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.
DUDE. Freddy. You live in LA. Stop judging other cities due to how "unwalkable" they are. You literally live in the city that is the poster face of car culture.
Right, and that poster isn't exactly accurate anymore. LA's core has been infilling and becoming denser at a very fast clip. It's been over a couple decades in coming. Try going to downtown LA and some of the neighborhoods adjacent to it or reachable via subway. The city has gotten much more built out.
Densities by City Propers in excess of 20,000 people per square mile:
- New York: 8,133,721
- London: 3,345,638
- Los Angeles: 1,957,346
- Chicago: 1,120,257
- Toronto: 993,659
- Montreal: 803,131
- San Francisco-Oakland: 746,826
- Philadelphia: 743,549
- Boston: 559,756
- Washington DC: 318,232
- Vancouver: 295,282
- Miami: 272,074
- Honolulu: 145,363
- San Diego: 99,539
- Baltimore: 77,946
- Seattle: 58,192
Densities by City Propers in excess of 30,000 people per square mile:
- New York: 6,638,237
- London: 1,632,807
- Los Angeles: 582,817
- Toronto: 404,272
- Chicago: 380,879
- Montreal: 376,068
- San Francisco-Oakland: 328,494
- Philadelphia: 237,754
- Boston: 213,268
- Vancouver: 145,090
- Washington DC: 146,061
- Miami: 92,969
- Honolulu: 90,672
- San Diego: 20,907
- Seattle: 19,134
- Baltimore: 15,506
Densities by City Propers in excess of 50,000 people per square mile:
- New York: 4,537,104
- London: 302,260
- Toronto: 173,254
- Los Angeles: 105,717
- San Francisco-Oakland: 93,803
- Chicago: 89,369
- Boston: 56,569
- Vancouver: 50,421
- Montreal: 36,338
- Honolulu: 31,009
- Philadelphia: 29,908
- Washington DC: 26,379
- Miami: 19,316
- Baltimore: 5,237
- Seattle: 4,921
- San Diego: 4,921
All credit goes to Memph for compiling all of the density data.
This is great info, however it's 2010. In 2016 (or 2015 based on historic estimates), some tracts have ratcheted up in some cities more than others. Seattle would still be lower than many, but it would be much higher than this, because census tracts would be in higher categories in addition to growing incrementally.
I'm not sure I agree with this just from visiting both. What backs up this claim?
I already asked him this, his response was that Seattle has more office space/development, which it does, but how that equates to peak urbanity, I'm not sure Considering LA has much higher density as well as higher structural density, combined with better and more utilized PT in the core I doubt his claim has much weight.
I think you should post some stats showing what you're calling downtown for each because DTLA certainly seems far more developed and busy than downtown Seattle.
Nobody has parallel stats. Some fanboy type people use brokerage stats for offices and sometimes other categories. But they rarely know what geographies are being used, or what space isn't counted.
But if you think DTLA is on the same level as a retail market...where is it? I was in Macy's in April and wandered around the Fashion District, which is still pretty slummy despite scattered improvements, but there's no real "retail district".
Nobody has parallel stats. Some fanboy type people use brokerage stats for offices and sometimes other categories. But they rarely know what geographies are being used, or what space isn't counted.
But if you think DTLA is on the same level as a retail market...where is it? I was in Macy's in April and wandered around the Fashion District, which is still pretty slummy despite scattered improvements, but there's no real "retail district".
So you're basically saying that LA's core isn't as high end and desirable as Seattle's? I completely agree, however we're not debating that, when it comes to which one is more urban, at least to me it's LA's core by a good margin.
Nobody has parallel stats. Some fanboy type people use brokerage stats for offices and sometimes other categories. But they rarely know what geographies are being used, or what space isn't counted.
But if you think DTLA is on the same level as a retail market...where is it? I was in Macy's in April and wandered around the Fashion District, which is still pretty slummy despite scattered improvements, but there's no real "retail district".
The Fashion District is a very different thing that a standard retail district as it's more of a unique wholesaler / independent outlet kind of place. You go there for good deals or possibly to buy some raw materials for something you're looking to make. I can see why you're so confused about downtown LA if you came in expecting the Fashion District to be a standard retail area, but it's not and doesn't need to be in order for downtown LA to be more urban. In terms of retail in downtown, there are various parts such as on 7th Street (Macy's getting a makeover, but other stretches of it outside there are a bit nicer) and Little Tokyo that are nicer, but it's not like it's going to be expensive luxury chains and mega shopping centers.
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.
Considering LA has much higher density as well as higher structural density, combined with better and more utilized PT in the core I doubt his claim has much weight.
