yes, not every inch of Downtown Brooklyn or Upper Manhattan is equal to Midtown, but it's the exact same thing in the Yamamote Loop. There are single family homes in quiet neighborhoods when you get to the Tokyo side-streets (within the loop).
Again, I fail to see how these high-density residential corridors in Los Angeles differ in any way from high-density rowhouse corridors that are exclusively residential / lack retail.
The primary difference is that these high density corridors in LA were built for the automobile.
The apartment buildings are all oriented to an auto entrance, have plenty of parking, and the residents use the car for basic day-to-day errands.
All those dense Westside retail corridors (Melrose, 3rd Street, Fairfax, Robertson, etc.) have free parking in the back alleys. They're basically urban strip malls, but the parking is in the back.
Even on Wilshire, those Beverly Hills department stores all have free parking lots in the back. It's much closer to typical suburban formats than to classic urban formats. It's high density suburbia, essentially.
I think what needs to be done, instead of arguing for 60 pages aimlessly, is to come up with a concrete City Data only definition of what urban is, and should be applied through all cities in the United States, instead of coming up with something so overly subjective that it makes no applicable sense.
Obviously, I'd use the dictionary definition, but that pretty much kills all argument if that is done
ur·ban [ur-buhn] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or designating a city or town.
2.
living in a city.
3.
characteristic of or accustomed to cities; citified: He is an urban type.
Yeah this is true, there is more single-use in LA than other cities. The codes that caused this (not in place till the 50s or so) have mostly been wiped away. You can see nearly all new development in LA is mixed use now. For instance this: Home is going into one of the most notorious series of parking lots in Hollywood.
This is a good thing. LA is changing and for the better IMHO, still said I really do enjoy LA
The primary difference is that these high density corridors in LA were built for the automobile.
The apartment buildings are all oriented to an auto entrance, have plenty of parking, and the residents use the car for basic day-to-day errands.
All those dense Westside retail corridors (Melrose, 3rd Street, Fairfax, Robertson, etc.) have free parking in the back alleys. They're basically urban strip malls, but the parking is in the back.
Even on Wilshire, those Beverly Hills department stores all have free parking lots in the back. It's much closer to typical suburban formats than to classic urban formats. It's high density suburbia, essentially.
I don't think that because there is a little bit of parking in the back (but lets be real, 90% of the time you are parking at a metered spot on those streets) people are immediately going to drive there, especially when they live within a short walk of the place (>.5miles).
The streets you are describing are mostly on the Westside, and I don't really disagree. Other than Fairfax they don't have a huge pedestrian presence, though I've never walked on Robertson.
Quote:
In most cases (working class areas) they're basically dense because of very large household sizes. You basically have older garden-style apartment buildings, mixed in with strip malls, that achieve very high densities because of large families from Central America or wherever.
In a few affluent Westside neighborhoods you have good density, but it's basically Century City-style highrise autotopia, or that stuff you see around Cedars Sinai and the like (dense, but not really pedestrian friendly or anything, and everything is built for auto access, even if hidden in the back alley or whatever).
Actually in another thread I showed that this sentiment is way overblown. I compared Westlake with a neighborhood and DC (chosen by someone from DC), and while the household sizes were about twice as high as in DC, the density was 1.5 times as high. Westlake still would have had 45k ppsm density if it had the household sizes that one of the more affluent parts of DC has.
It contributes to some of the highest density neighborhoods (Pico-Union, Westlake, [actual] South Central). My neighborhood does not have extremely high household sizes yet is near 30k ppsm.
I don't think that because there is a little bit of parking in the back (but lets be real, 90% of the time you are parking at a metered spot on those streets) people are immediately going to drive there, especially when they live within a short walk of the place (>.5miles).
The streets you are describing are mostly on the Westside, and I don't really disagree. Other than Fairfax they don't have a huge pedestrian presence, though I've never walked on Robertson.
Yeah, I think we agree more than we disagree. I don't think these corridors are purely suburban or anything, but they don't feel urban, even if they have good density. I know the Cedars Sinai area very well, and it's quite dense, but sure as hell doesn't feel like Brooklyn or anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
Actually in another thread I showed that this sentiment is way overblown. I compared Westlake with a neighborhood and DC (chosen by someone from DC), and while the household sizes were about twice as high as in DC, the density was 1.5 times as high. Westlake still would have had 45k ppsm density if it had the household sizes that one of the more affluent parts of DC has.
It contributes to some of the highest density neighborhoods (Pico-Union, Westlake, [actual] South Central). My neighborhood does not have extremely high household sizes yet is near 30k ppsm.
Yeah, it could be overblown, but I bet you it contributes moreso than in other cities. I don't think large household sizes are driving high density counts in most gentrified neighborhoods, and LA's densest neighborhoods tend to be immigrant neighborhoods rather than gentrified. You're in Hollywood, which isn't really super gentrified, but isn't Rampart either in terms of immigrants.
It is kind of a bad thing. The potential benefits of density are fast and extensive public transit, auto-indepedence, and an active pedestrian life. Los Angeles does not offer any of those things to any significant degree. If I want to live in a city where nearly everyone drives, I could live in any number of American suburbs. So to that extent, L.A. does function much more like the suburbs than a Chicago or NYC.
Nonsense. Even with its more car-friendly structure, L.A. crushes many classically urban environments in concentration of amenities. One of the many key points L.A. critics disregard when equating the region with Atlanta.
The entire neighborhood of Hollywood, which, as defined by walkscore, is well over 5 sq miles, gets an 87. No true suburban environment packs it in in that manner.
Nonsense. Even with its more car-friendly structure, L.A. crushes many classically urban environments in concentration of amenities. One of the many key points L.A. critics disregard when equating the region with Atlanta.
The entire neighborhood of Hollywood, which, as defined by walkscore, is well over 5 sq miles, gets an 87. A true suburban environment isn't anywhere close to that.
Atlanta has a greater share of people using public transit than Los Angeles. That says enough, don't you think?
Yeah, I think we agree more than we disagree. I don't think these corridors are purely suburban or anything, but they don't feel urban, even if they have good density. I know the Cedars Sinai area very well, and it's quite dense, but sure as hell doesn't feel like Brooklyn or anything.
Yeah, it could be overblown, but I bet you it contributes moreso than in other cities. I don't think large household sizes are driving high density counts in most gentrified neighborhoods, and LA's densest neighborhoods tend to be immigrant neighborhoods rather than gentrified. You're in Hollywood, which isn't really super gentrified, but isn't Rampart either in terms of immigrants.
Yeah no way the Cedar-Sinai / Beverly Center area is like Brooklyn at all. But at the same time the commercial corridors there are really built up though in a completely auto-centric fashion. Some of the streets are fairly pedestrian friendly but are absolutely dead as far as the amount of people on the streets. I guess it is either high-density suburbia or auto-centric urbanism - but either way there is a reason I don't live in that area. I find it to be less sterile and more happening on the streets in Central LA (perhaps caused by the higher household sizes - no room in the apartment!).
Personally I would rather walk around past strip malls and gas stations down Sunset but be surrounded by pedestrians versus the more aesthetically-pleasing but sparsely walked La Cienega or Robertson where you can sometimes feel like you are in a ghosttown.
L.A. can be a fun place to live. I definitely would not do it without a car though.
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.
