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.
I think in terms of population density, if you take an area of a certain size in LA, it will be comparable to most Northeast cities (and Chicago), except for NYC. The main reasons I think people don't consider LA as urban is:
-Population+Employment density, definitely the downtown of Chicago and maybe also Philadelphia and Boston are denser than LA's when you consider employment too, or if you look at built density
-Density relative to metro area, Greater Los Angeles is much bigger than Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore or DC and bigger than Chicago, so you would expect a larger area of high density (say 20000ppsm), but it's not much larger, so it doesn't really offset the huge amounts of low to moderate densities in Greater LA (5000-15000 ppsm).
-Distribution of density, Chicago and the NE cities have the highest densities in downtown and then it gradually drops off. Los Angeles has multiple centers of density like Downtown, Koreatown, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Inglewood, etc. For many people, LA would probably be more impressive if its density would be distributed more like a NE city.
The built form of LA is also different. Much of its density comes from 1-3 story multifamily homes that are detached from their neighbours, while in the NE cities there are more midrise and highrise apartments and more rowhouses/brownstones which are generally closer to the street, 2-5 stories but often have more yard space per person than LA's multifamily buildings. This might make LA's dense areas feel more suburban than a NE neighbourhood with the same density. There's also the wider roads or distance between buildings across the street from each other and the more lowrise retail strips.
LA's boundaries include some very low density hilly areas. There's a mountain range within the city limits. If you look at a neighborhood level, LA is quite dense. From this thread, it was found the densest 47 square miles of LA is slightly denser than SF (as well as Boston, and maybe Philly)
The densest LA neighborhoods are at least as dense as Boston's.
LA's densest neighborhood is about half as dense as Beacon Hill Boston's densest neighborhood and Boston has some large unpopulated areas such as an airport a seaport and a large industrial/ rail complex near the seaport all within the cities boundaries and many large parks. This means that all 48.43 square miles of land that Boston has are not all available for development. Also Bostons least dense neighborhood is around 8,000 ppsm and is on the very outermost section of the city. That may be why people see LA as less urban.
LA's densest neighborhood is about half as dense as Beacon Hill Boston's densest neighborhood and Boston has some large unpopulated areas such as an airport a seaport and a large industrial/ rail complex near the seaport all within the cities boundaries and many large parks. This means that all 48.43 square miles of land that Boston has are not all available for development. Also Bostons least dense neighborhood is around 8,000 ppsm and is on the very outermost section of the city. That may be why people see LA as less urban.
Actually LA has density that does compare, the physical make up is different. LA is not lacking in density, especially in its core. I think LA lacks some form of developed cohesion and why is gets dinged on urbanity
LA's densest neighborhood is about half as dense as Beacon Hill Boston's densest neighborhood and Boston has some large unpopulated areas such as an airport a seaport and a large industrial/ rail complex near the seaport all within the cities boundaries and many large parks. This means that all 48.43 square miles of land that Boston has are not all available for development. Also Bostons least dense neighborhood is around 8,000 ppsm and is on the very outermost section of the city. That may be why people see LA as less urban.
I wouldn't be surprised if the Santa Monica Mountains within LA city limits take up as much square mileage as the entire city of Boston.
Every city has some dead areas that ding the overall density, but no other city in the US is as "hurt" by this land as much as Los Angeles (except Houston).
LA has no need to increase density. Though its overall density will undoubtedly increase as it grows without annexation (actually some places want to secede), many of its densest neighborhoods will actually lose population and density as they gentrify. One example of this is my neighborhood of Hollywood. It has lost population over the last decade while inarguably becoming a much better place to live.
What LA should be focusing on, and what they are focusing on, is increasing pedestrian / cyclist amenities and improving connectivity throughout the city.
Every city has some dead areas that ding the overall density, but no other city in the US is as "hurt" by this land as much as Los Angeles (except Houston).
LA has no need to increase density. Though its overall density will undoubtedly increase as it grows without annexation (actually some places want to secede), many of its densest neighborhoods will actually lose population and density as they gentrify. One example of this is my neighborhood of Hollywood. It has lost population over the last decade while inarguably becoming a much better place to live.
What LA should be focusing on, and what they are focusing on, is increasing pedestrian / cyclist amenities and improving connectivity throughout the city.
Are talking a percentage of amount of land. And Houston? Houston probably has 50-100 sq miles within the city where there is like 1K or less developed density, some areas just not developed at all.
Agree with the last part though
For Boston as a percentage isnt it like 40% or something (smaller footprint but higher percentage). I know for Philly 46 (or ~38%) of the 134 sq miles are not developable due to airports, ports and parkland. Am curious on LA as it would be interesting in a much larger footprint but do agree that these dynamics effect all cities.
Are talking a percentage of amount of land. And Houston? Houston probably has 50-100 sq miles within the city where there is like 1K or less developed density, some areas just not developed at all.
Agree with the last part though
For Boston as a percentage isnt it like 40% or something (smaller footprint but higher percentage). I know for Philly 46 (or ~38%) of the 134 sq miles are not developable due to airports, ports and parkland. Am curious on LA as it would be interesting in a much larger footprint but do agree that these dynamics effect all cities.
I think LA's massive size hurts it. Los Angeles already has the most densely populated Metro in the country and it is also the most densely populated Urban area in the US too. I think LA gets knocked on "lack of urbanity" because of it's makeup and look. No doubt if LA were a compact east coast city it would be incredibly dense. If LA were in Philadelphia's footprint it would be the most densely populated city in the US. In NYC's footprint it would be near 13k ppsm. But LA's density comes from 3,792,621/468.7. That equals: 8,092 ppsm. Subtract the Santa Monica Mountains and you have more or less the true population density of Los Angeles: 15,315 ppsm*
*I got that from taking away the Santa Monica Mountains and the other hilly sparsley populated areas. And to be fair I excluded the populations from those areas also. Not perfect math but it does give us some idea of the density at which MOST Angelenos live. Those numbers are: 3,599,486/235.03. Again, not perfect but a better estimate.
LA is built differently. That really can determine the final "urbanity" of a place. LA is generally detached single family houses on individual lots, many of which are only one or two stories. With that kind of housing stock the built environment can only be so dense. Philly, for instance, has two or three story rowhouses comprising most of its residential housing stock, and Manhattan has high-rise tenements and apartment buildings. The most common housing stock can really provide a good measure of just how urban the built environment can become, and place a limit on density. LA crams about as much of its common housing stock in as it has been able to. To get appreciably denser it will have to adopt a new common housing stock.
The majority of Los Angeles housing units are multifamily not single family homes. Los Angeles is no less dense than Philadelphia.
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.
