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.
My thing is yes LA is urban it's one the most urban cities in the country, But it's a different type of urban. I was thrown a little off by LA has the old school urbanity like SF comment. They represent two different ages. LA roads are wider and some buildings are set back but for miles LA is dominated by multi family units it's more modern and post modern.
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.
Are they really narrower? The ones I see in LA especially for buildings with rear parking are incredibly tight, not sure it is possible to make them more narrow and still be functional.
I'm not sure this is really an apples-to-apples comparison. You're taking an area of LA that's considered to be more of a strong point and comparing it to an area of SF that most people would not really find to be that urban to begin with.
This is more or less what most people have in mind when they think of San Francisco.
Denser yes but I wouldn't say more urban. Wider setbacks than the Sunset and actual space between the buildings.
Great that's your opinion. I disagree. To me not only is it significantly denser, it is also more urban.
To me things like better transit access, more amenities, greater diversity, more streetlife, more late-night options trump a perfect street-wall (that consists basically of smooshed together SFHs) and buildings that are 10 feet closer to the curb than in LA.
What is funny is the building I live in forms a streetwall and has no setback.
I'm not sure this is really an apples-to-apples comparison. You're taking an area of LA that's considered to be more of a strong point and comparing it to an area of SF that most people would not really find to be that urban to begin with.
This is more or less what most people have in mind when they think of San Francisco.
The Sunset District and East Hollywood are pretty much the same distance from the CBD, and are both basically residential neighborhoods without job centers - I don't see how they are apples to oranges. I wouldn't call East Hollywood a strong-point of LA's urbanity.
But I agree, that is generally what I think of when I think of San Francisco too.
Great that's your opinion. I disagree. To me not only is it significantly denser, it is also more urban.
To me things like better transit access, more amenities, greater diversity, more streetlife, more late-night options trump a perfect street-wall (that consists basically of smooshed together SFHs) and buildings that are 10 feet closer to the curb than in LA.
What is funny is the building I live in forms a streetwall and has no setback.
What exactly is more "urban" about it?
And I was never offering my opinion on which is a better area/street to live in/on, I hate the Sunset for the weather alone. That area is clearly the more family oriented, quieter area of SF.
The Sunset District and East Hollywood are pretty much the same distance from the CBD, and are both basically residential neighborhoods without job centers - I don't see how they are apples to oranges. I wouldn't call East Hollywood a strong-point of LA's urbanity.
Again, I don't put much stock in the "they're the same distance from the CBD argument" because that doesn't account for what's in between. Buckhead is the same distance from Downtown Atlanta as Harlem is from Lower Manhattan. And it's a longer distance from Downtown Atlanta than Silver Spring is from Downtown DC. Of course, the distance between Silver Spring and Downtown DC could be significantly greater if there were more sprawl in between. But the fact that the city is built much more compactly should be accounted for, I think.
One major problem your forgetting this is Atlanta, Atlanta has always been hidden and cover by a tall forest. You can't tell Atlanta density a aerials most under 5 stories you can't even see. Also that's not a good look if 1919 Atlanta by what can be seen is a toss-up with LA 1909. That means Atlanta was more urban.
And yes I know about LA annexing but that still gave LA population. LA was not the only place surround by towns and etc. LA was built with super wide roads for a reason it was prepared to sprawl. Today LA is head over hills more urban than ATL. I just commenting on that it was said Atlanta lacks an old school density that LA has which is similar to SF. There's like 3 overlapping thing wrong with that.
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.
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.
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.
And I was never offering my opinion on which is a better area/street to live in/on, I hate the Sunset for the weather alone. That area is clearly the more family oriented, quieter area of SF.
Did you even read my post or just quote it and respond?
Quote:
To me things like better transit access, more amenities, greater diversity, more streetlife, more late-night options trump a perfect street-wall (that consists basically of smooshed together SFHs) and buildings that are 10 feet closer to the curb than in LA.
That's what's more urban about it.
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.
Sheesh.
