U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-21-2013, 02:48 PM
 
178 posts, read 229,766 times
Reputation: 105

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Those projects are not not possibilities, they all under construction and nearing completion. Blvd 2000 is now visible from the street, the Whitley building is doing finishing touches on the exterior work, the La Brea buildings are all topped off and beginning exterior work.
This is exactly my point. It isn't typical. You can't find one other existing building. And even the one you found still is parking oriented.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
7th Street. Spring Street. Broadway. Wilshire.
I disagree. Broadway, 7th, and Spring are a few blocks and are right downtown. Broadway, in particular, is very run-down and empty after hours.

Wilshire goes on forever, and mostly isn't urban. There are golf courses and country clubs along Wilshire, and even the dense parts (say in Beverly Hills or Miracle Mile or Condo Canyon in Westwood) don't have the same street level feel as Hollywood Blvd.

 
Old 05-21-2013, 02:57 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,567,366 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almont1 View Post
This is exactly my point. It isn't typical. You can't find one other existing building. And even the one you found still is parking oriented.


You mean except for 4-5 streetviews I posted in the same post as you quoted above?

That building is as typical as you get for Los Angeles' construction in 2011 thru 2013. Read the bolded, for some reason you keep missing that. If something was built in 2011, 2012 or especially 2013 - it most likely is not on Streetview.

But believe me, the Jefferson (which is what that building is called) is definitely typical of the current (i.e. building after 2010) Los Angeles development (the other style being the Small Lot homes I posted about earlier). You have yet to post anything proving otherwise, such as Streetviews of garden apartments in Los Angeles or new construction that is not in the mixed-use "box" style that the Jefferson is.

Last edited by munchitup; 05-21-2013 at 03:05 PM..
 
Old 05-21-2013, 03:32 PM
 
178 posts, read 229,766 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post


You mean except for 4-5 streetviews I posted in the same post as you quoted above?
No, you posted one actual existing building.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
That building is as typical as you get for Los Angeles' construction in 2011 thru 2013.
No, this isn't true. This isn't typical for that time period.

And the time period is irrelevant. It's the overall housing stock that matters. Why not only look only at 1854 or 1933 or 1982? What's the difference?

If I take a sprawling, suburban city, and add one 80 floor building in 2013, with no parking, would you say it's the most urban city in the world, because 100% of current construction is ultra-urban with no parking? Of course not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
But believe me, the Jefferson (which is what that building is called) is definitely typical of the current (i.e. building after 2010) Los Angeles development (the other style being the Small Lot homes I posted about earlier). You have yet to post anything proving otherwise, such as Streetviews of garden apartments in Los Angeles or new construction that is not in the mixed-use "box" style that the Jefferson is.
No, the onus is you to prove your wild claim. You posted the intersection of Hollywood & Vine, and claimed that was typical LA. My point is that couldn't be more atypical LA.
 
Old 05-21-2013, 04:03 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,567,366 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almont1 View Post
No, you posted one actual existing building.


No, this isn't true. This isn't typical for that time period.

And the time period is irrelevant. It's the overall housing stock that matters. Why not only look only at 1854 or 1933 or 1982? What's the difference?

If I take a sprawling, suburban city, and add one 80 floor building in 2013, with no parking, would you say it's the most urban city in the world, because 100% of current construction is ultra-urban with no parking? Of course not.


No, the onus is you to prove your wild claim. You posted the intersection of Hollywood & Vine, and claimed that was typical LA. My point is that couldn't be more atypical LA.
Jesus dude, stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that stuff. This is literally what I said:

Quote:
These days it is usually 5-7 stories, ground floor retail and underground parking, with the building pulled up the curb or a setback of around 10-15 feet at most. I don't see how this is auto-oriented or suburban - I've never seen buildings like this built in any suburbs, and while it accommodates the automobile it is not oriented towards it.

This building is pretty typical of that type of construction: 1003 N. Crescent Heights Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90046 - Google Maps, 1003 N. Crescent Heights Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90046 - Google Maps - I don't think having a courtyard in the center or having some apartments face the center of the development make a place "not urban".
Never said that is "typical LA". You just seemed really ready to have an argument for some unknown reason. All I said that the Jefferson is typical of current building style. I thought it was fairly uncontroversial thing to say, as anyone who keeps up with LA development would know that 5-7 stories with ground floor retail is the norm for current construction in Los Angeles.

And here is where I posted 5 streetviews of existing buildings:

Believe it or not, all of these buildings exist!!!!

Here are a couple more for your pleasure :

http://goo.gl/maps/whdNp
http://goo.gl/maps/BcO4w
http://goo.gl/maps/7NDZj
http://goo.gl/maps/IjyVH
http://goo.gl/maps/U7BI4
http://goo.gl/maps/od7V0
http://goo.gl/maps/q4Jfp
http://goo.gl/maps/ivgfp

Last edited by munchitup; 05-21-2013 at 04:12 PM..
 
Old 05-21-2013, 04:20 PM
 
178 posts, read 229,766 times
Reputation: 105
Munchitup, you're certainly persistent in promoting your agenda, but no. Not true.

The fact is that LA multifamily, even recently constructed, central-city multifamily, is auto-oriented and suburban in nature.

My college roommate lives in downtown LA, in a recently constructed building, and it is definitely a garden-style format. He gets two free parking spaces automatic with the apartment, and the complex has a pool, courtyards, and no real street level feel. You enter and leave by car. That's typical for LA.

The building is called Canvas, I think. It's right on the Harbor Freeway.

Also, there's nothing wrong with this! You take it like some kind of criticism. LA is fantastic and I could definitely see myself living there. It happens to be auto-oriented, which is what it is. The only non auto-oriented areas are for poorer immigrants.
 
Old 05-21-2013, 04:24 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,567,366 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almont1 View Post
Munchitup, you're certainly persistent in promoting your agenda, but no. Not true.

The fact is that LA multifamily, even recently constructed, central-city multifamily, is auto-oriented and suburban in nature.

My college roommate lives in downtown LA, in a recently constructed building, and it is definitely a garden-style format. He gets two free parking spaces automatic with the apartment, and the complex has a pool, courtyards, and no real street level feel. You enter and leave by car. That's typical for LA.

The building is called Canvas, I think. It's right on the Harbor Freeway.

Also, there's nothing wrong with this! You take it like some kind of criticism. LA is fantastic and I could definitely see myself living there. It happens to be auto-oriented, which is what it is. The only non auto-oriented areas are for poorer immigrants.
This is what you are talking about: Canvas LA Apartments, North Beaudry Avenue, Los Angeles, CA - Google Maps

Say what you want about those apartments, they are not garden style. I don't think you know what a garden apartment is. This is a garden apartment complex: http://goo.gl/maps/qA94K
The main problem with that area is that it is on the site of the Bunker Hill redevelopment. I've never been there before, seems like it would be dead and that those projects got built due to super-cheap land. But you are correct that parking is out of whack in Los Angeles, two parking spots for free is ridiculous.

And my only agenda is to show that Los Angeles is different from Sun Belt cities. I don't see how you did anything to prove otherwise other than have a difficult time reading my posts and gleaning strange conclusions from them (i.e. Hollywood / Highland is a typical LA intersection WTF???). At least MDAllstar gave some reasons (some better than others).
 
Old 05-21-2013, 04:28 PM
 
178 posts, read 229,766 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Yes, thank you. That's it.

To me, this isn't what I think of when I think urban apartments. It isn't oriented towards pedestrians or transit. You drive in and drive out. It's a nice complex, with good amenities, but not really traditional urban.

My point is if you wanted a car-free or transit-oriented lifestyle, this would be basically the opposite. Again, my buddy gets two parking spaces, free. Obviously they provide such an amenity because it's expected by renters, even downtown.
 
Old 05-21-2013, 04:31 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,567,366 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almont1 View Post
Yes, thank you. That's it.

To me, this isn't what I think of when I think urban apartments. It isn't oriented towards pedestrians or transit. You drive in and drive out. It's a nice complex, with good amenities, but not really traditional urban.

My point is if you wanted a car-free or transit-oriented lifestyle, this would be basically the opposite. Again, my buddy gets two parking spaces, free. Obviously they provide such an amenity because it's expected by renters, even downtown.

Not really downtown, not required to meet downtown design guidelines which is why Geoff Palmer builds right outside the freeway loop (all of those Tuscan-style monstrosities are his firm's work) - cheap land and little restriction to build what you want.

Also I wouldn't say it is the opposite of transit-oriented lifestyle. But I would want a car for that part of town. And we do have more than one subway btw, unless you are of the mindset that LRT doesn't count.
 
Old 05-21-2013, 04:32 PM
 
9,585 posts, read 10,919,739 times
Reputation: 2114
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
No this is incorrect argument that you keep using over and over. Los Angeles has higher household sizes but only by a small margin, and not enough to have a wide-scale effect on the density. Yes Westlake may only be 33-35k PPSM instead of 38k PPSM. Not a huge difference.

Dweebo posted a graph that compares Boston, Chicago, LA, Philly, DC and their housing units per square mile.

Boston, DC, LA, Philly were all at the same level. In fact, of the four Los Angeles actually had the most units per square mile.

I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that in Los Angeles the buildings use every inch of the lot they are on. That way they can squeeze more units into an area - and as you have mentioned before, apartments achieve greater density than row homes.

I would agree that LA probably does have a higher amount of units across the entire city. What about in the core areas of these cities though? LA sprawls far from the city, that's why it has the highest population density across the region. I don't know about the core of these cities though. D.C. has mostly office's in it's core so that is probably hard to compare to the other cities. Do you have the actual data. Not a graph, real data that can be substantiated.
 
Old 05-21-2013, 04:40 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,567,366 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar View Post
I would agree that LA probably does have a higher amount of units across the entire city. What about in the core areas of these cities though? LA sprawls far from the city, that's why it has the highest population density across the region. I don't know about the core of these cities though. D.C. has mostly office's in it's core so that is probably hard to compare to the other cities. Do you have the actual data. Not a graph, real data that can be substantiated.
I have a hell of a time figuring out the American Fact Finder. I think that is where Dweebo got the info from.

I'm not sure what you mean by "What about the cores".... Do you mean the downtown areas? (Nevermind I see what you are saying, I'm not sure if it is broken down into census tracts).

LA does sprawl, but it is also just very large.

The Westside is much patchier than Central LA but it too has some very high density areas (Palms, Westwood, Rancho Park, West LA, Culver City, Mar Vista, Playa Vista).
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top