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.
Yeah, Los Angeles' densest areas are actually quite dense over a very large area. I think people keep thinking that LA is 1950s suburban San Fernando Valley or something like that, when in reality LA is a massive urban area.
Only New York surpasses LA as far as the the sum of areas that are 10,000+ppsm.
I haven't responded to the comments about L.A. on here mainly because they haven't even been relevant. Please don't take offense to this, but you guys are talking about things that have NOTHING to do with URBAN DESIGN. Density is something that is calculated through survey's, it's not something you can see or design. The built environment is created by building structures which is what this thread is measuring. Now if you want to talk about density numbers and calculation's, then L.A. is way up there as a city and region.
LA is dense; no one is arguing that. In fact, LA is very roughly comparable to SF and Chicago in density over a good sized area. Even the SFV is quite dense.
But, again, it isn't just density, it's the quality of the urban form. The best urban neighborhoods in LA aren't the densest ones, and comparison of (say) LA and SF areas of similar density will reveal very different conditions of relative urbanity.
It would very difficult for me to believe that an urbanist would prefer Boyle Heights over Nob Hill, to take one example. It isn't just how many people you stuff per square mile, but how the built environment responds to the population density.
LA is dense; no one is arguing that. In fact, LA is very roughly comparable to SF and Chicago in density over a good sized area. Even the SFV is quite dense.
But, again, it isn't just density, it's the quality of the urban form. The best urban neighborhoods in LA aren't the densest ones, and comparison of (say) LA and SF areas of similar density will reveal very different conditions of relative urbanity.
It would very difficult for me to believe that an urbanist would prefer Boyle Heights over Nob Hill, to take one example. It isn't just how many people you stuff per square mile, but how the built environment responds to the population density.
True but nobody is holding Boyle Heights up as all that urban of a place, even in the context of Los Angeles. It has some decent density in the 20-30k ppsm range (Nob Hill is largely multifamily and in the 40-60k ppsm range). Boyle Heights is largely SFH and yes, this is a place that is inflated by larger household sizes (and I specifically mentioned the Eastside being one such place in LA). You are pretty obviously moving the goalposts.
Interestingly though, the commercial streets in Boyle Heights are quite pedestrian friendly.
Also the term "urbanist" is one of the most pretentious, obnoxious and yuppified terms in the world. If you call yourself that you need to get over yourself. Yes I think an "urbanist" would prefer Nob Hill over just about anywhere in Los Angeles - because it is basically nothing but a yuppy wasteland at this point.
By the way - anyone else HATE the new Google Maps?
Michvegas must have a thing against Latino immigrants or something cus he keeps attributing LAs strong density numbers and large pedestrian population in central and downtown.
Right, that's it; forget the facts, obviously anyone disagreeing with your claim that LA is as urban as Manhattan hates Latinos and immigrants...
There are more Latinos and immigrants in NYC than in LA, BTW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiolibre99
Apparently all that pedestrian traffic is due to some "ghetto" swap meet according to his last post. Also he calls the areas undesirable but mentions that SFs Chinatown is somehow way more desirable and is thus exempt from the same criticism.
Yes, you're right for once. The LA swap meets are ghetto, and do get a ton of traffic. There's a swap right at that intersection. And SF Chinatown is much better urbanity than MacArthur Park. Sorry, but it's the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by radiolibre99
He then claimed that Mexico City isn't urban enough!! Mexico freaking city? One of the major mega cities in this world and it's not urban enough?
I don't think you've been to DF. It isn't particularly dense, and doesn't have a large downtown. Most of the stuff is in the suburbs. That's all I wrote about DF.
That is an impressive city! DC does look like Paris from the air. Cool pic!
It doesn't feel anything like Paris at street level. Very wide streets, big, blocky office buildings, and very different type of streetlife. Not really close comparison, IMO.
It doesn't feel anything like Paris at street level. Very wide streets, big, blocky office buildings, and very different type of streetlife. Not really close comparison, IMO.
Ugh go back to Orange County. Do you get some sort of satisfaction out of being such a hater?
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.
