Does LA feel like the 2nd biggest city in America to you? (Los Angeles: homes, transfer to)

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

Not my fault if you guys don't know what a big city is or have never spent much time outside of LA. LA came of age in the 50's and was built around the car, and it's mostly not very walkable. Are you going to dispute any of that? Are you really going to insist that LA looks or feels the same as cities like SF/NYC/Chicago/Paris that came of age before cars became big?

Yes, Chicago has a lot of houses, but they aren't tract homes, they're old bungalows on small lots right up against each other.



Even SF has a lot of houses, but they're right up against one another too.



And by suburban apartments, I mean dingbat style buildings. There actually are some here and there in Chicago and SF, but they're pretty rare. LA was largely built up around when they became popular, so it has a ton of them.

Anyway, the question was whether LA feels like a city. To me it doesn't. That's my opinion. Yes LA is technically a city, but it just doesn't feel like an urban place to me outside of a portion of downtown LA. Since about the 50's pretty much all young American cities have been like this because they're built around cars--San Diego, San Jose, any "big" city in Florida. It's a style of city, and it's basically the default form of any new city around the world, but it's not urban to me. Again, that's my opinion.

Many of us that disagree with you have lived in these "urban" cities. Lived in Allston-Brighton and worked all over Boston - Cambridge, South End, Back Bay, Downtown, Coolidge Corner, Somerville. All this without a car. I know what a walkable place is and there are plenty in Los Angeles including the place I live now, Hollywood (significantly more walkable than Allston).

You are correct that there are lots of unwalkable parts of LA. I don't think they are the vast majority - maybe the majority.

[Carlite]

I the view that there's a "city" of Los Angeles--not the municipality, but the urban part--within the greater area of LA, which is predominantly suburban. The core of that city would be something like the area between the LA River on the east and La Cienega Blvd. on the west, the foot of the Hollywood Hills (north of Sunset Blvd. and Hollywood Blvd.) on the north, the I-10 on the south. There are urban places outside that, and there are lower density places within it, but overall it gives you a good strong urban core. It is largely walkable and much of it has good transit service. It's more city area than any other American city except for New York and maybe Chicago (not so clear about Chicago). It's more "city" than San Francisco, because within San Francisco's 46 square miles (it's not quite a perfect square) there are the rowhouse (except we don't call them that) neighborhoods that somebody showed, that don't feel very urban. One could also identify smaller urban feeling areas within Pasadena, Santa Monica, and Long Beach.

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by Patrolman

I've been in an LAPD patrol car since 1974.

Bumper Morgan! (except he had a foot beat)

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

Not my fault if you guys don't know what a big city is or have never spent much time outside of LA. LA came of age in the 50's and was built around the car, and it's mostly not very walkable. Are you going to dispute any of that? Are you really going to insist that LA looks or feels the same as cities like SF/NYC/Chicago/Paris that came of age before cars became big?

Yes, Chicago has a lot of houses, but they aren't tract homes, they're old bungalows on small lots right up against each other.



Even SF has a lot of houses, but they're right up against one another too.



And by suburban apartments, I mean dingbat style buildings. There actually are some here and there in Chicago and SF, but they're pretty rare. LA was largely built up around when they became popular, so it has a ton of them.

Anyway, the question was whether LA feels like a city. To me it doesn't. That's my opinion. Yes LA is technically a city, but it just doesn't feel like an urban place to me outside of a portion of downtown LA. Since about the 50's pretty much all young American cities have been like this because they're built around cars--San Diego, San Jose, any "big" city in Florida. It's a style of city, and it's basically the default form of any new city around the world, but it's not urban to me. Again, that's my opinion.

Bungalows are tract homes of the 20s and 30s.

Here are some google maps streetview pics:

This is around Logan Square, tract homes at all, but this photo alone looks like a street in a small town. But it does not look urban, yet it is close to one of the more hip parts of Chicago:

Loop, Chicago, IL to Logan Square, Chicago, IL - Google Maps

Now, here are some tract home bungalows of the 20s and 30s in Chicago. You still have lawns and trees. About seven miles from the loop.

Loop, Chicago, IL to Logan Square, Chicago, IL - Google Maps

Los Angeles:

Westwood. This is 14 miles from downtown.

Los Angeles, CA - Google Maps

Santa Monica. I realize these are not architecturally significant apartment buildings. But seriously to call this suburban is rediculous. Notice this is all there is around this immediate area. When you close the photo these apartments are all that there are.

Westwood, Los Angeles, CA to Los Angeles, CA - Google Maps

Pasadena:

Pasadena, CA - Google Maps

I just think you have a limited and biased view of what a city is. You're stuck in an east-coastophile concept of what a city is supposed to be.

We all have different ideas about what a city is. To me, Archie Bunker from All in the Family or Doug Heffernan from King of Queens represent nothing more than a big city version of small town folk. I don't care if they took place in New York City.

If you don't care for LA fine, but stop saying its not a real city.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

Not my fault if you guys don't know what a big city is or have never spent much time outside of LA. LA came of age in the 50's and was built around the car, and it's mostly not very walkable. Are you going to dispute any of that? Are you really going to insist that LA looks or feels the same as cities like SF/NYC/Chicago/Paris that came of age before cars became big?

Yes, Chicago has a lot of houses, but they aren't tract homes, they're old bungalows on small lots right up against each other.



Even SF has a lot of houses, but they're right up against one another too.



And by suburban apartments, I mean dingbat style buildings. There actually are some here and there in Chicago and SF, but they're pretty rare. LA was largely built up around when they became popular, so it has a ton of them.

Anyway, the question was whether LA feels like a city. To me it doesn't. That's my opinion. Yes LA is technically a city, but it just doesn't feel like an urban place to me outside of a portion of downtown LA. Since about the 50's pretty much all young American cities have been like this because they're built around cars--San Diego, San Jose, any "big" city in Florida. It's a style of city, and it's basically the default form of any new city around the world, but it's not urban to me. Again, that's my opinion.

I see you're in Long Beach. Do you think that might be why you think of LA as you do? The towns immediately surrounding Long Beach are more suburban. However I can't see anyone taking a trip down Wilshire Blvd from downtown to Santa Monica and seriously saying LA is suburban.

I also still don't see what your obsession over "dingbat" apartments. So what if they're not vintage or brick. Its densely populated and you can walk to the main avenues where there are restaurants, stores, etc. whats the big deal?

BTW: I have lived outside Chicago most of my life, and have explored much of the city. And most of its not any more urban than most of LA. And the higher percentage of natives/generational bring down the cosmopolitan index in most of the city IMO.

[moonsparkle]

I absolutely HATE the look of Chicago brown/greystones. They are all over the desirable urban neighborhoods and they just look old & boring.

Strongly prefer the LA pastel-colored art deco, which would be the equivalent.

Back to the topic...Chicago has a better skyline, but the city itself isn't nearly as visually appealing as LA (mountains, palm trees everywhere). You know when you're in LA that it's one of the most internationally significant places in the world, never felt that in Chicago, just felt like a regional giant full of midwesterners when you exclude the recent immigrants.

[Senno]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

Not my fault if you guys don't know what a big city is or have never spent much time outside of LA. LA came of age in the 50's and was built around the car, and it's mostly not very walkable. Are you going to dispute any of that? Are you really going to insist that LA looks or feels the same as cities like SF/NYC/Chicago/Paris that came of age before cars became big?

Yes, Chicago has a lot of houses, but they aren't tract homes, they're old bungalows on small lots right up against each other.



Even SF has a lot of houses, but they're right up against one another too.



And by suburban apartments, I mean dingbat style buildings. There actually are some here and there in Chicago and SF, but they're pretty rare. LA was largely built up around when they became popular, so it has a ton of them.

Anyway, the question was whether LA feels like a city. To me it doesn't. That's my opinion. Yes LA is technically a city, but it just doesn't feel like an urban place to me outside of a portion of downtown LA. Since about the 50's pretty much all young American cities have been like this because they're built around cars--San Diego, San Jose, any "big" city in Florida. It's a style of city, and it's basically the default form of any new city around the world, but it's not urban to me. Again, that's my opinion.

Well, you like tudor and SF rowhouse architecture, I guess.

And don't like ranch style suburbia.

Have no idea what you mean by "dingbat" style though. Got a picture?

[Carlite]

So here's a whole write up on dingbats. They're low rise apartment buildings where the apartments are accessed from external corridors. I always thought of them as "motel" apartments.

Many people find the dingbats ugly and they certainly don't reach the density of an older 4-6 story central city apartment building a la Chicago or San Francisco or Boston. But they house a fair number of people and represented a major densification of LA in the 50's and 60's when they were built. In that period, LA was one of the few American cities whose population and density was increasing, not decreasing.

L.A. Places: Mid-Century Dingbat Apartments

[RaymondChandlerLives]

L.A. is all about uniform density.

Most cities have their nice tight little core, surrounded by leafy suburbs. They taper off, sometimes very quickly like Boston, sometimes not so quickly, like San Francisco and Chicago.

L.A. doesn't really taper off until you reach the outer areas of the SGV, or OC. It's an endless city. That's also why its the most densely populated UA in the United States. Even cities in OC have moderately high density (Santa Ana, for example).

Here's a fun fact about Long Beach, California. It is the 7th most densely populated city in the United States with a population over 400,000.

1. New York
2. Chicago
3. Philadelphia
4. San Francisco
5. Boston
6. DC
7. Long Beach

In a paradox, it actually has a higher density than L.A. Common sense tells you why that is, but that's not the point. Look at where Long Beach, a good sized city by any measure (more populous than Miami), sits in the L.A. basin. Look at the enormity of its surroundings. DT Long Beach is nearly 25 miles away from DTLA, and in between is nonstop development:


long beach - Google Maps

L.A. is not a hundred million miles of suburbs. You've been bamboozled. That quote from Dorothy Parker is completely outdated at this point. Put it to bed.

[Carlite]

The Census Bureau has recently published statistics about area densities by distance from City Hall which show exactly what RaymondChandlerLives is talking about.

Among the 50 largest American cities, Long Beach has the 11th highest walkscore (66.4) and Los Angeles has the 13th highest (65.9). The city in 12th place is Portland.