Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-17-2012, 01:43 PM
 
93 posts, read 84,889 times
Reputation: 136

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Did this make sense to you as you wrote it?



And what would you call the "superficial?" Los Angeles has parking lots where buildings would otherwise exist in Boston or DC.
If indeed DC or Boston had many more buildings in places where LA has parking lots, wouldn't it show as a significant uptick in density?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-17-2012, 01:46 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
32,087 posts, read 34,676,186 times
Reputation: 15068
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiglo_2000 View Post
If indeed DC or Boston had many more buildings in places where LA has parking lots, wouldn't it show as a significant uptick in density?
Not necessarily. Manhattan has more buildings now than it did in 1950 but has only half as many people as it did in 1950.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
32,087 posts, read 34,676,186 times
Reputation: 15068
Here's an exercise.

Let's say that every single housing unit in the city of Los Angeles added two people. This would increase the city's population to approximately 6.7 million people.

Would formerly unwalkable areas that have now doubled in density all of a sudden become walkable?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 01:53 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,983 posts, read 53,447,987 times
Reputation: 15179
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Not necessarily. Manhattan has more buildings now than it did in 1950 but has only half as many people as it did in 1950.
Not Quite.

Manhattan had 1.96 million people in 1950; 1.59 million today (2010).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 01:56 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
32,087 posts, read 34,676,186 times
Reputation: 15068
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Not Quite.

Manhattan had 1.96 million people in 1950; 1.59 million today (2010).
I couldn't remember what year it was. Here are the stats.

Manhattan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manhattan has 800,000 fewer people than it did in 1910. But the city has more buildings today than it did in 1910.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 01:57 PM
 
93 posts, read 84,889 times
Reputation: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Not necessarily. Manhattan has more buildings now than it did in 1950 but has only half as many people as it did in 1950.
Manhattan's population was ~30% higher than what it is now, not twice. In any case would you say that land use efficiency has increased significantly in Manhattan since 1950 because there are more buildings but fewer people?

/Edit: Didn't see the previous post about populations
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 02:00 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
32,087 posts, read 34,676,186 times
Reputation: 15068
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiglo_2000 View Post
Manhattan's population was ~30% higher than what it is now, not twice. In any case would you say that land use efficiency has increased significantly in Manhattan since 1950 because there are more buildings but fewer people?

/Edit: Didn't see the previous post about populations
I've answered one of your questions. Now respond in kind.

If every single housing unit in Los Angeles added two people, would the city as a whole become any more walkable?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,078 posts, read 15,845,315 times
Reputation: 4049
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Here's an exercise.

Let's say that every single housing unit in the city of Los Angeles added two people. This would increase the city's population to approximately 6.7 million people.

Would formerly unwalkable areas that have now doubled in density all of a sudden become walkable?
If just the population increased in a total bubble, then no.

BUT

With the increased demand there would be additional grocery stores and other amenities, so yes, it would probably be more walkable. Obviously the roads would not be able to handle that many new people, so other solutions would have to be implemented (Like say, bike infrastructure? ).

Simply put, if everyone in Central LA exclusively drove like you seem to think, the roads would be straight up UNUSABLE because of the traffic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 02:06 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
32,087 posts, read 34,676,186 times
Reputation: 15068
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
If just the population increased in a total bubble, then no.

BUT

With the increased demand there would be additional grocery stores and other amenities, so yes, it would probably be more walkable. Obviously the roads would not be able to handle that many new people, so other solutions would have to be implemented (Like say, bike infrastructure? ).
We're talking about Los Angeles in its current urban form...not Los Angeles as you wish it to be. We could also flip the question around in a different hypothetical.

If we reduced Manhattan's population by 1 million people, would it become any less walkable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Simply put, if everyone in Central LA exclusively drove like you seem to think, the roads would be straight up UNUSABLE because of the traffic.
The last point you made pretty much hits the nail on the head. That's exactly what's happening in Los Angeles right now. Adding two people to each household would only exacerbate an already unsustainable situation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2012, 02:10 PM
 
93 posts, read 84,889 times
Reputation: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I've answered one of your questions. Now respond in kind.

If every single housing unit in Los Angeles added two people, would the city as a whole become any more walkable?
Actually the answer to this is yes and no. Vibrancy in many ways also correlates with the number of people you see walking around when you're out and about. So yes, if you abruptly almost double the city's population the perceived walkability of some districts will look better. Unwalkable areas remaining unwalkable doesn't require stating.

In any case, walkability is not the only driver of land use efficiency. And even by that metric, based on attempts at quantifying walkability, LA doesn't come out looking atrocious.

Anyway, I know precisely the point you're making and its taken (here and on a 100 other threads).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:18 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top