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.
So your basing this off how many districts you walk through eventhough its in an urban environment it doesn't count in your book huh? an hour! Are you being serious? 2 miles in an hour?
I realize it doesn't sound like a particularly intelligent argument but yeah, it makes a difference. Its the reason why DTSF feels like a more bustling place than DTLA or even DT Chicago when you're in it despite it being a much smaller city than either; compactness definitely makes a difference and especially from a pedestrian point of view. LA as it is works best from a pedestrian point of view when a neighborhood is designated for a certain activity; the Hollywood strip for example works as the hub for tourist entertainment because its compactly self-contained to relatively few blocks. Not a good example, I know, but its kind of hard to explain unless you're already used to it. Even with LA spread-out the way it is, that would work if the city entirely focused on making its public transit get people from neighborhoods to these nodes in the quickest way possible, which arguably is what they've already done but it doesn't work as well as other places for a hard to pinpoint reason.
I realize it doesn't sound like a particularly intelligent argument but yeah, it makes a difference. Its the reason why DTSF feels like a more bustling place than DTLA or even DT Chicago when you're in it despite it being a much smaller city than either; compactness definitely makes a difference and especially from a pedestrian point of view. LA as it is works best from a pedestrian point of view when a neighborhood is designated for a certain activity; the Hollywood strip for example works as the hub for tourist entertainment because its compactly self-contained to relatively few blocks. Not a good example, I know, but its kind of hard to explain unless you're already used to it. Even with LA spread-out the way it is, that would work if the city entirely focused on making its public transit get people from neighborhoods to these nodes in the quickest way possible, which arguably is what they've already done but it doesn't work as well as other places for a hard to pinpoint reason.
Cause the Transit system isn't complete yet. You can't even get to the Westside yet by rail. Thankfully, The Expo Line will be finished by next year and you will be able to get from DTLA to DT Santa Monica without having to drive. LA has a reputation for sprawl but the important economic centers and cultural opportunities are VERY linear. If you know your way around LA you begin to realize how linear and easy to navigate LA actually is. if You put a train down Wilshire (in pre-construction/utility removal, full construction starts next year), you just linked up everything a tourist or somebody who works needs to be.
You would swear I said LA isn't urban or something judging from the reaction to saying LA isn't very walkable lol. Its obviously an entirely different kind of urban than a city like San Francisco which is perfectly fine when you take the city on its terms and don't try to approach it from the same angle. Some of you however seem to actually believe there's no difference between being a pedestrian in LA vs. more compact cities... Lol. The densest areas of LA are indeed eons more dense than the most dense of Oakland but more compact they (generally) are not.
Its true of the city period. The subtle difference between what I'm saying and what you're saying is this: Once you actually get to where you're going in Central LA - Koreatown, Pico Union, etc. - the neighborhood centers tend to be very walkable. But getting from, say, Yang San Bak on Normandie/W 6th over to King Taco in Pico/Union without a car is a pain in the ass even with the metro rail and the buses and is definitely not a short walk even though the neighborhoods are technically next to each other. Again, LA's scale is not oriented for walking which imo is a big part of being able to call a place walkable. Currently, moving between places of interest in LA is much, much easier with a car almost to the point of making public transit an impractical option.
But this is a product of distance, not walkability issues. Koreatown and Pico-Union (like most LA neighborhoods) tend to be a lot larger than those in other cities. It doesn't really matter that they're adjacent when they're so big.
Using city-data's definitions:
Back Bay (Boston)
Beacon Hill (Boston)
DuPont Circle (Washington DC)
Adams Morgan (Washington DC)
Tenderloin (San Francisco)
Marina District (San Francisco)
South Philadelphia (Philadelphia)
University City (Philadelphia)
River North (Chicago)
But this is a product of distance, not walkability issues. Koreatown and Pico-Union (like most LA neighborhoods) tend to be a lot larger than those in other cities.
Using city-data's definitions:
Back Bay (Boston)
Beacon Hill (Boston)
DuPont Circle (Washington DC)
Adams Morgan (Washington DC)
Tenderloin (San Francisco)
Marina District (San Francisco)
South Philadelphia (Philadelphia)
University City (Philadelphia)
River North (Chicago)
Combined size: 5.41 sq miles
Pico-Union
Koreatown
Combined size: 5.74 sq miles
I don't know how much simpler it can be explained.
Cause the Transit system isn't complete yet. You can't even get to the Westside yet by rail. Thankfully, The Expo Line will be finished by next year and you will be able to get from DTLA to DT Santa Monica without having to drive. LA has a reputation for sprawl but the important economic centers and cultural opportunities are VERY linear. If you know your way around LA you begin to realize how linear and easy to navigate LA actually is. if You put a train down Wilshire (in pre-construction/utility removal, full construction starts next year), you just linked up everything a tourist or somebody who works needs to be.
Yeah that, hopefully it's opened next year without a hitch.
I don't know how much simpler it can be explained.
That's exactly my point... LA is in many ways the dead opposite of compact, a reality which makes driving in the city fun and walking a chore. In a city like SF its the other way around... Driving is a chore thanks to it sometimes taking >30 min to park and sometimes just as long to get there thanks to clogged traffic arteries while walking is fun because you feel like you can see something entirely different just by walking a few paces in a new direction. In a way I could see it being interpreted a dumb point because its sort of attacking LA for being LA but its entirely legitimate to say that LA is not as pedestrian-oriented as more compact cities. In the case of this thread I see the disconnect because LA is truly 100x more urban than Oakland in quite a few measurable ways but from personal experience its still more enjoyable to walk in the latter than in the former with the exception of DTLA vs. DT Oakland; DTLA is pedestrian-oriented in ways the rest of LA is not period.
That's exactly my point... LA is in many ways the dead opposite of compact, a reality which makes driving in the city fun and walking a chore. In a city like SF its the other way around... Driving is a chore thanks to it sometimes taking >30 min to park and sometimes just as long to get there thanks to clogged traffic arteries while walking is fun because you feel like you can see something entirely different just by walking a few paces in a new direction. In a way I could see it being interpreted a dumb point because its sort of attacking LA for being LA but its entirely legitimate to say that LA is not as pedestrian-oriented as more compact cities. In the case of this thread I see the disconnect because LA is truly 100x more urban than Oakland in quite a few measurable ways but from personal experience its still more enjoyable to walk in the latter than in the former with the exception of DTLA vs. DT Oakland; DTLA is pedestrian-oriented in ways the rest of LA is not period.
Dude you have no idea what you're talking about, the core of LA is compact and walkable, its obvious to me that you are basing your experiences from South Central or Inglewood, and who ever told you the surface streets are not clogged hear
Dude you have no idea what you're talking about, the core of LA is compact and walkable, its obvious to me that you are basing your experiences from South Central or Inglewood, and who ever told you the surface streets are not clogged hear
Lol no I've been around South LA and Inglewood in addition to West LA, Venice/Santa Monica, Central LA, Downtown, Echo Park/Edendale and East LA. The only part of LA I haven't spent time in is the SFV other than Burbank and most of the "east coast" of South LA other than Compton/Watts.
You on the other hand sound like you don't leave LA that much... Obviously I don't know you but if you've traveled around and think LA is compact I don't know what to tell you There's an infinite amount of stuff to do in LA but you have to travel far from one end of the city to the other to do a lot of it, and currently traveling to a lot of it all but requires a car. If what Jamill said is true about the Expo line opening up next year that's a huge improvement from how it is now.
That's exactly my point... LA is in many ways the dead opposite of compact, a reality which makes driving in the city fun and walking a chore. In a city like SF its the other way around... Driving is a chore thanks to it sometimes taking >30 min to park and sometimes just as long to get there thanks to clogged traffic arteries while walking is fun because you feel like you can see something entirely different just by walking a few paces in a new direction. In a way I could see it being interpreted a dumb point because its sort of attacking LA for being LA but its entirely legitimate to say that LA is not as pedestrian-oriented as more compact cities. In the case of this thread I see the disconnect because LA is truly 100x more urban than Oakland in quite a few measurable ways but from personal experience its still more enjoyable to walk in the latter than in the former with the exception of DTLA vs. DT Oakland; DTLA is pedestrian-oriented in ways the rest of LA is not period.
Yeah... Driving in LA is a total pain, the surface streets are comparable in congestion to SF and way worse than the East Bay.
And I'm not sure why you think it is more pleasant to walk in the East Bay, it is slightly less dense, with just as many massive commercial thoroughfares and walkable corridors which are fewer if not farther between. Normally I agree with you but this thread you've really lost me in place s. I think your South LA experience weigh s too heavily in your assessment of the greater inner LA region.
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.
