L.A. equivalents to NY neighborhoods? (Los Angeles, Long Beach: 2014, university, centers)

[rzzz]

Originally Posted by botticelli

I don't know why you guys think NYC (Manhattan to be more precise) is unique... it is not at all. Other than its tremendously wealth, it is how many cities function - almost all highrise condos, mixed use buildings and neighbourhoods. Very high density, extensive use of subways and buses.

The typical a small downtown core/CBD with most residents living in suburban houses/low rise apartments lifestyle (such as Chicago, Boston, Seattle etc) is more rare than being common.

Visit Shanghai, Guangzhou or Shenzhen and tell me NYC is unique. Cities with very large population normally look like NYC (not necessarily as good as NYC).

I don't know why you think Manhattan is not unique... It's sort of similar to the Chinese cities you mention but they all popped up in the last 15 years and copied HK style development. Manhattan has the most buildings over 100m, beating out the next on the list by more than 200 buildings. The European cities you mentioned are way down on the tall building list, London is like 55 and Madrid is 93. Outside of Hong Kong, almost none of the world's "global cities" are wall to wall high rises like Manhattan is.

[grapico]

Originally Posted by botticelli

I don't know why you guys think NYC (Manhattan to be more precise) is unique... it is not at all. Other than its tremendously wealth, it is how many cities function - almost all highrise condos, mixed use buildings and neighbourhoods. Very high density, extensive use of subways and buses.

The typical a small downtown core/CBD with most residents living in suburban houses/low rise apartments lifestyle (such as Chicago, Boston, Seattle etc) is more rare than being common.

Visit Shanghai, Guangzhou or Shenzhen and tell me NYC is unique. Cities with very large population normally look like NYC (not necessarily as good as NYC).

Unique in the U.S. and your choice of cities verifies that. In terms of density, housing, etc. Boston, Chicago, SF and LA have more in common with each other than they do with NYC. NYC is a statistical outlier in the U.S. but globally, no not so much.

I would say NYC and LA are both unique in terms of cultural output and amenities, definitely the two top dogs.

[nei]

Originally Posted by drive carephilly

To go along with that I'd also say that Madrid and Paris (and Barcelona and Rome and Milan) are nothing like NYC either. Boston, Philly, DC and SF have a lot more in common with european cities (especially northern europe) than NYC does.
.

The big European cities are more similar to NYC, IMO, than anything else in the US. By transit usage, pedestrian volume, and for some (Paris and Barcelona), density. Not all of NYC is high rise, not even all of Manhattan, there's still lots of low rises left.

The complaints that LA is being held to "NYC standards is silly". You would get the same comments about its city feel if you compared it to London or Paris.

[grapico]

Correct...

You have lowrise areas like this in SoHo (8pm eastern) that is more similar to a street life in Paris/Barcelona and goes on like that for awhile
imgur: the simple image sharer
and highrise areas like this in Midtown (looking west from Bryant Park) that also go on like that for awhile
imgur: the simple image sharer

Also lots of lowrise old architecture being retrofitted for modern goods and even big box names w/o giant parking lots, such as the Home Depot on 23rd
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...e_Building.jpg

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by grapico

Again, that is only b/c NYC is given more land at the edges and going with the full official MSA which is arbitrary for all metros, in the core and extending out it's not close, and LA metro is actually 2nd if you go out to say 4,000 sq miles.

NY = 17,394,000 over 3,880 sq miles -4,480 ppsm
LA = 9,818,600 over 4,060 sq miles- 2,410 ppsm
Chicago - 8,670,300 over 3,840 sq miles - 2,250 ppsm

there might be some other #s...

Around 5,000 LA will have over 12 million and NYC will have over 20 million, obviously other metros aren't even in the game anymore at that point.

SF might run denser for awhile than LA, but not sure where LA eclipses it or Chicago.

According to Demographia, Los Angeles gets to 15.06 million in 2,400 sq miles or so (6200 ppsm). The density is still higher than New York's census-designated UA (18.5 million, 5400 ppsm), and Demographia's definition for NY is even less dense.

SF might run denser than LA for 10-15 sq miles. Chicago it little longer. From that point on, LA is more dense than either city by a clear margin.

List of urban areas by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the four main boroughs are consistentl more dense than most anywhere in LA, but outside of that LA is more dense.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by 54h4j645jj35

LOL huh? Thats almost a dis to Brooklyn.

A place like San Fernando Valley shouldn't even be mentioned with the likes of Brooklyn

Why is it a diss? Brooklyn is extremely working class outside of a few choice areas. It probably has fewer total jobs than the Valley despite a larger population. It loses people by day. The valley probably does not.

[grapico]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

According to Demographia, Los Angeles gets to 15.06 million in 2,400 sq miles or so (6200 ppsm). The density is still higher than New York's census-designated UA (18.5 million, 5400 ppsm), and Demographia's definition for NY is even less dense.

SF might run denser than LA for 10-15 sq miles. Chicago it little longer. From that point on, LA is more dense than either city by a clear margin.

List of urban areas by population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, the four main boroughs are consistentl more dense than most anywhere in LA, but outside of that LA is more dense.

Cool, I thought there was a different number for LA. Makes sense. The only slight to LA is it doesn't have the super tight walkable core but has plenty of interspersed walkable areas and tons of little "town square" "downtown areas" throughout the metro, other than that it competes very well, another 10 million more people than Bay Area and another 8 million more than Chicago, which is basically like 2 of them.

I still think NYC is on a tier above LA, but LA is certainly on it's own tier also, and both way above any other U.S. metro area.
SF Boston Chicago Philly DC are basically on the same tier.

[54h4j645jj35]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

Why is it a diss? Brooklyn is extremely working class outside of a few choice areas. It probably has fewer total jobs than the Valley despite a larger population. It loses people by day. The valley probably does not.

I don't think history and physically they can't compare.

You can say Brooklyn blows the valley away physically if you're talking about urbanity and like a Brooklynite celebrity who now lives here said the sexiness.

[AngusHsu]

Originally Posted by Laocoön

Somebody on this forum once posted an excellent guide of SF-NY neighborhood equivalents. Here are just a few examples:

New York ------ San Francisco

Midtown ------- Financial District
Marina --------- Murray Hill
East Village --- Haight-Ashbury
West Village -- Castro
Hayes Valley -- Chelsea

So, what are the L.A. analogues to NY neighborhoods?

New York ------ San Francisco

Midtown -------Financial District
Murray Hill -----Marina
East Village --- Haight-Ashbury
West Village -- Castro
Chelsea -------Castro
Boerum Hill ---- Hayes Valley


This is a bit more accurate as a SF resident.

[tcave360]

Originally Posted by drive carephilly

To go along with that i'd also say that madrid and paris (and barcelona and rome and milan) are nothing like nyc either. Boston, philly, dc and sf have a lot more in common with european cities (especially northern europe) than nyc does.

************************

i live in australia now and as much as australians hate the comparison - sydney, brisbane and perth have a very socal-ish pattern of development. Of course places like brisbane and perth are more comparable in size to san diego than to la. Inner melbourne is quite different and to me is more like a cross between sf and toronto.

I lived in philly for 13 years. I never owned a car and would have gone nuts if i had to walk more than 2 or 3 blocks to a grocery or more than 10 minutes to a proper supermarket. I now live in a suburban area in brisbane (australia not california) and i can still walk to a supermarket in 5 minutes. My years in south philly were far more convenient and convivial than my time in flatbush.

Cities around the world have different patterns and styles depending on the culture and era in which they were developed. The worth of a city isn't in how it compares to nyc.

+1