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.
In the case of LA, it's due to building codes, which are at least partly due to earthquakes. LA allows concrete/wood frame up to 7 stories and after that it's steel with all the other requirements. Because of the additional cost, we rarely see buildings between 8-20 stories.
Is that why LA's urban core is built so short for the most part? I didn't know that. Philadelphia looks similar and so does San Fran. I wonder why they aren't built taller? I think Philly is due to zoning for rowhouses.
Is that why LA's urban core is built so short for the most part? I didn't know that. Philadelphia looks similar and so does San Fran. I wonder why they aren't built taller? I think Philly is due to zoning for rowhouses.
I don't think so. Outside of DTLA most of LA's buildings are even shorter than that. 1-5 stories mostly. It's probably a combination of lots of reasons that I won't guess at them. I can say that most of our new stuff is 3-4 stories for small lots and 5-7 stores for bigger lots.
If you think Los Angeles is more urban than Philadelphia I have a bridge to sell you.
Get outta town...this is cockamamie nonsense
This is pretty good example of the overarching trend on these kinds of threads: The Los Angeles side is supported by verifiable facts, and the east coast legacy city argument goes something like the post I'm quoting here.
Boston has a FAA height restriction, yes. But it's not like Boston is building to the height limit (outside Seaport or Eastie).
The issue is NIMBYs. The FAA Height limit for Winthrop Center is 800ft. The proposal was 775'. It was smacked down to 702' and then 691' because of NIMBYs.
Most proposals get chopped down considerably in Boston. Not due to height. The best example is Edison Power plant. FAA limit is 305'. They proposed a few 200-250 footers with 2000+ units, offices and a food hall. Lol. Southie made that 600 units now.
Another one is Parcel 15. FAA Height limits there are 880'. The proposal was a twin tower set of 646' and a 501' buildings. After a few aneurysms from local adjacent neighbors in South Boston and Newton, the project was scaled back to one single 484' building. Then later to be cancelled.
Boston's issue is they don't maximize their land they have. They are just starting to do so.. but every single project has been slashed because NIMBYs. If Boston wanted a 800'+ tower, they'd have one in the Back Bay or West End. But they don't.
Another issue with Bostons urbanity is they build a crap ton but build no additional transit to supplement in the city limits. The fact there is no light rail through Seaport is a disgrace. Absolute travesty, especially with existing tracks in place. Like DC is building it from scratch... After NYC and Philadelphia, I think Boston is third in dismantling it's service on The Mbta. But yeah, DC builds lines from scratch... Boston has the infrastructure but lacks the motivation or smarts?! I don't really know but I expect more with Harvard, MIT, BU and Tufts in/around the city.
South of Boston has the Red Line and some crappy Fairmont Commuter Rail Line. No adequate transit routes for the Roxbury, Dorchester, Hyde Park, Roslindale and Mattapan neighborhoods. This is also a reason why growth is limited. The development teams in Boston are lazy and the BPDA is inadequate. The MBTA is absolute trash... When you have a trash transit team, a trash city planning department.. what do you expect. Just glad Massport offsets the ineptitude of the BPDA/MBTA
Last edited by masssachoicetts; 01-01-2021 at 07:22 PM..
This is pretty good example of the overarching trend on these kinds of threads: The Los Angeles side is supported by verifiable facts, and the east coast legacy city argument goes something like the post I'm quoting here.
I appreciate the use of data, but you're making the critical mistake of conflating population density with urbanity. They are related but they are not one and the same.
Measuring how "urban" a city is could involve everything from transit usage to parking minimums, etc.
Boston has a FAA height restriction, yes. But it's not like Boston is building to the height limit (outside Seaport or Eastie).
The issue is NIMBYs. The FAA Height limit for Winthrop Center is 800ft. The proposal was 775'. It was smacked down to 702' and then 691' because of NIMBYs.
Most proposals get chopped down considerably in Boston. Not due to height. The best example is Edison Power plant. FAA limit is 305'. They proposed a few 200-250 footers with 2000+ units, offices and a food hall. Lol. Southie made that 600 units now.
Another one is Parcel 15. FAA Height limits there are 880'. The proposal was a twin tower set of 646' and a 501' buildings. After a few aneurysms from local adjacent neighbors in South Boston and Newton, the project was scaled back to one single 484' building. Then later to be cancelled.
Boston's issue is they don't maximize their land they have. They are just starting to do so.. but every single project has been slashed because NIMBYs. If Boston wanted a 800'+ tower, they'd have one in the Back Bay or West End. But they don't.
Another issue with Bostons urbanity is they build a crap ton but build no additional transit to supplement in the city limits. The fact there is no light rail through Seaport is a disgrace. Absolute travesty, especially with existing lines. South of Boston has the Red Line and some crappy Fairmont Commuter Rail Line. No adequate transit routes for the Roxbury, Dorchester, Hyde Park, Roslindale and Mattapan neighborhoods. This is also a reason why growth is limited. The development teams in Boston are lazy and the BPDA is inadequate
But that's not how cities grow at the level I'm talking about. Cities grow through neighborhood 9-15 story development all over the city. The focus needs to shift. Build 9-15 story buildings across Mattapan, Roxbury, Telegraph Hill, City Point, Dorchester, etc., etc., etc.
I don't think so. Outside of DTLA most of LA's buildings are even shorter than that. 1-5 stories mostly. It's probably a combination of lots of reasons that I won't guess at them. I can say that most of our new stuff is 3-4 stories for small lots and 5-7 stores for bigger lots.
True, but is it a NIMBY issue? That's the part I bring up when discussing the urban cores of other cities. I see where D.C. is headed compared to other cities. The footprint is so much larger because of neighborhood development intensity.
But that's not how cities grow at the level I'm talking about. Cities grow through neighborhood 9-15 story development all over the city. The focus needs to shift. Build 9-15 story buildings across Mattapan, Roxbury, Telegraph Hill, City Point, Dorchester, etc., etc., etc.
I was giving the most popular examples. However, 85-90%+ of projects over 4 stories in Boston are reduced. Project after Project we see in Boston... A 7 story residence gets reduced to 5 stories. A 800 9 story two building complex in Hyde Park was reduced to a 450 unit, 4 to 7 story building with ground level retail removed. Irs time after time, project after Project, proposal after proposal.
I appreciate the use of data, but you're making the critical mistake of conflating population density with urbanity. They are related but they are not one and the same.
Measuring how "urban" a city is could involve everything from transit usage to parking minimums, etc.
Which is why east coast cities win these polls based on nothing other than confirmation bias. At this point I wouldn't be surprised to see people start bringing up the fact that it doesn't get cold enough in Los Angeles to be truly urban.
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.
