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.
Did you even read my post or just quote it and respond?
That's what's more urban about it.
And did you forget what you originally responded to me about:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
Well if it only had the built environment to complement those density figures.....oh well
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
I'm not saying it's not built up but it lacks a nice urban form that is found in more traditional, older cities.
A perfect example is all the dingbat apartments built in the 1960' and 1970's that replaced single family homes.
I was never talking about amenities, diversity, transit access, "late-night options". I was simply talking about the "built environment".
So again, as far as BUILT ENVIRONMENT/URBAN FORM as in buildings, streetscape, architecture, etc..what makes East Hollywood more urban than the Sunset?
This is a really vague statement. Do you mean the most vibrant parts of LA cannot match their equivalents in SF? Or do you mean that even the most vibrant of LA cannot match any of SF?
I was thinking more in a general sense when traveling around both cities. But no, I do not think that the most vibrant parts of LA come close to matching the most vibrant parts of SF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
And then I ask, how on earth would you even know?
Um, because I've been to both cities. San Francisco is much more three dimensional than Los Angeles where most of the streets in its inner core have healthy levels of pedestrian activity. It's much more like New York in this sense. Los Angeles has commercial strips where you see some pedestrian activity, but by and large it's a city designed around autos. You can discern this in a matter of hours when riding around both cities.
With the exception of the Inner Richmond those are what I would consider inner-neighborhoods of SF. For example Haight-Asbury is the same distance from DTSF as MacArthur Park is from DTLA.
No, it's not at all. I've walked to MacArthur Park from DTLA, I would never walk to the Haight from DT SF.
And did you forget what you originally responded to me about:
I was never talking about amenities, diversity, transit access, "late-night options". I was simply talking about the "built environment".
So again, as far as BUILT ENVIRONMENT/URBAN FORM as in buildings, streetscape, architecture, etc..what makes East Hollywood more urban than the Sunset?
I don't know and I don't feel like arguing with you anymore. Who cares I think East Hollywood is more urban. Get over it.
No, it's not at all. I've walked to MacArthur Park from DTLA, I would never walk to the Haight from DT SF.
They are very close in distance. Perhaps a difference of .5 miles. I was going from the Civic Center, you are obviously going from the Financial District.
Considering LA is a much larger metro area — maybe 2-3 times it's not surprising far enough LA would look better at large enough distances. Even past the densest neighborhoods, SF IMO does better than LA — Haight-Asbury, Mission District, Inner Richmond all do rather well for example.
Mission = 3 miles from Financial District. That's Koreatown to DTLA distance. I actually prefer Koreatown IMO. Mission feels more cohesive though.
Haight-Ashbury = 4.4 miles from Financial District. That's Silverlake to DTLA distance. Haight-Ashbury is a pinch better IMO.
Hollywood is 6.8 miles from DTLA btw. West Hollywood 8.6 miles from DTLA. Not exactly far-flung suburbs.
Believe it or not there really are not that many cars pulling in and out of a 4-car parking area.
Maybe not very often, but it does happen. I always slow down jogging when I pass these type of areas and it takes me out of my element. Many of my friends have been hit while on bikes even in Chicago. I have been hit just walking. But LA is less congested so I'm not sure how that problem factors in.
Okay, but at 225 contigous sq miles (CHI's city limits), or 300 sq miles (NYC's city limits), Los Angeles would still trail only New York in density among major U.S. cities.
What I like about census tracts is that it eliminates the "Boston is denser than Chicago" style arguments that are so prevalent on these boards. Boston is NOT denser than Chicago overall, it only appears that way because its city limits are 48 sq miles, less than a 1/4 of Chicago's. The larger the land area, the harder it is to maintain a high ppsm (more suburbs incorporated).
I wouldn't doubt that. I think it should be done maybe at the 10, 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 sq miles though to give a better sense how it expands when doing comparisons.
I mean, you have to account for the fact that SF has a much more cohesive built environment over a larger footprint than LA. It's the cohesive built environment that makes a city what it is after all.
Oh vey...
Sunset District = 7.1 miles from the Financial District
Hollywood = 7 miles from DTLA
That's what I was referring to. They're the same distance to their respective CBDs. That makes it a fair comparison.
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.
