Is LA more urban than people think? (Michigan, metro, suburban)

[BajanYankee]

Focusing on density alone is like installing a HEMI engine in a Dodge Neon. Sure, you've got 610-hp, but your transmission was built to handle 90-hp. All of that extra horsepower is for naught because you don't have a drivetrain system that can deliver it to the ground. You'd get smoked by a Nissan Maxima with 240-hp. Badly.

Cities are not much different. Urban design is important. Charleston, SC, despite its relatively low population density, is a fun place to visit because of its design. NYC has the best of both worlds: an efficient urban design and a ridiculously high population density. Then you have cities such as Los Angeles with high density in many areas, but poor urban design.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by indiglo_2000

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).

On Walkscore (which some bash but I have always found to be pretty accurate in big cities) when taking the entire land area of LA it comes out looking mediocre (but at 13th or whatever it is, nowhere near bad).

However, digging deeper and only looking at the central, historic core of the city, it does incredibly well, with nearly that entire area from La Cienega to the LA River to Franklin and the 10 Freeway being green (meaning very walkable).

[nei]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

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

Yes. Any business that depended on residents would have trouble. There would be less within walking distance for the average resident. However, since much of the pedestrian traffic in certain sections is coming from people outside of Manhattan, there the change would be small.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by indiglo_2000

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.

It's the other way around: efficient land use drives walkability.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Focusing on density alone is like installing a HEMI engine in a Dodge Neon. Sure, you've got 610-hp, but your transmission was built to handle 90-hp. All of that extra horsepower is for naught because you don't have a drivetrain system that can deliver it to the ground. You'd get smoked by a Nissan Maxima with 240-hp. Badly.

Cities are not much different. Urban design is important. Charleston, SC, despite its relatively low population density, is a fun place to visit because of its design. NYC has the best of both worlds: an efficient urban design and a ridiculously high population density. Then you have cities such as Los Angeles with high density in many areas, but poor urban design.

In one, tiny, tiny area. The rest of it is southern sprawlsville (the real kind of sprawl).

How can you take the tiny, historic tip of Charleston as an example of what the city truly is but refuse to take the gigantic historic core of Los Angeles as what the city truly is?

And like I said before, most of that core is highly walkable (much more than Charleston, SC ). I get the analogy but it simply does not work in regards to LA.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by nei

Yes. Any business that depended on residents would have trouble. There would be less within walking distance for the average resident. However, since much of the pedestrian traffic in certain sections is coming from people outside of Manhattan, there the change would be small.

I didn't mean for the hypothetical to be extended over a one-year (or any other amount of time) timeframe. I simply meant whether the island would be any less walkable if half of its population vanished by 5 o'clock. The streets would still be as inviting as they were when the island had twice as many people. On the other hand, if you doubled the population of a neighborhood with 6-lane roads and parking lots everywhere, it's unlikely that you'll get any appreciable increase in pedestrian activity.

[DynamoLA]

Is LA more urban than people think?

"Yes" is the answer.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by munchitup

In one, tiny, tiny area. The rest of it is southern sprawlsville (the real kind of sprawl).

How can you take the tiny, historic tip of Charleston as an example of what the city truly is but refuse to take the gigantic historic core of Los Angeles as what the city truly is?

That's not what I was doing. I just gave an example of a low-population density area with a good urban design. The point is that the correlation between urbanity and density is not as strong as some people on here think it is.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

That's not what I was doing. I just gave an example of a low-population density area with a good urban design. The point is that the correlation between urbanity and density is not as strong as some people on here think it is.

About a mile from the center of Charleston.

charleston, sc - Google Maps

Simply incredible, looks amazingly walkable. I challenge you to find anywhere in the LA city limits that looks this sprawly.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by DynamoLA

Is LA more urban than people think?

"Yes" is the answer.

Agreed.