How do you feel knowing L.A. lacks the true urban feel of Chicago and NYC? (Los Angeles: live, vs)

[MIKEETC]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

People have some major misconceptions about LA compared to other major cities.

To many there is a definition of many both here on this board as in real life about the concept of "urban" that is really limited. And "urban" in the minds of many hard core "urbanophiles" suggests that enjoying nature and the outdoors is for hicks.

There are people who think that living somewhere where there is any patch of grass or trees around the apartment buildings you live in makes you less urban, or that enjoying a park that is made of a wild natural landscape (Griffith Park) versus a completely artificially landscaped park (Central Park or Grant Park).

People having access to real nature is super important. To think that Chicagoans actually talk like Lake Michigan is an inland sea is sad. The Great Lakes never had much aquatic life that couldn't be found in a small pond. And being enclosed ecosystems that were basically dumping grounds for industry. In LA you have biodiverse tidepools and migrating grey wales just a few miles from one of the most important ports in all of North America.

Truth is, there are major misconceptions about LA. Truth is, the flatlands of the actual Los Angeles basin, comprise a greater stretch/area of population density of over 10,000 people/square mile than just about anywhere else. (Greater area than Chicago, and New York is broken up into islands). 10,000people/sq mi is my cut off. And some areas like Koreatown, while certainly not as dense as the densest areas of Chicago or New York) is still over 30,000 people/square mile. And LA is able to accomplish this density.

Downtown Chicago maybe more urban than downtown LA, but people in LA County live in a more "urban" environment than people who "claim" to be from Chicago. Because the actual populated parts of LA County (LA basin like I said is basically the biggest continuous stretch of pop. over 10,000 people/square mile. San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys are more suburban, but even those are more dense suburban and some of the most culturally/ethnically diverse areas in the country. (between 6,000 and 10,000 people/sq mi). Only 15 miles from downtown you have suburbs (I'm talking middle class areas, NOT rich) that are under 2,000 pp/sq mi. (all single family homes on half acre lots).

The reason why LA pulls off density without lookin as urban, is because its business districts are much more scattered, with mini skylines scattered all over the metro area, and composed almost entirely of more modern office buildings. In older more historic cities, those beautiful art deco skyscrapers often have very high vacancy. The LA basin became more urban/dense in the 80s, when you started having apartment buildings being built like crazy. Infill areas, because there was no more room to build. There are apartments everywhere and everyone rents. But because they are new and include landscaping, they are not like the rowhouses of back east, where they come right up to the sidewalk. Plus in LA, many homeowners have resorted to renting out rooms from their houses on their tiny lots, and in some cases even garages have been converted.

To me urban, means densely populated, regardless of whether it looks urban. It also includes a very cosmopolitan population with transplants from everywhere. And having some of the largest population of immigrants from Latin American, Asia, and the Middle East as well as being a heavyweight in an economic sense, like having one of Americas largest port, and being the entertainment capital, as well as one of Americas premier manufacturing center, in addition to having a significant (althoug not the largest) financial and technology industry. On top of that all its colleges/universities, and endless number of museums in LA county.

I really don't give a carp about what a city is supposed to look like. LA does its own thing, and doesn't care if people already have a preconceived notion of that. Because it doesn't need to. LA is not perfect, and does have some issues, but it has every reason to be self-confident.

Agreed.

[well stated]

[taydigga]

Originally Posted by Jester2138

Sure, Central Park is pretty controlled (one of its merits, IMO). On the other hand, I can hop on a train and in hour (maybe a little more depending on where I'm going) be in the middle of nowhere with some of the best (some say the best) hiking and nature parks in the country - especially along the Hudson river. I simply don't agree with you that New York lacks nearby natural areas.

Meanwhile, commuting within the city rarely takes more than 30-45 minutes, while in my time in LA I found that no matter where I wanted to go it would almost certainly take at least 45 minutes. I cannot express how much I hate LA traffic.

All that said, if I were settling down I would not live in any of the three - LA, Chicago, or NYC. Unless I was crazy loaded, in which case I'd live in NYC.

That's funny it usually takes me 20 in LA and that's the actual saying here, "everywhere takes 20 minutes..." (Clueless coined it I think). Anyhow, I wonder where you live to have 45 min drives everywhere and I also wonder if you're trying to take the freeway everywhere? Not necessary.

[git45]

This is the one thing I have really missed living in LA. A lot of it feels like subtropical Queens, which is cool, but I confess that urban density stats aren't things I think of when walking through the city. LA is an archipelago of neighborhoods, so its heterogenous nature makes it unable to be suitably compared to cities with a definitive core like NYC and CHI.

[pwright1]

LA doesn't look like a typical east coast city but imo it's pretty dense. I honestly don't get why people on CD continuously label it suburban sprawl when in actualilty it looks and feels nothing like that.

[quixotic59]

Originally Posted by Jester2138

Sure, Central Park is pretty controlled (one of its merits, IMO). On the other hand, I can hop on a train and in hour (maybe a little more depending on where I'm going) be in the middle of nowhere with some of the best (some say the best) hiking and nature parks in the country - especially along the Hudson river. I simply don't agree with you that New York lacks nearby natural areas.

Meanwhile, commuting within the city rarely takes more than 30-45 minutes, while in my time in LA I found that no matter where I wanted to go it would almost certainly take at least 45 minutes. I cannot express how much I hate LA traffic.

All that said, if I were settling down I would not live in any of the three - LA, Chicago, or NYC. Unless I was crazy loaded, in which case I'd live in NYC.

Oh please, Central Park is tiny, not "controlled" Dwarfed by Griffith Park. NYC parks are a concession by land developers to keep people off their backs as they develop every square inch of land in sight.
The options for natural areas around NYC pretty much means the Catskills. California has numerous oprions depending on how long you want to drive. There is NO comparison. Even Mount Charleston outside of Las Vegas is more interesting than the Catskills. The other important difference is how much there is available around LA for FREE. That is rare in the NY metro area.

[PA Born]

Originally Posted by quixotic59

OhThe options for natural areas around NYC pretty much means the Catskills. California has numerous oprions depending on how long you want to drive. There is NO comparison.

That isn't really true at all. When I lived in NYC, we would go hiking or climbing to the Adirondacks, the Gunks, the Poconos, and the Berkshires. There's great scenery and hiking in basically every direction north and west of the city. The Hudson Valley, in particular, is spectacular.

NYC is kinda different from most Eastern cities in that there's some spectacular scenery in close proximity. We used to bike right over the GW Bridge from Manhattan and you would be in complete wilderness (the Palisades). The Rockefellers protected vast tracts right in view of Manhattan, so it's an easy escape.

I now live in Corona del Mar, which also has amazing scenery in proximity, but not really better than NYC. It's just different. I love the weather, the coast, and the general vibe, but I don't think we have a big advantage. Now maybe the Bay Area has an advantage, in that they have ridiculous scenery in close proximity, but the inland parts of SoCal are kinda meh.

Now obviously if you live somewhere like Chicago, Detroit, Dallas, etc., there isn't much beautiful scenery in close proximity. Places like Indiana and Ohio generally suck for scenery (yes, there are exceptions).

[hipcat]

LA was designed as an antithesis and alternative to the dense East Coast cities in the early 1900s. It was built as a "City of homes" that just got so big that the basin ran out of space, and built upward. If you like dense central districts, then don't move here expecting a NYC or Chi type experience.

There is plenty of green space in metro LA. Not only with the mountain s north of the city limits. But there's green space near Baldwin. Hills and a swamp near LMU.

[hipcat]

Originally Posted by hipcat

LA was designed as an antithesis and alternative to the dense East Coast cities in the early 1900s. It was built as a "City of homes" that just got so big that the basin ran out of space, and built upward. If you like dense central districts, then don't move here expecting a NYC or Chi type experience.

There is plenty of green space in metro LA. Not only with the mountain s north of the city limits. But there's green space near Baldwin. Hills and a swamp near LMU.

To add on to it. These are "green areas" of LA County that are near or inside of the city limits, if you want to see nature.

Rustic Canyon Park
los angeles, ca - Google Maps

Topanga Canyon Blvd
los angeles, ca - Google Maps

Playa Vista
los angeles, ca - Google Maps

Baldwin Hills
los angeles, ca - Google Maps

Griffith Park
los angeles, ca - Google Maps

Near Malibu
los angeles, ca - Google Maps

Rolling Hills
los angeles, ca - Google Maps

[Spikett]

I fail to understand the basis of this entire debate. LA is not NY or Chicago. It was never supposed to be. It's completely different as has been discussed. To my knowledge no one is claiming LA is trying to emulate NY or Chi - or any place else. Each city is unique and that's a good thing. Who wants all cities to be cookie-cutter? If you prefer a dense, vertical city that's your choice (and vice versa). If you miss NY or Chi or wherever you're from and feel some weird need to bash LA to feel better, I don't know what to tell you.

[JohnSoCal]

Originally Posted by Spikett

I fail to understand the basis of this entire debate. LA is not NY or Chicago. It was never supposed to be. It's completely different as has been discussed. To my knowledge no one is claiming LA is trying to emulate NY or Chi - or any place else. Each city is unique and that's a good thing. Who wants all cities to be cookie-cutter? If you prefer a dense, vertical city that's your choice (and vice versa). If you miss NY or Chi or wherever you're from and feel some weird need to bash LA to feel better, I don't know what to tell you.

I agree 100%. There is no comparison between NYC and LA. They are both unique in their own way. We love visiting NYC which we do every summer for a couple weeks staying in mid-Manhattan. It is a great city. NYC has just about everything all centrally located that can be easily reached by walking or public transportation. On the other hand LA is very spread out and diverse without a strong downtown core. There are many great attractions in the LA Metro area. To say that one is better than the other is absurd as they both have good points and bad and it is just a matter of personal preference.