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

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

But we don't really need to implement the Olmstead plan per se to have a greenbelt of LARGE parks. We have steep, unstable mountain and hills that ring the LA basin that are really best as, and have been turned into parks.

Do you never go to Griffith park, Runyon, Elysian, Debs Park, the foothills, Verdugo hills, Palos Verdes, Topanga, etc., etc.

Are people in LA just not aware of all these places? After all, it is the LA BASIN. Meaning its surrounded by wild hilsides that you can hike through and get a great view.

Don't people look on the horizon in any direction, and look at hills and mountains, and think I would like to check out that area??

Why can't we have both those hills as parks and reserve a greenbelt within the basin? I'm not seeing the argument you're making, though I'm sure it'd make sense for developers to argue that ("you already have all those greenspaces up there, you don't need anymore down here"). Why is having natural parks up there tantamount to not needing them down in the basin?

[SalParadise]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

But we don't really need to implement the Olmstead plan per se to have a greenbelt of LARGE parks. We have steep, unstable mountain and hills that ring the LA basin that are really best as, and have been turned into parks.

Do you never go to Griffith park, Runyon, Elysian, Debs Park, the foothills, Verdugo hills, Palos Verdes, Topanga, etc., etc.

Are people in LA just not aware of all these places? After all, it is the LA BASIN. Meaning its surrounded by wild hilsides that you can hike through and get a great view.

Don't people look on the horizon in any direction, and look at hills and mountains, and think I would like to check out that area??

I have to disagree. I think OyCrumbler nailed the issue very well. Accessible parks are key. Olmstead said Central Park served as the "lungs" of NYC, giving that city breathing room.

I grew up not too far from Topanga State Park. Beautiful park. Love it. But I live in the LA basin now and the lack of parks in the basin (where most people live their daily lives) is sadly lacking.

Total Park Area Within City Limits:
Los Angeles: 8%
NYC: 19.5%
San Fran.: 18%
[Source: Trust for Public Land, includes Topanga Park which is partially in LA city limits]

In the 1950's or 1960's one could argue LA was a city populated with many single-family homes so the lack of public parks was not an issue. That is not the case anymore.

The Trust for Public Land did a study on urban parks by city. The study shows the City of Los Angeles has 6.2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. That puts LA at about the median for high density cities (but much of our parkland is in the hills).

http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/ccpe-city-park-facts-2011.pdf

Just imagine the LA basin with several 500+ acre parks linked via bike paths. With our climate, it would be out of this world.

THat is why I think the LA River master plan has HUGE potential. More green space in the otherwise concrete jungle of the LA basin.

[1200RT]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

I certainly appreciate the real nature parks in LA, but it is mostly one type of park and aren't always very accessible (which makes sense since these parks were allowed to remain because they were hard to develop compared to all the flatlands). There is value in having parkland that is very easily nearby that one just walks to.

Actual forested parks aren't that uncommon in NYC--like in LA, they are a bit more out of the way. Manhattan has Inwood Hill Park in the Northeastern tip (this is the last remains of the original forest that you used to cover all of Manhattan) and there are a variety of large natural parks in the outer boroughs (which are definitely within city) especially in Queens. If you want to draw it out further (which makes sense if you want to make a comparison to LA county and not just LA the city), then NYC ends up with a lot more options since much of its suburbs are fairly tightly packed along commuter routes with a good deal of natural space reserved, especially along the Hudson and the shores of Long Island. There's actually a commuter rail stop that does weekend services where it drops you off basically in the middle of a trail with no platform/city to speak of--it's specifically for hiking the hills which is beautiful when it's blueberry season.

Meanwhile, manicured parks like Central Park and Prospect Park actually look pretty wild in many places (and have relatively little in simply grass lawns) by design since the whole point was to give the aesthetics of the wild deep inside the city.

Another thing to point to is that statistically, LA actually has far less parkland than NYC despite being a physically larger city. LA percentage-wise is actually very little parkland--development was pretty rampant in Los Angeles and there wasn't much to hold it in check.

Maybe what LA has is enough for some people, but I really think it can be much, much better. There are a couple of grand projects out there to create more parkspace that are really ambitious. I really want LA to go through with them, and I hope SGV and SFV follow suit.

Completely unfounded argument. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of national forrest surrounding la. Not to mention 200 miles of public beach. If you're having a hard time finding outdoor space, you're not looking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Why can't we have both those hills as parks and reserve a greenbelt within the basin? I'm not seeing the argument you're making, though I'm sure it'd make sense for developers to argue that ("you already have all those greenspaces up there, you don't need anymore down here"). Why is having natural parks up there tantamount to not needing them down in the basin?

I hear what you are saying.

Its just that I am fairly new to LA.

I am a total outdoorsy earth science/geology/nature nerd who reads field guides for fun, but still likes to be close to where there are plenty of elligible, gorgeous young ladies around, with lots of places to go on a date.

The idea that the two are not mututally exclusive and can be adjacent is still something that I am still very excited over.

I am a midwest transplants, grew up in the Chicago suburbs, where yes there was plenty of access to parks, fields, small wooded areas, but generally flat, with not much big wild areas that are geologically interesting.

So, I totally understand peoples issues no doubt.

[Senshi]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

According to walkscore.com, L.A. is the 13th most walkable city in the country.

Los Angeles Rentals, Apartments, and Neighborhoods on Walk Score

.

My apartment scores a 98 on the walk score.

I've been to Chicago and don't consider it any more urban than Los Angeles basin. The valley doesn't feel very urban, obviously, but the basin certainly does.

I think LA has two stereotypes. The 80s valley stereotype combined with the 90s gangsta riot stereotype. It's kind of fascinating.

[DynamoLA]

I have never felt far away from nature AT ALL in L.A.

[nslander]

Originally Posted by SalParadise

I have to disagree. I think OyCrumbler nailed the issue very well. Accessible parks are key. Olmstead said Central Park served as the "lungs" of NYC, giving that city breathing room.

I grew up not too far from Topanga State Park. Beautiful park. Love it. But I live in the LA basin now and the lack of parks in the basin (where most people live their daily lives) is sadly lacking.

Total Park Area Within City Limits:
Los Angeles: 8%
NYC: 19.5%
San Fran.: 18%
[Source: Trust for Public Land, includes Topanga Park which is partially in LA city limits]

In the 1950's or 1960's one could argue LA was a city populated with many single-family homes so the lack of public parks was not an issue. That is not the case anymore.

The Trust for Public Land did a study on urban parks by city. The study shows the City of Los Angeles has 6.2 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. That puts LA at about the median for high density cities (but much of our parkland is in the hills).

http://cloud.tpl.org/pubs/ccpe-city-park-facts-2011.pdf

Just imagine the LA basin with several 500+ acre parks linked via bike paths. With our climate, it would be out of this world.

THat is why I think the LA River master plan has HUGE potential. More green space in the otherwise concrete jungle of the LA basin.

I agree, but I think there is bit of disconnect between what adults think as access to "parkland", and what is readily available to kids (or just a place where adults can eat their lunch). The parkland contained in the Santa Monica Mountains alone is about 70,000 acres, which by itself exceeds all the total parkland of the individual cities reflected in that study, with the exception of Anchorage. Its simply mostly outside city limits. Also, park space within the city limits is another story, particularly in central Los Angeles. Because of this, yes, we need to un-pave the LA River. Undoing the Army Corps' work will be a long battle. I also wish the Cornfield site would show some progress.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by Senshi

My apartment scores a 98 on the walk score.

I've been to Chicago and don't consider it any more urban than Los Angeles basin. The valley doesn't feel very urban, obviously, but the basin certainly does.

I think LA has two stereotypes. The 80s valley stereotype combined with the 90s gangsta riot stereotype. It's kind of fascinating.

Throw in Baywatch and Realhousewives too.

[Razorblade]

With LA being mostly suburban and as large as it is it makes it unique to the world over not just the US for being a city of it's size and still being suburban. Not everyone wants to live and raise there kids in an urban large building that you have to buzz visitors up to thats loud.

Some people want the big city life but still want driveways and backyards. LA is for them and that's awesome. The best of both worlds. That combined with the weather is why LA is so ungodly expensive. You get what you pay for.

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by Razorblade

With LA being mostly suburban and as large as it is it makes it unique to the world over not just the US for being a city of it's size and still being suburban. Not everyone wants to live and raise there kids in an urban large building that you have to buzz visitors up to thats loud.

Some people want the big city life but still want driveways and backyards. LA is for them and that's awesome. The best of both worlds. That combined with the weather is why LA is so ungodly expensive. You get what you pay for.

Wish it was half and half. Not the majority being suburban.