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, the Disneyland reference is pretty telling. D-town, I think you've never visited LA, let alone walked in its neighborhoods.
And yes, you could walk from Hollywood to downtown LA if you wanted to. I usually took the metro because it was faster, but there are sidewalks (and dense urban neighborhoods filled with people and stores) the entire way.
LA Metro: 12,875,587 (and that doesn't even include the 4 million in the Inland Empire)
NYC Metro:18,815,988
You do the math there
Quote:
Sorry the per capita is not based on a metro Area but on selected urban areas which is different. Thus sections of freeways in LA like the grape vine arent accounted for since it does not fit into an urbanized area - the study is comparing urbanized areas and you apparently didnt get this which is evident by asking if i knew people didnt live near the grape vine. Yes, this was part of my point. There are many areas in LA with freeways etc that do not exists near an urban area whereas this is much less so in NYC. Thus the urbanized areas per capita comparision is misleading when comparing NYC to LA.
Why would they include that stretch of freeway anyways when its over 60 miles north of LA in an unpopulated area? It's not counted b/c its NOT part of the metro area. You're not making any sense here; you're taking a freeway in an area that is not part of the LA metro area then saying the data is wrong for not including it in the metro.
And the "urbanized" area is the METRO area. Look up the census definitions of that b/c that is what they're using. Or look at Net Land area they are using and you'll see that it encompasses nearly 2,000 square miles of the LA region.
You really have no clue what you're talking/arguing about here and are trying to make excuses and come up with this BS scenarios b/c you don't like what the data shows. Get over it, you got a huge chip on your shoulder when it comes to LA and honestly I think you're just bitter than Denver ranked lower on that list.
Yeah, the Disneyland reference is pretty telling. D-town, I think you've never visited LA, let alone walked in its neighborhoods.
And yes, you could walk from Hollywood to downtown LA if you wanted to. I usually took the metro because it was faster, but there are sidewalks (and dense urban neighborhoods filled with people and stores) the entire way.
Honestly, how can you tell I have never been to LA? What makes a person assume this from an online discussion?
Really you can walk from Hollywood to downtown? How far is that? And why do you consider a walkable distance within regards to the norm?
Does it really matter? Why are people arguing when the criteria for this "study" are so suspect? All the cities have all these arbitrary reasons for being on the list: San Francisco was rated the most walkable city, just because there are 12 agencies devoted to "walking issues," whatever that entails. Philadelphia is on it because of long walk signals at intersections. Santa Ana is there because it has 3 hour walking tours of it's downtown. C'mon...that list is useless.
the previously mentioned Get Your Walk Score - A Walkability Score For Any Address is a much better gauge of walkability, that's actually based on real, consistent criteria (amount of amenities throughout the city, and their proximity to residents).
LA Metro: 12,875,587 (and that doesn't even include the 4 million in the Inland Empire)
NYC Metro:18,815,988
You do the math there
Why would they include that stretch of freeway anyways when its over 60 miles north of LA in an unpopulated area? It's not counted b/c its NOT part of the metro area. You're not making any sense here; you're taking a freeway in an area that is not part of the LA metro area then saying the data is wrong for not including it in the metro.
And the "urbanized" area is the METRO area. Look up the census definitions of that b/c that is what they're using. Or look at Net Land area they are using and you'll see that it encompasses nearly 2,000 square miles of the LA region.
You really have no clue what you're talking/arguing about here and are trying to make excuses and come up with this BS scenarios b/c you don't like what the data shows. Get over it, you got a huge chip on your shoulder when it comes to LA and honestly I think you're just bitter than Denver ranked lower on that list.
Not comparing metros but the exact population figure doesnt matter but rather the point that NYC has way more people than LA.
Sorry urbanized areas are not the same as metro areas. Wiki it I dont have the time to do the work for you.
Your next line of thought seems bitterly sophomoric and characterizes your misunderstandings of posting an urbanized study of LA and NYC. Again, LA is much less urban and have many freeways like the GRAPE VINE (and others!) that do not have surrounding urbanized areas. Thus the per capita ranking on the urbanized study between the two cities will be much more closely then if we compared overall cities. Please do not try to get caught up in specifics you know as well as I do that there are countless freeways besides the grape vine that are in the LA area or city or whatever area you are claiming.
LA is not that walkable of a city in the overall picture. Its full of freeways going in every direction and sprawls. Many of these freeways lead to the inland empire. NYC does not sprawl neither does SF nor do they have elaborate freeway systems like LA. To suggest otherwise is misleading.
Does it really matter? Why are people arguing when the criteria for this "study" are so suspect? All the cities have all these arbitrary reasons for being on the list: San Francisco was rated the most walkable city, just because there are 12 agencies devoted to "walking issues," whatever that entails. Philadelphia is on it because of long walk signals at intersections. Santa Ana is there because it has 3 hour walking tours of it's downtown. C'mon...that list is useless.
the previously mentioned Get Your Walk Score - A Walkability Score For Any Address is a much better gauge of walkability, that's actually based on real, consistent criteria (amount of amenities throughout the city, and their proximity to residents).
I absolutely argee with you. Its just too tough to claim an entire city is the most walkable. Sure some may be more walkable but this line is not so clear as are neighborhoods and urban cores.
Not comparing metros but the exact population figure doesnt matter but rather the point that NYC has way more people than LA.
Yeah that is b/c you are comparing a CITY's population to an entire METRO's population which are NOT comparable for obvious reasons.
Quote:
Your next line of thought seems bitterly sophomoric and characterizes your misunderstandings of posting an urbanized study of LA and NYC. Again, LA is much less urban and have many freeways like the GRAPE VINE (and others!) that do not have surrounding urbanized areas. Thus the per capita ranking on the urbanized study between the two cities will be much more closely then if we compared overall cities. Please do not try to get caught up in specifics you know as well as I do that there are countless freeways besides the grape vine that are in the LA area or city or whatever area you are claiming.
The grape vine is NOT in LA, much of that stretch of freeway is in Kern County. There is absolutely no reason to include the Grapevine in LA's urbanized area at all b/c its NOT urbanized and no one lives near there. Do you even know where the Grapevine is??
Quote:
LA is not that walkable of a city in the overall picture. Its full of freeways going in every direction and sprawls. Many of these freeways lead to the inland empire. NYC does not sprawl neither does SF nor do they have elaborate freeway systems like LA. To suggest otherwise is misleading.
NYC metro area is larger than the metro area and it does indeed sprawl just as much as LA does in the sense of how much land area it covers. It is the longest metro area in the US. And yes SF does sprawl too, drive from San Jose all the way to Santa Rosa, that is over 2 hours. Or drive from SF all the way to Tracy or Stockton then tell me it doesn't sprawl.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about and I've seen the same BS "logic/reasoning" you've tried to use before in other threads b/c you got something against LA. I've learned it doesn't matter what the facts or reality is of the situation b/c you'll just find a way to distort it so it fits your point of view. So I'm not even going to bother anymore, I knew I shouldn't have posted those stats b/c you'd manage to find some way to twist it around and try to dismiss the information, like you always do. So go ahead and believe whatever you tell yourself if it gets you through the day. Ignorance is bliss from what I hear.
Honestly, how can you tell I have never been to LA? What makes a person assume this from an online discussion?
Really you can walk from Hollywood to downtown? How far is that? And why do you consider a walkable distance within regards to the norm?
Because Disneyland is in Orange County . Then you go on to confine your metro population citation to LA city proper. At least be consistent. And if you have been to LA and can testify to its godawful lack of pedestrian flavor, prove it with anecdote, not pictures from Google Earth. Or come on out to LA. Maybe you'll actually enjoy yourself, and if not, well, that's cool too. I'm not defensive about facts, as LA has a long way to go. But these stereotypes of yours are so far behind the curve that expressing them doesn't benefit you at all.
Yeah that is b/c you are comparing a CITY's population to an entire METRO's population which are NOT comparable for obvious reasons.
The grape vine is NOT in LA, much of that stretch of freeway is in Kern County. There is absolutely no reason to include the Grapevine in LA's urbanized area at all b/c its NOT urbanized and no one lives near there. Do you even know where the Grapevine is??
NYC metro area is larger than the metro area and it does indeed sprawl just as much as LA does in the sense of how much land area it covers. It is the longest metro area in the US. And yes SF does sprawl too, drive from San Jose all the way to Santa Rosa, that is over 2 hours. Or drive from SF all the way to Tracy or Stockton then tell me it doesn't sprawl.
You don't have a clue what you're talking about and I've seen the same BS "logic/reasoning" you've tried to use before in other threads b/c you got something against LA. I've learned it doesn't matter what the facts or reality is of the situation b/c you'll just find a way to distort it so it fits your point of view. So I'm not even going to bother anymore, I knew I shouldn't have posted those stats b/c you'd manage to find some way to twist it around and try to dismiss the information, like you always do. So go ahead and believe whatever you tell yourself if it gets you through the day. Ignorance is bliss from what I hear.
Omg SF sprawls? You just lost crediblity there. Your obviously trying to include the whole SF bay area which is silly and inconsistent with claiming I am the one that is mixing metros or now CSA's with cities.
The bottom line is what you posted does not support your position that LA isnt blighted by freeways and a car culture. Urbanized areas differ from metros or cities and you seem to not comprehend this. LA is what it is and nothing more. This hasn't anything to do with my dislike of LA. If we were talking about beaches, weather or fine dinning then LA certainly wins hands down. But walkability? C'mon that's just boosterism at its best.
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.
. Then you go on to confine your metro population citation to LA city proper. At least be consistent. And if you have been to LA and can testify to its godawful lack of pedestrian flavor, prove it with anecdote, not pictures from Google Earth. Or come on out to LA. Maybe you'll actually enjoy yourself, and if not, well, that's cool too. I'm not defensive about facts, as LA has a long way to go. But these stereotypes of yours are so far behind the curve that expressing them doesn't benefit you at all.
