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 don't really agree with that. Central Harlem, Bed-Stuy, East Baltimore and North Philly are very pedestrian friendly. So pedestrian-friendly that pedestrians routinely walk up to other pedestrians and rob them.
While I agree that urban renewal efforts have hurt the walkability of most American cities, it did not drastically change the walkability of most inner city cores. As hard hit as the Bronx was by the mass demolition of tenements, it's still a very walkable place notwithstanding the trash and drug dealers.
I'm not talking only about urban renewal, but general disinvestment... and I was speaking very broadly and only about downtown-adjacent areas (I just looked back at my post and realized I left out the word "core" before "neighborhoods.." sorry). Obviously there are plenty of places that are economically depressed but full of street life.
If you travel around the country and visit downtown cores, you can pretty neatly split them up into "revitalized" and "non-revitalized"--with the non-revitalized ones being almost always less walkable because there are more empty lots and less things to do/buy. Los Angeles is an example of a place where urban core revitalization is only just beginning, and where that revitalization is being dispersed over quite a large area. It's very difficult to compare it to places like Seattle, DC, SF, or Philly where there has been a considerable amount of reinvestment in a limited area over the past couple decades.
Not sure I understand your statement in bold. That's a schematic aerial drawing with no tree cover.. I think it's clear that the built environment in downtown LA and downtown Atlanta was comparable in these two snapshots a decade apart. I don't get where you're coming from saying that Atlanta was more urban.
"No tree cover" and "Atlanta" together already sounds funny. Atlanta is a well know city for tree canopy cover, most under 3 to 5 stories outsides of Downtown and midtown will not been seen from air. Even now it wasn't for skyscrapers you think Charlotte has a similar density to Atlanta. Looking at any aerial is going to be misleading. The Artist drew what he or she could see.
During the 10s and 20s Los Angeles saw a considerable amount of high-density development near the core to a much larger extent than Atlanta (LA's growth rate shot ahead of Atlanta's during these decades).
Los Angeles therefore has significantly more apartment blocks from this era than Atlanta does--hence many people's assertions that LA has an "old-school" urban feel that isn't as much a part of the landscape as it is in Atlanta, Houston, etc.
Most of Baltimore and Philly was built before 1900. Chicago ballon before 1900. "old school" as in before mass use of cars. SF was already a large dense city before 1900, when rebuilding they wasn't going to make the city less denser. This is why those SF links were much more compact than LA.
LA did start to build up in the 10s and 20s but your overstating this is when LA stated to really sprawl. LA built up much slower than it grow out. It gradually infill is why it's so dense. LA density is "new school" there's nothing wrong that. You can even tell by architecture. clink the link at the bottom.
Quote:
I also apologize but I can't comprehend the argument in your second paragraph. I was simply saying that Los Angeles's statistical density for 1910 was already skewed by large areas of undeveloped land due to municipal borders having been extended beyond the urbanized populated areas for a couple reasons.
I get that, but what I was saying LA still gain population and because of this. LA was a top 20 city when it really shouldn't been.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
I've always felt it was some unique hybrid of urban and suburban. Not quite the urban form of SF, Boston, NYC, etc.. but definitely not like other sunbelt cities. Outside of the loop/River North Chicago actually kind of reminds me of LA a decent amount as many of it's apartments tend to be garden style and set back.
I wouldn't call it suburban at all, well may be the valley.
Anyway LA is clearly urban, and not like Chicago either unless your taking about Chicago single family homes. Architecturally LA is very modern and post modern, and the street are wide. The city is car concentric because the time it was develop. But LA is extremely dense and has high vibrancy.
Los Angeles is, by most measures, the second most densely populated city in the U.S.
Unless Memph from the urban planning board was off (and I doubt it; dudes a machine), there were 1.9 million L.A. residents living in census tracts above 20,000 ppsm, well ahead of #3 Chicago (1.1 million) and Philadelphia (900k or so).
L.A. has 6.6 million residents living in census tracts above 10,000 ppsm. Only New York, with a absurd 10+ million residents above 10,000 ppsm, had more.
L.A. is San Francisco density and topography spread out on Miami''s urban footprint...and even that doesn't quite work. Haha.
As far as the L.A. look, I like it and prefer it. It's not for everyone, but I personally lament nothing (although the Purple and Pink lines would be nice).
Uhh...wrong there buddy...that would be San Francisco, which is 2nd only to NYC in density.
"No tree cover" and "Atlanta" together already sounds funny. Atlanta is a well know city for tree canopy cover, most under 3 to 5 stories outsides of Downtown and midtown will not been seen from air. Even now it wasn't for skyscrapers you think Charlotte has a similar density to Atlanta. Looking at any aerial is going to be misleading. The Artist drew what he or she could see.
Most of Baltimore and Philly was built before 1900. Chicago ballon before 1900. "old school" as in before mass use of cars. SF was already a large dense city before 1900, when rebuilding they wasn't going to make the city less denser. This is why those SF links were much more compact than LA.
LA did start to build up in the 10s and 20s but your overstating this is when LA stated to really sprawl. LA built up much slower than it grow out. It gradually infill is why it's so dense. LA density is "new school" there's nothing wrong that. You can even tell by architecture. clink the link at the bottom.
I get that, but what I was saying LA still gain population and because of this. LA was a top 20 city when it really shouldn't been.
I wouldn't call it suburban at all, well may be the valley.
Anyway LA is clearly urban, and not like Chicago either unless your taking about Chicago single family homes. Architecturally LA is very modern and post modern, and the street are wide. The city is car concentric because the time it was develop. But LA is extremely dense and has high vibrancy.
First off I want to say I really appreciate all the great pictures you post and provide to the site.
I agree with what you are saying that LA has a post-modern or modern urbanity to it. I am actually the poster that brought you in with the "old school urbanity" statement. I think what you have to understand (and may be easy to miss from your incredible aerials) is that many of the new buildings are interspersed with a great deal of 10's-30's architecture. There are not entire historic districts of these old buildings, but they constitute a decent amount of inner LA buildings, if that makes sense.
So you are not taking the entire city of Los Angeles into account. You are basically saying "take away the hilly sections of the city and its just as flat as Houston and Miami." That doesn't compute.
Dodger Stadium sits on a hill. Griffith Park is full of hills. The Getty Museum sits on a hill. Topanga state park sits in the hills. West Los Angeles colleges sits in the hills. Universal City Walk is in the hills. How can many of the city's iconic locations be located on top of hills, or nestled in the middle of hills if the city is flat?
LA is not entirely flat...I know that. Never said otherwise.
That said, a good portion of it is very flat.
Hollywood shows us how they want us to see LA & you people fall for it. They eat that up. Only those who have never stepped foot in LA would say the whole city is mountains & hills. Reality check...its not.
The pancake flat LA Basin is a whopping 35 miles long by 15 miles wide!
Looks pretty darn flat to me...
Wikipedia
Downtown sits smack dab in that basin...no Photoshopping done here
Wikipedia
LA is not entirely flat...I know that. Never said otherwise.
That said, a good portion of it is very flat.
Hollywood shows us how they want us to see LA & you people fall for it. They eat that up. Only those who have never stepped foot in LA would say the whole city is mountains & hills. Reality check...its not.
The pancake flat LA Basin is a whopping 35 miles long by 15 miles wide.
9 years ago Downtown Houston was hosting Super Bowl XXXVIII.
Looks like they let all of Harris County loose for the Main Event.
On a side note LA hasn't hosted a single Super Bowl in the past 40+ years...sad.
I'm pretty sure the L.A. area still ranks 2nd in total SBs hosted, the last being in 1993 (at the Rose Bowl).
Edit: It ranks 3rd now behind New Orleans and Miami.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 02-07-2013 at 11:55 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.
