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.
If you really mean "wall to wall people, and super intense urbanity", then yeah, that's it.
Even in Europe, outside of Paris, how many cities would meet that criteria? London might, but is more medium density, and has some breaks (but overall core is huge), Madrid might and is very high density (but overall core is more mid-sized), Berlin no (not dense enough), Barcelona and Rome no (dense but core is too small).
There are probably like half a dozen cities on earth that truly meet your criteria of contiguous wall-to-wall people over a large area. NYC, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong definitely. Osaka, Shanghai, Seoul, London arguably, with caveats. Sao Paulo and Mexico City have too many breaks. Maybe Bangkok? Mumbai? Cairo? Do we care if the humanity is in more slum-like conditions?
No one argues that LA isn't the second biggest city.
We're talking about urbanity. Obviously LA destroys all other U.S. cities except for NYC in terms of size, but LA, pound-for-pound does not have a tremendous amount of pedestrian friendly, transit-oriented urbanity. It has density, but more in terms of overcrowding rather than structural density, and not really overlapping heavily with where people want to live.
For example, Rampart is very dense, but not a very desirable place to live, and gets its density from immigrants stuffing into buildings. Places that are more desirable tend to be less dense, and not super-heavy transit or pedestrian oriented.
Holy crap. Way to play the scenario into your favor. So essentially where immigrants live doesn't count? It's skewing numbers?
Ok, clearly you're one of those types that says crap like "people in LA don't walk" but ignore the hundreds of thousands of people in LA walking in areas like Westlake, Downtown, Koreatown and dozens of other places that are largely and mostly minority immigrants. I get it now. The New Yawker who visits West LA or the OC and then writes about how no one walks in LA, no one is from LA, it's not dense, etc totally ignoring the millions using public transit and waking down Pico Blvd simply because they're immigrants.
I get it. I was treating the density as exactly what it is because I count every person there and the development around it. I don't just count "desirable" places and make my case around it.
So some of you are seriously saying there are 10 square miles that have people (and a huge mass of them) at all hours of the day walking around, day in and day out.
10 miles of pedestrian density?? No... only NYC accomplishes that in the US...
10 miles of urban development? Yes for sure.
In Philadelphia, City Hall to Manayunk is 19 miles of continuous urban development, only break in development is green space for the Wissahickon Park http://goo.gl/maps/qfbsN
Parking lots? Have you been to LA? They only exist in the Valley. Parking is the crappiest thing about LA and I've learned to parallel park like a pro. Its comments like that make me question whether people have actually visited or at least visited past 1985.
Really? So the Home Depot shopping center, right on Wilshire, and right outside downtown LA, is a figment of my imagination? A giant suburban-style big-box center, with huge parking lot, right outside of downtown. Surface parking is everywhere in LA, even in the densest parts, and on-site free parking (or free with validation) is the norm in 95% of LA.
Everywhere in LA, even downtown LA, has parking. There is no major building in LA that doesn't include parking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiolibre99
Los Angeles is mire or less like a Latin American city or South Asian city in appearence. It reminds me more of a mix of Manilla, Philippines or Mexico City, not NYC, Chicago, London, Toronto, etc.
The former cities I listed are very urban and very dense.
I have only been to Mexico City, not Manilla, but Mexico City is not "very dense" nor does it have a large downtown core. It's somewhat dense, and very sprawly. It does have some similarities to LA.
If you really mean "wall to wall people, and super intense urbanity", then yeah, that's it.
Even in Europe, outside of Paris, how many cities would meet that criteria? London might, but is more medium density, and has some breaks (but overall core is huge), Madrid might and is very high density (but overall core is more mid-sized), Berlin no (not dense enough), Barcelona and Rome no (dense but core is too small).
There are probably like half a dozen cities on earth that truly meet your criteria of contiguous wall-to-wall people over a large area. NYC, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong definitely. Osaka, Shanghai, Seoul, London arguably, with caveats. Sao Paulo and Mexico City have too many breaks. Maybe Bangkok? Mumbai? Cairo? Do we care if the humanity is in more slum-like conditions?
That's a realistic breakdown. I think urban form is one thing -- there are plenty more American cities than New York that have a pretty sizable core of essentially uninterrupted urbanism, albeit at a much more low-rise scale. However, in terms of pedestrian activity, that's a different story.
Consistent pedestrian activity is contingent upon population density, which is then contingent on a high-density/high-rise urban form. In terms of the US, only New York (and possibly Chicago) would have a large enough core of high-rise density to enable consistent pedestrian activity for 10 square miles.
Holy crap. Way to play the scenario into your favor. So essentially where immigrants live doesn't count? It's skewing numbers?
No one said this. I wrote that the densest parts of LA are dense because immigrants are stuffing into buildings. The areas aren't dense because of structural density.
And even these areas aren't remotely as dense as places in NYC.
Density isn't just a blind stat. There's a difference between an area that's dense because some 50's era garden apartment complex has 4 generations of families stuffed into each apartment, and another area that's dense because of wall-to-wall rowhouses, with no setbacks, mostly occupied by individual families. Scenario A might give you higher density, but will not necessarily result in a more urban or transit oriented environment.
Really? So the Home Depot shopping center, right on Wilshire, and right outside downtown LA, is a figment of my imagination? A giant suburban-style big-box center, with huge parking lot, right outside of downtown. Surface parking is everywhere in LA, even in the densest parts, and on-site free parking (or free with validation) is the norm in 95% of LA.
Everywhere in LA, even downtown LA, has parking. There is no major building in LA that doesn't include parking.
I have only been to Mexico City, not Manilla, but Mexico City is not "very dense" nor does it have a large downtown core. It's somewhat dense, and very sprawly. It does have some similarities to LA.
You're not serious? A Home Depot in the middle of the city somehow with a parking lot discounts the city's urbanity because its reminiscent of suburbia? No one in their right mind would take a look at that area and say that it reminds them of their white flight neighborhood on the outskirts of Houston. Its freaking developed to the point of no return. The pedestrian traffic is large but I'm sorry if it doesn't meet your standards cus its not a "desirable" place and immigrants make up the bulk of the pedestrian traffic.
And Mexico City is not urban? Probably one of the worlds mega city metropolises? The city that doesn't end when you look down on it from a plane?
You're not serious? A Home Depot in the middle of the city somehow with a parking lot discounts the city's urbanity because its reminiscent of suburbia?
Yes, I am serious. Yes, a giant big box strip mall on Wilshire, the street you claimed looked just like Manhattan, and right around the most urban part of Wilshire, is not exactly helping your argument.
No one said this. I wrote that the densest parts of LA are dense because immigrants are stuffing into buildings. The areas aren't dense because of structural density.
And even these areas aren't remotely as dense as places in NYC.
Density isn't just a blind stat. There's a difference between an area that's dense because some 50's era garden apartment complex has 4 generations of families stuffed into each apartment, and another area that's dense because of wall-to-wall rowhouses, with no setbacks, mostly occupied by individual families. Scenario A might give you higher density, but will not necessarily result in a more urban or transit oriented environment.
The lack of affordable housing in LA for immigrants doesn't mean that they're simply packing in all the buildings and skewing the stats. There are tons of apartments and homes in these areas. The traffic is huge because many cannot afford a car and use public transit.
I get what you mean by structural density but these people aren't just living in invisible places, they're living in areas largely developed with low income housing. The point is that these areas are developed and do not look suburban in the slightest. You keep thinking that urban density is somehow determined by how many row houses there are on one street or something.
But you cannot deny the development that's there no matter if its a Home Depot or a city project high rise stacked like Legos such as what you find in NYC.
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.
