U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-18-2015, 10:37 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,101,497 times
Reputation: 3979

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian View Post
Well, not only that but Los Angeles annexed a large portion of its metropolitan area. Detroit by comparison remained a smaller city within it's overall metro area. Growth in the outer areas in either city could have very well masked whatever declines were present even when the overall population of the city was growing. I know for Detroit, the downtown area started to fall apart after the Great Depression.
Good point - helps when people fleeing the inner city still wind up in city limits. Though now you are seeing some of those areas in the SFV urbanize and/or decline.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-18-2015, 11:52 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,671,265 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian View Post
Los Angeles overall seems more low-rise regardless of actual density.

http://www.paulerik.com/wp-content/u...5/IMG_0646.jpg

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs70/i/20...la-d35jvjl.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/6rZJvZA.jpg

[bAnother thing is that in most large cities, the streets and roads are typically narrow and thin, giving the sense of more density. Los Angeles on the other hand has wide streets and even a lot of open space in the form of parking lots or green space.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3mLsROmxE0...0/DSC02418.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...os_Angeles.jpg

Basically, any neighborhood where sunlight can reach the street and there's grass and a front yard is considered suburban. Most urban environments aren't typically noted for open space and room to breathe.
Funny, the sun hits the streets of London and San Francisco quite easily. Sure you don't want to rethink this criteria?

There are far better density shots of Los Angeles, for example:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-18-2015, 11:59 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,671,265 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by StreetLegal View Post
The central core of LA is as dense as San Francisco (17,000 residents per square mile). By central core I mean a 47 square mile area which is the same size as San Francisco. Roughly bounded by Fairfax (west), Downtown LA/LA River (east), Hollywood (north) and West Adams/10 Freeway (south).

Finding Los Angeles's Dense, Urban, Transit-Riding Core - Los Angeles Things - Curbed LA

And most of these parts of Los Angeles are very walkable..
Next time, if someone wants to argue that some of these smaller cities are more "big city" than Los Angeles, post this:

Popular living in census tracts of 20,000 ppsm or more:

New York: 8,133,721
London: 3,345,638
Los Angeles: 1,957,346
Chicago: 1,120,257
Toronto: 993,659
Montreal: 803,131
SF-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

Say what you want about ths LA urban form, any argument that it's not a real city is idiotic. We're talking about one of only a handful of first world megacities, people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2015, 12:36 AM
 
Location: Dallas
282 posts, read 274,934 times
Reputation: 285
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Next time, if someone wants to argue that some of these smaller cities are more "big city" than Los Angeles, post this:

Popular living in census tracts of 20,000 ppsm or more:

New York: 8,133,721
London: 3,345,638
Los Angeles: 1,957,346
Chicago: 1,120,257
Toronto: 993,659
Montreal: 803,131
SF-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

Say what you want about ths LA urban form, any argument that it's not a real city is idiotic. We're talking about one of only a handful of first world megacities, people.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2015, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Michigan
4,571 posts, read 7,029,475 times
Reputation: 3599
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Funny, the sun hits the streets of London and San Francisco quite easily. Sure you don't want to rethink this criteria?

There are far better density shots of Los Angeles, for example:
You've completely missed the point of that statement.

Even in the picture you've posted, there's quite a few noticeable parking lots. And then check out how wide this residential side street is. And it's not an outlier of streets within Los Angeles.

https://goo.gl/maps/7bxir

By comparison, streets in SF or London are usually more narrow with only a few major thoroughfares that are wide. Even if the buildings aren't as tall or there's not as much population density, it actually feels more dense and urban and even is probably a lot more pedestrian friendly and usually a lot less autocentric.

https://goo.gl/maps/7h7Q2

https://goo.gl/maps/JPH7F
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2015, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,101,497 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian View Post
You've completely missed the point of that statement.

Even in the picture you've posted, there's quite a few noticeable parking lots. And then check out how wide this residential side street is. And it's not an outlier of streets within Los Angeles.

https://goo.gl/maps/7bxir

By comparison, streets in SF or London are usually more narrow with only a few major thoroughfares that are wide. Even if the buildings aren't as tall or there's not as much population density, it actually feels more dense and urban and even is probably a lot more pedestrian friendly and usually a lot less autocentric.

https://goo.gl/maps/7h7Q2

https://goo.gl/maps/JPH7F
These things are true, but I am not sure it is enough to qualify Los Angeles as a big suburb or not urban.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2015, 09:16 AM
 
2,289 posts, read 1,293,708 times
Reputation: 1520
Perhaps LA could be described as semi-urban?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2015, 10:52 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,101,497 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tim Randal Walker View Post
Perhaps LA could be described as semi-urban?
Parts of it are urban (Central LA), parts of it are suburban (West Valley), and yes, parts of it are semi-urban (South LA/East Valley).

There is no way you could fit one descriptor on a place as culturally, developmentally, topographically varied as Los Angeles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2015, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
5,367 posts, read 12,972,569 times
Reputation: 5348
Quote:
Originally Posted by animatedmartian View Post
You've completely missed the point of that statement.

Even in the picture you've posted, there's quite a few noticeable parking lots. And then check out how wide this residential side street is. And it's not an outlier of streets within Los Angeles.

https://goo.gl/maps/7bxir

By comparison, streets in SF or London are usually more narrow with only a few major thoroughfares that are wide. Even if the buildings aren't as tall or there's not as much population density, it actually feels more dense and urban and even is probably a lot more pedestrian friendly and usually a lot less autocentric.

https://goo.gl/maps/7h7Q2

https://goo.gl/maps/JPH7F
Dense yes, but pedestrian friendly or walkable? The London pic doesn't even have sidewalks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2015, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Michigan
4,571 posts, read 7,029,475 times
Reputation: 3599
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1 View Post
Dense yes, but pedestrian friendly or walkable? The London pic doesn't even have sidewalks.
There are very clearly sidewalks. Not that it's really a big deal for that street since it seems like a street with shared space. In many cases, once a road is narrow enough and traffic is low and has to travel at low speed, there's very little need for sidewalks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top