Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When people think "city" they usually think of contiguous, less-auto centric, more walkable areas. In other words, they think the exact opposite of the neighborhoods most of them grew up in: single-family homes on lots, yards, driveways, highly car dependent. That's pretty much the norm in America.
Los Angeles does not have a large contiguous, less auto-centric, walkable core. If it did, then people would not drive as much as they do. And if it did, then certain posters who will remain anonymous would not say that you have to "actively pursue a car-free lifestyle unlike in Chicago, Boston or Philadelphia." And guys like Donald Shoup wouldn't write articles stating that LA lacks a "vibrant" core. And guys like Eric Eidlin wouldn't write articles stating that LA lacks a "vibrant street life."
It's both. Philadelphia has more "city." You can only go to three cities in America and see this type of built environment over 100 square miles or so.
You're right with the contiguous part to some extent--and that does hurt LA a notch when we're doing comparison. LA's dense and vibrant areas are contiguous along certain corridors, but that generally holds for a quarter mile or so away from that corridor. However, a good number of the urban bits are pretty close together. There's ground to argue on for both Philly and LA, but I think it's mostly a wash and in regards to the topic, it does seem like people have very dated impressions of the urban fabric of LA.
Shoup and Eidlin are probably right on many points, but the overall idea that LA does not have a vibrant core or street life doesn't seem to ring true anymore (though if Shoup's parking policies were put in place, LA would probably be dramatically more urban). The core makes sense as downtown is one of multiple hubs of activity in the city/metro--but this doesn't mean that downtown is not vibrant or that it should be the only measure. The vibrant street life portion of it is off completely as there are a pretty good number of places where the streets are pretty bustling with people--again, as a percentage of the city, pretty low. In absolute amount, comparable.
Also, aren't there decent stretches of Northwest, Northeast, and Southwest Philadelphia that are suburban?
You're right with the contiguous part to some extent--and that does hurt LA a notch when we're doing comparison. LA's dense and vibrant areas are contiguous along certain corridors, but that generally holds for a quarter mile or so away from that corridor. However, a good number of the urban bits are pretty close together. There's ground to argue on for both Philly and LA, but I think it's mostly a wash and in regards to the topic, it does seem like people have very dated impressions of the urban fabric of LA.
Shroup and Eidlin are probably right on many points, but the overall idea that LA does not have a vibrant core or street life doesn't seem to ring true anymore. The core makes sense as downtown is one of multiple hubs of activity in the city/metro--but this doesn't mean that downtown is not vibrant or that it should be the only measure. The vibrant street life portion of it is off completely as there are a pretty good number of places where the streets are pretty bustling with people--again, as a percentage of the city, pretty low. In absolute amount, comparable.
Also, aren't there decent stretches of Northwest, Northeast, and Southwest Philadelphia that are suburban?
Shoup's argument is that LA has too many parking lots, which I agree with. I think his goal was to "rally the troops" and create a sense of urgency among the decision makers in LA to limit/eliminate parking requirements - I'm sure he would cringe to think someone is using his article as a reference for why LA is not urban or lacks urban character.
Either way, the parking lots in DTLA may end up being a bit of a blessing, as there is open space for new developments and no need to tear down the gorgeous (but all to often rundown) buildings in the Historic Core.
Shoup's argument is that LA has too many parking lots, which I agree with. I think his goal was to "rally the troops" and create a sense of urgency among the decision makers in LA to limit/eliminate parking requirements - I'm sure he would cringe to think someone is using his article as a reference for why LA is not urban or lacks urban character.
Either way, the parking lots in DTLA may end up being a bit of a blessing, as there is open space for new developments and no need to tear down the gorgeous (but all to often rundown) buildings in the Historic Core.
Also modifying some of the setbacks in new constructions, especially in core areas; though overall seems to be more the trend. Philly often considered very urban also has many surface lots; most cames from the 50s to 80s and are also being recouped while keeping older architecture. On the whole not always bad and continued progress is always good
Also modifying some of the setbacks in new constructions, especially in core areas; though overall seems to be more the trend. Philly often considered very urban also has many surface lots; most cames from the 50s to 80s and are also being recouped while keeping older architecture. On the whole not always bad and continued progress is always good
In other words eradicate strip mall? I would agree with encouraging more street facing, pedestrian-engaging development.
In other words eradicate strip mall? I would agree with encouraging more street facing, pedestrian-engaging development.
sort of on the strip malls; but yes more street facing; those strips flipped would provide a different dynamic, even with parking on the interior away from the street; kind of flipped so to speak. also in some denser nabes, the residential (albeit at times multi unit) has too much set back IMHO; or at least from the street
On the whole LA seems to have more of this and despite the density to me it somehow does diminish the street feel; not meant a any bash more just to elaborate more on my point; LA seems to have more stark tranisitions as well; again more just observations an I wont pretend to be knowledgeable of the whole city; it is far too large and my experience not vast enough
Also modifying some of the setbacks in new constructions, especially in core areas; though overall seems to be more the trend. Philly often considered very urban also has many surface lots; most cames from the 50s to 80s and are also being recouped while keeping older architecture. On the whole not always bad and continued progress is always good
Manhattan is in danger of losing its gas stations to developers. Developers need a permit to provide parking for more than 20% of units in the southern 2/3 s of the island; but developers find parking doesn't add to profitability much anyway. I was shocked to see a McDonald's in the Near North Side of Chicago with a parking lot. I could wrong, but I think NYC is the only city in the country where it's not the norm (at least in a large section of the city, maybe 50%) for supermarkets to have parking.
Downtown LA's parking isn't that cheap, but I don't think jobs are as concentrated downtown compared to many other large cities. London makes New York seem like a bargain, probably because London taxes parking more.
I think the biggest difference between LA and most other dense cities is that suburbanites in say New York and Boston (and probably Philly, DC, Chicago and San Francisco) identify with the central parts of city even if they don't visit it often. They think of the center city as the hub of activity for their region, they go sometimes to have a good time. The LA residents that do in or near the city center, of course, think differently. For LA, the center city is just another neighborhood that's particularly dense. I haven't really seen LA, but that's my impression.
I think the biggest difference between LA and most other dense cities is that suburbanites in say New York and Boston (and probably Philly, DC, Chicago and San Francisco) identify with the central parts of city even if they don't visit it often. They think of the center city as the hub of activity for their region, they go sometimes to have a good time. The LA residents that do in or near the city center, of course, think differently. For LA, the center city is just another neighborhood that's particularly dense. I haven't really seen LA, but that's my impression.
Well, yes. LA is polycentric, and NYC and Boston (and Chicago, Philly, etc.) are not.
Just because it's different from NYC, Philly, etc, doesn't mean it's not urban.
Manhattan is in danger of losing its gas stations to developers. Developers need a permit to provide parking for more than 20% of units in the southern 2/3 s of the island; but developers find parking doesn't add to profitability much anyway. I was shocked to see a McDonald's in the Near North Side of Chicago with a parking lot. I could wrong, but I think NYC is the only city in the country where it's not the norm (at least in a large section of the city, maybe 50%) for supermarkets to have parking.
Downtown LA's parking isn't that cheap, but I don't think jobs are as concentrated downtown compared to many other large cities. London makes New York seem like a bargain, probably because London taxes parking more.
I think the biggest difference between LA and most other dense cities is that suburbanites in say New York and Boston (and probably Philly, DC, Chicago and San Francisco) identify with the central parts of city even if they don't visit it often. They think of the center city as the hub of activity for their region, they go sometimes to have a good time. The LA residents that do in or near the city center, of course, think differently. For LA, the center city is just another neighborhood that's particularly dense. I haven't really seen LA, but that's my impression.
That is basically true; though Downtown LA is the most densely/structurally built up (and is the area that resembles an Eastern city most - so maybe more than 'just another' but definitely not the place like in traditional East Coast city.
sort of on the strip malls; but yes more street facing; those strips flipped would provide a different dynamic, even with parking on the interior away from the street; kind of flipped so to speak. also in some denser nabes, the residential (albeit at times multi unit) has too much set back IMHO; or at least from the street
On the whole LA seems to have more of this and despite the density to me it somehow does diminish the street feel; not meant a any bash more just to elaborate more on my point; LA seems to have more stark tranisitions as well; again more just observations an I wont pretend to be knowledgeable of the whole city; it is far too large and my experience not vast enough
Total agreement. Despite LA having very large swaths of land of high population density (actually more large swaths of high density than any of the other cities mentioned save for NYC--from which there is a big drop), it's muted by the way that density is built. It's part of what makes arguing about LA's urbanity interesting because in a lot of stats it beats out the others (save for NYC), but it's built in a way that makes it hard to gauge head-on with the other cities.
Also, aren't there decent stretches of Northwest, Northeast, and Southwest Philadelphia that are suburban?
I'm from the Northwest, and yes, much of it has a suburban character. And that's largely because of a substantial amount of parkspace. It's by far the most beautiful section of the city.
Southwest Philly has very few stretches that are "suburban" unless you're talking over near the airport on Island Avenue. That looks like this. But this is as soon as you enter the city. Even a block off of Island, you still see rowhouses. Once Island turns into Cobbs Creek Parkway, you notice that the neighborhoods become much more dense, you notice more pedestrian life, and you notice far more cornerboys. Cobbs Creek Park definitely gives the outer reaches of SWP a more gentle feel than 51st and Market. But as soon as you get a block away from the park, there's really not much difference between SWP and WP.
The Northeast is more of a mixed bag. It's the physically largest section of the city and the part of the city I know the least about. If you take a drive up the Bully, you'll definitely feel less claustrophobic than you would in Nicetown. But even way up on Cottman (which is farrrrrrr), most neighborhoods are still dominated by rowhousing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
