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.
Yes it's a stretch. They found one area in central LA that is equivalent in density over a similar area, and it's a "stretch" to cherry pick some gerrymandered zone that is anything outside of the margin of error of density measurements.
It's no more gerrymandered than San Francisco's city limits.
Quote:
If you want to get into weighted average density, that portion of Central LA won't compete with San Francisco, which has 20% of its area covered by parkland, and another large component covered by uninhabited hilltops and uninhabited industrial areas (the weighted average density goes from 18K ppsm average to well over 30K weighted average).
Central LA includes several industrial districts and parkland as well. The weighted density is also in the 30k range.
Quote:
Factor in that in that Central area of LA, it is still autocentric in that nearly everyone owns and gets around by car and the built environment accomodates that, then you don't really have an area that is quite apples to apples when SF is much more comparable to Boston, DC, Philly, Chicago from a transit/pedestrian/connectivity perspective and LA is much more equivalent to a Miami.
True, Los Angeles is more auto-centric, but all of those cores are closer to LA in density and car-centrisim than they are to the city they desperately wish to be, NYC.
Quote:
Nobody in their right mind would feel like Central LA felt/functioned like SF, Boston, Philly, or Chicago, or DC, or Seattle, frankly. But nobody would deny that LA feels considerably larger than all or most of those cities.
I don't see how it functions differently, the difference is in feel (which is overstated anyway).
Quote:
And yes, Charleston is a tiny little town. But it's compact and walkable, and far more urban for its size/scope (and perhaps in general), than LA
To paraphrase from Bert Sugar, p4p arguments work great in boxing magazines, not in actual fights.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 06-16-2015 at 03:59 PM..
So do you have any arguments other than your density argument? Most of us can agree that Los Angeles is dense, but how do other things such as the built environment, transit use and pedestrian intensity impact your assessment of urbanity?
Or is it fair to say that Los Angeles is more urban than a city like DC? But if you value car-free living, then DC is a much better choice?
It depends on the situation, but generally yes DC is better for car-free living.
I think LA is more urban because as an aggregate it has a lot more urban places throughout the metro, despite having sub-optimal pedestrian conditions and lower ridership figures. But I won't deny that comparing a DC-sized portion of LA's core to DC, the latter is the more urban (though I think the outer areas of DC proper are less urban than most of Central Los Angeles.)
How many people would agree with that assessment using the eyeball test? Zero. London is actually far more dense, but its official boundaries cover a huge expanse (600 sq miles!). That's the only reason why it's officially less dense than San Francisco.
No, London actually is not far more dense unless by "London" you actually mean only a part of London, and by "SF" you mean all of SF.
London is actually an interesting case because it's comprised of 32 separately-governed boroughs. The Borough of Westminster (density 26k psm) is no more "London" than the Borough of Richmond upon Thames (density 8,500 psm). It may be in people's perception of London (just like when many people think of NY they only think of Manhattan) but it is not in reality. So when you say that London "is actually far more dense" than SF, you are arguing with facts, not with me.
It depends on the situation, but generally yes DC is better for car-free living.
I think LA is more urban because as an aggregate it has a lot more urban places throughout the metro, despite having sub-optimal pedestrian conditions and lower ridership figures. But I won't deny that comparing a DC-sized portion of LA's core to DC, the latter is the more urban (though I think the outer areas of DC proper are less urban than most of Central Los Angeles.)
I don't think the "more urban" arguments make much sense honestly. First, there's no consensus on what "urban" means. We don't know how to weigh the factors that most generally agree go into determining urbanity: density, transit use, built environment, etc. A lot of the factors that go into this determination aren't even quantifiable (i.e., built environment). Second, I'm not sure what being "more urban" gets you at the end of the day.
But...there is a HUGE lifestyle difference between DC and Central LA. This much is undeniable notwithstanding any arguments about density, urbanity, etc. You can say "it depends on the situation" but I suppose you could say that about Houston too. DC has a 40% transit share compared to Central LA's 18%. It's not only that your lifestyle will be different, but that the city around you will function very differently.
No, London actually is not far more dense unless by "London" you actually mean only a part of London, and by "SF" you mean all of SF.
London is actually an interesting case because it's comprised of 32 separately-governed boroughs. The Borough of Westminster (density 26k psm) is no more "London" than the Borough of Richmond upon Thames (density 8,500 psm). It may be in people's perception of London (just like when many people think of NY they only think of Manhattan) but it is not in reality. So when you say that London "is actually far more dense" than SF, you are arguing with facts, not with me.
^^^But Inner London does have a contiguous area of 3.2 million people in 123 sq mi, which is roughly 26,000 ppsm. It's not quite as a dense as Brooklyn + Queens, but it is larger and noticeably denser than SF.
LA is simply not comparable, though overall it is a much larger (and much more spread out) city.
I think the map actually drives home the point about how LA is different from SF, Chicago, etc. In SF the residential density is clustered in the NE quadrant which purposely surrounds the downtown core with tons of shopping, hotels, office space, etc. SF/Bos aren't consistently dense or vibrant. But, their central cores are. Nobody gets excited about outlying neighborhoods Glen Park (SF) or Hyde Park (BoS). They get excited about inner-neighbroohds like North Beach, South End, Hayes Valley, Mission, DTX, Fenway, etc.
NYC, CHI, SF, PHILLY, BOS, DC and SEA all follow roughly similar patterns: large mixed-use (office/hotel/retail/theater/nightlife/restaurants/tourist attraction) cores surrounded by the densest residential neighborhoods which then give way to lower density neighborhoods in the outer-neighborhoods. People who live near the core, not only live in high density neighborhoods, but they also have quick access to the primary economic and social hubs of their regions. In a way, residents of the inner-core get to piggy back off the activity of their entire region.
That isn't true in LA. While it may have a similar pop density at X miles, it isn't clustered around the core. DTLA isn't the economic and social anchor downtowns are in the more traditional cities. Stuff is all over the place. There is no 10 sq mile central core of LA that is going to compete with the all-in density (live, work, play) of inner-SF, CHI, PHILLY, BOS, etc.
The cool thing is that DTLA is starting to grow into more of a center of the region. It will never really be the center of gravity like those other metro's downtown areas are, but it is returning to its place as the largest and most important hub of the area.
Like you said, inner neighborhoods like Westlake, Boyle Heights, Chinatown and University Park are not nearly as desirable as other cities' first-ring neighborhoods - though they are dense, so I guess I disagree that density is not clustered around the core, it's just undesirable neighborhoods.
The more desirable urban neighborhoods form sort of a half-donut around the core from the west to the north to the east (Culver City, Westwood, Beverly Hills, Fairfax/Mid City West, Miracle Mile, Koreatown, Hollywood/West Hollywood, Los Feliz, Silver Lake, Echo Park, Glendale, Highland Park/Eagle Rock, Studio City, Pasadena) and are usually in the 3-10 mile ring.
Except for a few square miles, I didn't find DC particularly dense. It is obviously very centralized, and the centralized area is pedestrian-oriented, affluent and very white-collar. Many of the outlying areas outside of the city center are accessible by metro. Obviously DC has bad areas, but as a visitor I didn't notice them. It felt very clean, very non-gritty despite being busy.
I don't think the "more urban" arguments make much sense honestly. First, there's no consensus on what "urban" means. We don't know how to weigh the factors that most generally agree go into determining urbanity: density, transit use, built environment, etc. A lot of the factors that go into this determination aren't even quantifiable (i.e., built environment). Second, I'm not sure what being "more urban" gets you at the end of the day.
But...there is a HUGE lifestyle difference between DC and Central LA. This much is undeniable notwithstanding any arguments about density, urbanity, etc. You can say "it depends on the situation" but I suppose you could say that about Houston too. DC has a 40% transit share compared to Central LA's 18%. It's not only that your lifestyle will be different, but that the city around you will function very differently.
My sentiments and points exactly. Density is but one factor, and often a less important factor at that. And with density, you have multiple meanings: residential, structural, commercial, etc etc
I don't think the "more urban" arguments make much sense honestly. First, there's no consensus on what "urban" means. We don't know how to weigh the factors that most generally agree go into determining urbanity: density, transit use, built environment, etc. A lot of the factors that go into this determination aren't even quantifiable (i.e., built environment). Second, I'm not sure what being "more urban" gets you at the end of the day.
But...there is a HUGE lifestyle difference between DC and Central LA. This much is undeniable notwithstanding any arguments about density, urbanity, etc. You can say "it depends on the situation" but I suppose you could say that about Houston too. DC has a 40% transit share compared to Central LA's 18%. It's not only that your lifestyle will be different, but that the city around you will function very differently.
It is a pretty ambiguous term. And yeah, DC certainly functions differently than LA does.
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.
