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 never said L.A. had auto oriented apartments being built. L.A. is building the same apartments as everyone. I said Seattle, but it's true for L.A. too, will not be able to change the feel of the city because of what is already built. There is too much development that predates anything going up now to change the city feel from suburban feeling in our lifetime. Now, people moving to L.A. are probably moving there for reason's other than being in an urban, walkable, transit oriented city which you mainly only see that attraction in NE cities. L.A. has weather, entertainment, etc. going for it so it will always grow, but it won't function like cities do in the NE. That is all I said. L.A. is its own region and there is nothing wrong with that. We do talk about transit, walkability, bike share, etc. etc. on city-data though so that is why I thought it was an interesting question.
I think people move here because it is urban, in addition to the other reasons you mentioned. 75 percent of the people asking for advice on the LA Thread are looking for a walkable, urban "community" environment. One thing to note - LA may look suburban from streetview but it feels anything but suburban. Perhaps spending some time out here would help you understand what I am talking about.
And LA will get there with transit - in the last 4 years car-free households went from 17% - 19%, which is a huge number of people when you take into account the size of the city. Transit ridership keeps growing and is among the highest in the nation. A very respected poster on this site and SkyscraperPage made an educated prediction that Los Angeles will have around 630,000 riders on the LRT system and the Red / Purple Lines are expected to be around 200,000 riders (a very, very low prediction by Metro). Also you bring up bike share - I know DC has a very respectable system but this summer Los Angeles is set to begin installing the 2nd largest bike-share program in the nation. As an added bonus, it is the only bike share to be operated by a private firm.
You can have it all in Southern California - urban, suburban, car, transit, beach, mountains - there's something for everyone.
You can have it all in Southern California - urban, suburban, car, transit, beach, mountains - there's something for everyone.
Munchitup, it's obvious by your posts that you want to promote LA as a walkable, transit-oriented type city, but this isn't reality. LA is a city built for the car, and it will remain so in our lifetimes. Your own stats confirm this.
You have a city with millions of immigrants from the developing world, and yet over 80% of city residents have cars. That's crazy high auto dependency. Practically everyone with money has a car, and there's nothing wrong with that.
LA is a fantastic city, but I don't see why you try and promote this fiction of the city as having a transit-oriented future. We're talking a metro of 18 million people and one subway line. Does that sound like a good place to go without a car?
LA has the world's greatest freeway network. It has epic surface drives, like Sunset, or Mullholland. Buses and trains, at least in LA, are for poor people who are recent arrivals, and don't have choices. Once they have a little money saved away, they will be car owners.
You claim this style is typical, yet you can't post even one other existing example. You just posted examples of possible future projects.
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.
I'd love to post more streetviews but they are too out of date. Unless you want to see empty lots where the buildings will be going / are going.... But here are some:
Among many others - and as noted about half of the development I am talking about is between 2011-2013 and is too new for Streetview.
Also, please don't respond by saying that there are parking lots nearby or suburban development nearby, because that is not the point I am trying to make and is a straw man. I know the surroundings aren't amazing in many cases.
However, I don't see this kind of development occurring in the suburbs or really even in other Sun Belt cities (with some exceptions).
Los Angeles also dropped the parking requirement for a zone north of DTLA, which they would like to build a ground-up urban neighborhood. Normally I would be hesitant because "ground-up" almost always equals "bland and car oriented", but eliminating parking requirements is the best way to go if you are going to do "ground-up".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Almont1
And if Hollywood Boulevard isn't the most urban street, what is? I mean, in terms of a major, mixed-used street, with residential, hotels, retail, and the like? Most of the other major corridors (Melrose, Sunset, SM, Wilshire, Pico) don't have the same density or mix of uses, and they don't have subway stops (except for Wilshire).
7th Street. Spring Street. Broadway. Wilshire.
Last edited by munchitup; 05-21-2013 at 12:00 PM..
Munchitup, it's obvious by your posts that you want to promote LA as a walkable, transit-oriented type city, but this isn't reality. LA is a city built for the car, and it will remain so in our lifetimes. Your own stats confirm this.
All I said was Los Angeles is not a typical Sun Belt city.
If you asked me to describe Los Angeles, transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly would not be the first things that I mention.
I am a realist, I understand the city has a long way to go to improve mobility. I just like to show that there is more to Los Angeles than a car-crazed autophile city that so many on this site are dead-set on portraying it as. And my own stats confirm this as well.
80 percent of households (not people), is actually quite low for the United States. Houston, Dallas, Phoenix are rocking about 90-95 percent of households. All I am trying to do is dispel the myth that LA is a Sun Belt city.
I think people move here because it is urban, in addition to the other reasons you mentioned. 75 percent of the people asking for advice on the LA Thread are looking for a walkable, urban "community" environment. One thing to note - LA may look suburban from streetview but it feels anything but suburban. Perhaps spending some time out here would help you understand what I am talking about.
And LA will get there with transit - in the last 4 years car-free households went from 17% - 19%, which is a huge number of people when you take into account the size of the city. Transit ridership keeps growing and is among the highest in the nation. A very respected poster on this site and SkyscraperPage made an educated prediction that Los Angeles will have around 630,000 riders on the LRT system and the Red / Purple Lines are expected to be around 200,000 riders (a very, very low prediction by Metro). Also you bring up bike share - I know DC has a very respectable system but this summer Los Angeles is set to begin installing the 2nd largest bike-share program in the nation. As an added bonus, it is the only bike share to be operated by a private firm.
You can have it all in Southern California - urban, suburban, car, transit, beach, mountains - there's something for everyone.
I have been to L.A. Let's be real here, L.A. does not have any neighborhood that is built dense and tight like a NE neighborhood. The streets are wide. You can't compare L.A. to this kind of street:
That is why I said there are tiers and thresholds for urbanity that L.A. will never achieve for their residential neighborhoods. There are a few urban neighborhoods D.C. will never achieve too like North End in Boston with streets like Paris. D.C. will never have any neighborhoods like that. Obviously, overall, D.C. and Boston are comparable, but L.A. is nothing like these cities.
I have been to L.A. Let's be real here, L.A. does not have any neighborhood that is built dense and tight like a NE neighborhood. The streets are wide. You can't compare L.A. to this kind of street:
That is why I said there are tiers and thresholds for urbanity that L.A. will never achieve for their residential neighborhoods. There are a few urban neighborhoods D.C. will never achieve too like North End in Boston with streets like Paris. D.C. will never have any neighborhoods like that. Obviously, overall, D.C. and Boston are comparable, but L.A. is nothing like these cities.
It pretty much evens out because LA has a level of density DC will likely never attain, and that's okay. Cities arent supposed to be exactly the same.
I think you may need to refer to the post below from earlier in this discussion. This is not about population, we are discussing structural urban design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
I am sorry, I should have been clearer, I am not talking about population density, I am talking about structural density. Just an FYI even though I am sure you already know this based on our previous discussion's, when I say density, I am almost never talking about population density. Population density can fluctuate at any time and has nothing to do with the relationship of buildings on a street. Consideration's like are people sharing apartments based on cost of those units or are they cheap so people can live one person per unit. Is it lower income where people are more likely to have more people living in each unit etc. etc. etc. There are a million things to think about when it comes to population density and developers can't control those things. Structural density is controlled though and is the sole factor in neighborhood feel. When you are by yourself walking through the neighborhood in the middle of the night, that is the best time to take an assessment of neighborhood feel based on structural density.
I think you may need to refer to the post below from earlier in this discussion. This is not about population, we are discussing structural urban design.
In other words, LA was able to develop itself in such a way where you have massive swaths of high density and not follow the style of the NE. Good for LA.
In other words, LA was able to develop itself in such a way where you have massive swaths of high density and not follow the style of the NE. Good for LA.
You can't ignore cultural living preferences when discussing population density. If L.A. had the exact same demographics as Washington D.C. or Philadelphia etc., the city would have very low density compared to those cities because of the lack of structural density. The same can be flipped saying if D.C. or Philadelphia had the same demographics as L.A., they would be bursting at the seems. Just look at the difference between neighborhoods in L.A. itself that are not immigrant. Anthropology is a good thing to take into account when looking at living patterns.
Look at the density of the L.A. area based on racial demographics. Look at the difference in density in the following neighborhoods that don't have many immigrants:
-Central L.A. (west side of it)
-Culver City
-Los Feliz
-West Hollywood
-Glendale
-South Pasadena
You can't ignore cultural living preferences when discussing population density. If L.A. had the exact same demographics as Washington D.C. or Philadelphia etc., the city would have very low density compared to those cities because of the lack of structural density. The same can be flipped saying if D.C. or Philadelphia had the same demographics as L.A., they would be bursting at the seems. Just look at the difference between neighborhoods in L.A. itself that are not immigrant. Anthropology is a good thing to take into account when looking at living patterns.
Look at the density of the L.A. area based on racial demographics. Look at the difference in density in the following neighborhoods that don't have many immigrants:
-Central L.A. (west side of it)
-Culver City
-Los Feliz
-West Hollywood
-Glendale
-South Pasadena
If you place the same demographics in D.C., Boston, or Philly, what do you think the population density would be?
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.
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.
