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.
Beverly Hills is technically not a district of Los Angeles but its basically surrounded by it, anyhow which of the 2 gives off a more classic/urban experience at street level? Photos are very welcomed, even aerials.
Beverly Hills no question. It's on a grid, medium density with storefronts and mid rise office buildings. BH is probably a lot more urban than people would assume from watching TV ( as the mansion district north of Sunset is usually what is shown).
Beverly Hills no question. It's on a grid, medium density with storefronts and mid rise office buildings. BH is probably a lot more urban than people would assume from watching TV ( as the mansion district north of Sunset is usually what is shown).
Yeah, I was really surprised by how urban Beverly Hills was when we got away from the mansions.
More visible sidewalks (and yes, they were wide), more structurally dense around the parts near BV City Hall (gorgeous building), Rodeo Drive, and Wilshire Blvd (you'll find even more businesses there and a large cluster of apartment buildings near Wilshire as well), and there was a significant amount of foot traffic. Basically, the main urban part of BV is south of Santa Monica Blvd, which is a significant portion of the City of Beverly Hills. Its density levels is also much bigger than Buckhead's too (5973.1ppsm vs. 280ppsm).
The one person who voted for Buckhead should get the "homer of the month" award.
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.