Why does LA feel emptier than the traditionally urban cities? (Los Angeles: transplants, 2014)

[_OT]

Originally Posted by lovecrowds

I love the set-up of Southern California and Los Angeles. It is dense, but not overly dense. There are so many pockets of liveliness all over such a massive area.

Some cities like New York are too dense, others like Houston are way too spread-out. Los Angeles is a city of perfect scale and the county itself has everything a person could ever want and offers something for everyone.

It is very-car centric but the public transportation is excellent. Los Angeles itself has a dozen neighborhoods of over 20,000 square per mile population density. Several neighborhoods over 30,000 per square mile density.

You can find anything in Los Angeles County from the crazy dense neighborhood of West Hollywood and Westlake, newer areas like Santa Clarita, old-fashioned suburbs in the San Gabriel Valley like San Dimas and Claremont and even more ruralish areas in the Antolope Valley.

The great thing about Los Angeles and Southern California is there is any thing and everything one could ever want as far as population densities, climates, cultures, personality types.

I agree; I like the mix between both an Urban environment and a Suburban environment. Cities like Philly or Baltimore don't really have that choice, especially for people like me who like Urban living but hate being cramped into one block, it feels smothering.

[Those Who Squirm]

If you mean DTLA, I think a lot of it has to do with the numerous parking lots in the area. Lots small and large dot the entire district, with some blocks mostly or entirely given over to parking. Many large public facilities like Union Station and the Plaza historical district are all but surrounded by extensive parking lots; in large Eastern cities you find the train station across an ordinary street from other buildings, with the concourses underground. The prevalence of at-grade single level parking lots detracts from the pedestrian experience and discourages walking, since the would-be pedestrian usually doesn't want to walk past one parking lot after another.

A secondary and related factor is the extensive greenscaping in the Civic Center and Plaza area.

If you look at pre-1920 panoramic photos of DTLA, the skyline looks much denser, even if not as tall. Street views of similar age and older are crowded with pedestrians, wagons and carriages of all kinds, streetcars, and early autos.

[Northernest Southernest C]

Originally Posted by _OT

I agree; I like the mix between both an Urban environment and a Suburban environment. Cities like Philly or Baltimore don't really have that choice, especially for people like me who like Urban living but hate being cramped into one block, it feels smothering.

Baltimore have both, it's just more known for the row homes. Most people just don't know about Baltimore's inner-suburbs.

[bruhms]

it's not walkable

[jamills21]

Originally Posted by bruhms

it's not walkable

Depends on what neighborhood you live in. My old hood of Mid City is reasonably walkable. Not NYC AT ALL but I think in the context of American cities L.A. is pretty walkable. It's more walkable than any city below the Mason-Dixon Line.

[bruhms]

Originally Posted by jamills21

Depends on what neighborhood you live in. My old hood of Mid City is reasonably walkable. Not NYC AT ALL but I think in the context of American cities L.A. is pretty walkable. It's more walkable than any city below the Mason-Dixon Line.

mid city is not the norm for L.A. neighborhoods though

[jamills21]

Originally Posted by bruhms

mid city is not the norm for L.A. neighborhoods though

what neighborhood do you consider the norm then? Cause Mid City is pretty much in between DTLA & The Valley in terms of urbanity. Unless, you consider where you live in particular to be the norm.

[checkup]

-ppl are in cars
-the dense areas are the poorer ethnic communities that you probably aren't visiting on any frequent basis
-the richer white neighborhoods and DTLA are not dense in terms of residents

[JohnG72]

Originally Posted by Those Who Squirm

If you mean DTLA, I think a lot of it has to do with the numerous parking lots in the area. Lots small and large dot the entire district, with some blocks mostly or entirely given over to parking. Many large public facilities like Union Station and the Plaza historical district are all but surrounded by extensive parking lots; in large Eastern cities you find the train station across an ordinary street from other buildings, with the concourses underground. The prevalence of at-grade single level parking lots detracts from the pedestrian experience and discourages walking, since the would-be pedestrian usually doesn't want to walk past one parking lot after another.

A secondary and related factor is the extensive greenscaping in the Civic Center and Plaza area.

If you look at pre-1920 panoramic photos of DTLA, the skyline looks much denser, even if not as tall. Street views of similar age and older are crowded with pedestrians, wagons and carriages of all kinds, streetcars, and early autos.

FYI most of the parking lots are now gone, with large mix residential buildings going up in their place. I expect nearly all the single level lots to bite the dust in the next five years.

[nmnita]

Originally Posted by ccm123

LA is also very spread out, over a wide geographic area.

You beat me to it.