Is LA more urban than people think? (suburban, downtown, Dallas)

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by nei

Or get around the core by bicycle with a bit of public transit assist as this NY Times travel writer did.

Los Angeles, by Bike and on a Budget - NYTimes.com

Sounds fun; I prefer more east-coast style cities, but seems interesting to visit.

I am very excited about LA's new bike-share system - I was in Boston just a few weeks ago and the friends I was staying with use Boston's bike share all the time. It seems really convenient and there were stations all over the city.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by nei

Or get around the core by bicycle with a bit of public transit assist as this NY Times travel writer did.

Los Angeles, by Bike and on a Budget - NYTimes.com

Sounds fun; I prefer more east-coast style cities, but seems interesting to visit.

You can bike around the core in Atlanta, too. That fact doesn't make it as urban or walkable as Boston.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

A lot of people don't work in Downtown DC, either. Reston, Rockville, Greenbelt, Silver Spring, Bethesda, Tyson's Corner (no Metro) and Ft. Belvoir (no Metro) are all major-employment centers. This is why the DC area has such bad traffic: people are commuting between suburbs just as they do in LA. But some people who work in the burbs still opt to live in DC because they want to be able to walk to the cleaners, walk to the Metro, walk to the local coffee shop, walk to U Street, etc.



But this is also true of DC. The vast majority of people in the DMV will have a hard time living a car-free lifestyle. And the DC forum also includes topics from more than just the core area such as the National Harbor, Alexandria, Arlington, etc. It's no different. Yet no one thinks that a car-free lifestyle in the DC area, with its extensive public transit network and mixed-use development, is about as crazy as looking for a unicorn.



So basically you disagree with Eidlin when he says LA lacks an active street life?

DC has a massive rapid transit system (much bigger in proportion to its population or density compared to any other city in the US) that's well-funded and runs 3 minute headways completely grade-separated which serves those centers, but DC itself is still much more of a main job center.

DC is thought of as an entity of itself and is associated with urbanity. A lot of its suburbs are not very urban at all, but are also not so tied to our mental associations of DC since there is a very firm boundary between what is and what is not DC. LA is thought of as a single block that often includes parts that aren't even within legal limits of LA--obviously, most of that is suburban and living car-free is incredibly hard in most of those parts. Alexandria is also super urban and was originally part of DC, no? Anyhow, this is a point that's already been discussed over and over again.

If Eidlin is talking about LA as a whole or what LA should have in comparison to its density and population, then he's right. If he's talking about the actual core areas I'm referring to, then I do disagree with him. If he's saying that there are structural issues with how LA develops stuff, then I'm in complete agreement, because by all rights LA can be a lot more vibrant. Same as usual.

You have little context, but you'll continue to argue until you actually physically visit that mythical core. If you do visit this memorial day or during the summer, send me a PM and I'll help you work out what areas are vibrant and where you should stay, and how to navigate the area. Or post on the LA forum and ask specifically about these things, because those who actually currently live carless and rely on transit there will guide you pretty well through it.

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

You can bike around the core in Atlanta, too. That fact doesn't make it as urban or walkable as Boston.

Yea, you can, as you can most cities. Actually, a lot of cities are doable depending on where you work and live.

The issue is if it's comparable, and Atlanta is not comparable at all in scale or depth (against LA, Boston, or Philly, though LA can be comparable to Boston and Philly) when we're talking about what you can access via transit and walking. Honestly, where's the article from NY Times about navigating Atlanta via bike? If there even was one, do you really think Atlanta would offer as good a concentration of amenities as LA? Also, keep in mind that the article is about a year and a half old, and already says it's doable (it's also around the time I started seeing LA as comparable urbanity-wise to the SF/Philly/Boston/DC tier of cities). The amount of development in LA has been astounding.

Also, food trucks. Pretty innovative way of making the structural deficits of LA into something more. LA is where good food trucks exploded in popularity as they parked in lots and on curbsides. This is just one of many small details you would notice about how LA has adapted with its massive density, but structural deficits. This along with street vending, various farmer's market and a lot of whole-in-the-wall eateries. Food-wise, LA's urban areas absolutely dominate all the cities mentioned save for maybe SF.

Other tidbits would be the pace of loft conversions happening in downtown these days which is ridiculously fast.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

If Eidlin is talking about LA as a whole or what LA should have in comparison to its density and population, then he's right. If he's talking about the actual core areas I'm referring to, then I do disagree with him.

If the "core" of Los Angeles were super walkable, it's unlikely that Eidlin would have even written the article. Think about that: a walkable core that's bigger than the city of Philadelphia (or at least that's the claim buttressed here on C-D). That's huge! I don't think he's talking about the whole city of LA or even the LA region when he says there is no "active street life." When you consider the size of the walkable core of Washington, DC (which is definitely much smaller than 160 sq. mi.), we're talking about a teeny weeny proportion of the metro area that actually lends itself to walking. Yet urban planners never write articles about the absence of a vital, walkable core in the DC area. And it's obvious why this is the case. There's nothing in the LA region comparable to Georgetown, Adams-Morgan, Dupont Circle, Gallery Place Downtown DC, or Mount Pleasant. And you certainly don't have anywhere in the LA region where such walkable neighborhoods are all adjoined to each other.

Shoup says the following:

Los Angeles is a dense area without an extremely dense core.

He also says that LA lacks the "vital urban core we associate with older urban centers."

So that means you disagree with him on those points as well?

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

You have little context, but you'll continue to argue until you actually physically visit that mythical core. If you do visit this memorial day or during the summer, send me a PM and I'll help you work out what areas are vibrant and where you should stay, and how to navigate the area. Or post on the LA forum and ask specifically about these things, because those who actually currently live carless and rely on transit there will guide you pretty well through it.

Again, I don't doubt that a car-free lifestyle is possible in LA. But it's also possible in Atlanta. And Denver. And Milwaukee.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

The issue is if it's comparable, and Atlanta is not comparable at all in scale or depth (against LA, Boston, or Philly, though LA can be comparable to Boston and Philly) when we're talking about what you can access via transit and walking.

Atlanta is quite comparable to LA. There are more subway stations in Atlanta than there are in LA, so that makes it even easier to get around. And there are also commercial strips in Atlanta. What's the difference? LA may be denser, but the design of the cities is not that dissimilar.

[BajanYankee]

So what are the LA equivalents of these neighborhoods?


Scene In: U Street - YouTube


Scene In: Dupont Circle - YouTube


Scene In: Georgetown Waterfront - YouTube

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Atlanta is quite comparable to LA. There are more subway stations in Atlanta than there are in LA, so that makes it even easier to get around. And there are also commercial strips in Atlanta. What's the difference? LA may be denser, but the design of the cities is not that dissimilar.

Not even close. LA has a well-run and vast bus system that includes several rapid lines. It has the second/third busiest light rail system in the US. It has a commuter rail network that's had to expand due to popularity and is getting throughput tracks at Union Station.

LA's historic core was already bigger and more built up than Atlanta before the vast suburbanization of the US during the 50s. You're taking shots at things that are simply wrong. This is about as ill-advised as trying to say Koreatown is a yuppie den or that it's about as vibrant as a hood in West Philly.

LA's vibrant urban areas are comparable to those of Philly and DC (and no, neither Philly or DC have their entirety as vibrant urban areas). That's the argument.

LA in the context of a world city, one that should be measured against other world cities due to its extreme size and its global recognition, is phenomenally sprawling and not urban. LA in the context of second-tier (non-NYC) cities in the US is comparable. That's a big difference.

And again, keep in mind this was a very recent transition (though two decades in the making--I'd say the 92 riots were what really set things off and made people understand just how screwed up the urban core was).

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Not even close. LA has a well-run and vast bus system that includes several rapid lines. It has the second/third busiest light rail system in the US. It has a commuter rail network that's had to expand due to popularity and is getting throughput tracks at Union Station.

But Atlanta has a more extensive rapid transit network. And the two cities have roughly the same proportion of people using buses. You can't expect a city of 450,000 to have an equal number of bus riders as a city of 3.7 million. What type of sense does that make?

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

LA's historic core was already bigger and more built up than Atlanta before the vast suburbanization of the US during the 50s. You're taking shots at things that are simply wrong. This is about as ill-advised as trying to say Koreatown is a yuppie den or that it's about as vibrant as a hood in West Philly.

The city of Atlanta is much smaller than LA. Just like DC is much smaller than LA. That has no bearing on how easy it is to get around in those cities.

And I didn't compare West Philly to Koreatown to compare "vibrancy." That wasn't the point. The point was to show that even the distant parts of West Philly have a more dense, compact built environment and active street life than LA's most urban neighborhood. In other words, LA can give its very best shot and still fall flat against Philly. Did you not see the strip malls and parking lots in that video?

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

LA's vibrant urban areas are comparable to those of Philly and DC (and no, neither Philly or DC have their entirety as vibrant urban areas). That's the argument.

And Donald Shoup clearly disagrees with your assessment. That's why he said that LA lacks the "vital core we associate with older urban centers."

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

So what are the LA equivalents of these neighborhoods?


Scene In: U Street - YouTube


Scene In: Dupont Circle - YouTube


Scene In: Georgetown Waterfront - YouTube

Not sure, I'm not super familiar with DC (two visits so far, both about two years ago). I guess on face value, you can argue Westwood (save for the Holmby Hills part) is a dense college-driven community that's not well-served by rapid transit, but has numerous shops, boutiques, business, and bus lines with a lot of pedestrian and bike traffic. Though I myself dislike Westwood--also, there are a lot of high-rises built along Wilshire in that area with some really douchy people. It does have a lot of urban amenities though and it is pedestrian heavy.

There are neighborhoods like Venice Beach and Santa Monica close to and around Third Street Promenade. There's Culver City's downtown and nearby Palms which are massively dense and vibrant. There's downtown LA itself especially the Historic Core and the areas around that. There's Westlake and Koreatown (though again, heavily immigrant populations so it's not trendy in quite the same way). There's North Hollywood when you go past the hills. There's WeHo though served terribly by mass transit, but it's also pedestrian heavy. There's Silver Lake and Los Feliz when you live close to the commercial strips rather than up on the hills. There's the Sawtelle area which I really do love especially when a friend of mine was living about two blocks from the main strip. There's Little Tokyo, also in downtown and not nearly as dead as Chinatown in DC. If you go further out you can count Old Town Pasadena and the areas around it, served by a light rail line but somewhat removed from the rest due to hills and a pass that's medium instead of high density.