Is LA urban? A look at both sides of the argument (metro, Baltimore)
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 know this thread has been shut down a couple of times on the city vs. city forum, but I think it's appropriate here in the urban planning forum to continue the discussion. Also, let's keep the conversation civil and productive!
Frankly, I see both sides of the argument:
On the one hand:
LA is dense, huge, and has pockets that feel very urban by any standard. If one wants to live carless in a walkable neighborhood with great amenities, relying on public transit - they can easily do that. There are a ton of world-class urban amenities. The metro serves certain areas very well, and is rapidly improving. In terms of urbanity, LA blows any other sunbelt city out of the water. Also (as meta as this may sound), the city definitely has a 'pulse' - it is an exciting, vibrant city and it always feels like there is something going on (moreso than many other more traditional urban cities).
On the other hand:
LA has a very inconsistant streetscape and urban fabric. There are commercial sections that are vibrant and urban, but there are also large swaths filled with auto-oriented boulevards. There are residential sections filled with huge, dense apartment buildings but also sections with primarily single-family homes. Also, the urban neighborhoods and pockets don't typically flow together between each other or downtown. Finally, even in some of the most urban corridors (e.g. Wilshire, which is undoubtedly urban by any standard) the roads are often really big - 6 lanes with a median - and that dillutes the urban pedestrian-friendly streetscape and amenities that exist around the road. And, even in the dense apartment areas, there are typically significanty set-backs from the street which also dillutes the urban feel.
Overall, the city is improving quickly but right now has strong elements of both urban and suburban (albeit, dense suburban) character. It has a ways to go before it has an urban fabric that can match San Francisco, Philly, Boston, or Chicago . Chicago, incidentally, has suburban elements (e.g. strip malls) embedded successfully in areas that are very urban and pedestrian-oriented. I think LA could learn from that approach to try and transform some of its auto-oriented strips into more urban/dense forms without having to completely tear-down and rebuild the streetscape. I think zoning plays a huge role as well - city leaders should target some of the more sprawl-y sections of the city for more pedestrian-oriented development by changing zoning and creating incentives for mixed-use/high density developments and projects in those areas. They should also try and fill in the numerous dead spaces between vibrants areas, as well as those adjacent to downtown.
It's an exciting city to watch - we'll see how it all plays out in the next 30 years. For now, it's in kind of a crazy state; Im not surprised it causes so much debate here.
Is LA urban? A look at both sides of the argument ...It's an exciting city to watch
First you have to define the limits of what you mean when you say LA.
But when you use the word "city" that implies a greater limit than many seem willing to accommodate.
First you have to define the limits of what you mean when you say LA.
But when you use the word "city" that implies a greater limit than many seem willing to accommodate.
hth
It means literally the city boundaries of LA, as well as the areas that are completely within LA (e.g. Santa Monica, West Hollywood)
It means literally the city boundaries of LA, as well as the areas that are completely within LA (e.g. Santa Monica, West Hollywood)
Then I guess you have to put me in the "prefers a greater limit" column
than those for whom the full legal (468.67!!) square miles of the "city",
of any city really, should be counted in any conversation about urbanity.
by comparison: New York City has a comparable land mass... and nearly all of it is far
more "urban" than LA would ever approach being... but when referred to, "NY" is almost
always limited to the 90 or so square miles of Manhattan.
Then I guess you have to put me in the "prefers a greater limit" column
than those for whom the full legal (468.67!!) square miles of the "city",
of any city really, should be counted in any conversation about urbanity.
by comparison: New York City has a comparable land mass... and nearly all of it is far
more "urban" than LA would ever approach being... but when referred to, "NY" is almost
always limited to the 90 or so square miles of Manhattan.
Oh well.
This is kind of a sidebar from the main point - I think we're sort of splitting hairs here. LA is LA, and of course we are talking primarily about the more urban part of the city.
LA is LA, and of course we are talking primarily about the more urban part of the city.
Well I didn't think you meant Griffith Park...
but I'm glad to see that you're willing to temper your parameters at least some.
Perhaps it's my more provincial background or just the uniqueness of it...
but where I'm from (Baltimore) "the city" is politically and in every other sense separate from the surrounding county; and that smaller area (about 90sq mi) still includes a fair amount of thinly populated and spread out areas that no one would ever think of as urban or "the city".
LA is dense, huge, and has pockets that feel very urban by any standard. If one wants to live carless in a walkable neighborhood with great amenities, relying on public transit - they can easily do that.
Are the walkable areas of the mixed-use variety, where business and residences are mixed in together? The few walkable areas I know of are all zoned out into either all shops or all residential, so it seems it would be a tough feat to pull off for the average joe who has to commute a substantial distance between home and work to not own a car in a place like LA. Unless you're lucky and happen to work close to where you live.
Just speaking from my somewhat limited experience living in the LA area for two years ('02-04) and the impression I gained during that time. LA encompasses such a vast area its impossible to know a whole lot about it in only two years though the general impression I got was of a vast land of fancy cars and SUVs, highway congestion as far as the eye can see, parking lots, cars, cars and more cars. But maybe I'm wrong and there is more to LA than meets the eye who knows.
Are the walkable areas of the mixed-use variety, where business and residences are mixed in together? The few walkable areas I know of are all zoned out into either all shops or all residential, so it seems it would be a tough feat to pull off for the average joe who has to commute a substantial distance between home and work to not own a car in a place like LA. Unless you're lucky and happen to work close to where you live.
Just speaking from my somewhat limited experience living in the LA area for two years ('02-04) and the impression I gained during that time. LA encompasses such a vast area its impossible to know a whole lot about it in only two years though the general impression I got was of a vast land of fancy cars and SUVs, highway congestion as far as the eye can see, parking lots, cars, cars and more cars. But maybe I'm wrong and there is more to LA than meets the eye who knows.
LA could use more mixed-use, no doubt, but in areas like Hollywood, Koreatown, Miracle Mile, Venice Beach, Santa Monica, etc you can very easily live within short walking distance of tons of amenities and have easy access to good public transit.
For what it's worth, take a look at the city of San Francisco sometime -- a city that no reasonable person would suggest is not "urban." Yet SF also has an "inconsistent" streetscape and urban fabric." There are areas with almost exclusively single family houses, and auto-oriented strips and some very pedestrian-unfriendly streets. Yet for some reason no one ever mentions those aspects of San Francisco. I understand the overall differences, but do think it's a bit unfair that these debates often overplay LA's suburban elements, while so often overlooking some of those same elements found in other cities.
Cisco kid, where in LA did you live for two years that you never experienced the city's many walkable neighborhoods?! I only lived in the city for three years, yet visited many such neighborhoods. Then again, I got out of a car and explored the city via foot and public transportation. Many times I think people see what they want to see. (perhaps part of the reason the highways played such little role for me in my LA life, as while I knew they were there, I rarely went on them.) There were certainly vast sections of the city I never did get a good chance to explore, but I have a tough time believing that you really lived in LA and did not encounter mixed-use neighborhoods. They're all over the place. Downtown, Los Feliz, Westwood, Hollywood, West Hollywood, Koreatown, Eagle Rock, Highland Park, etc. etc. etc.
FWIW, I think some of the debate about LA comes down to economics; most rich people in LA live in more "suburban" areas, while the very wealthy people in cities like San Francisco or New York are more likely to live in more "urban" areas. There seems to be a tendency to focus on those experiences, while overlooking the vast sections of all cities where the poor or middle-class people live. That seems to be especially heightened in LA, where many tourists come looking for glitz and glamour, and would much rather see Rodeo Drive than Koreatown. Hollywood is perhaps the exception, although if you only go to the Kodak Theater and maybe walk a couple of blocks up and down the boulevard itself it can be easy to miss that behind the tourist trappings it is a fully-functioning "real" neighborhood that most certainly counts as mixed-use.
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 10-29-2011 at 10:25 PM..
I too feel San Francisco is a overglorified sometimes. There's a lot of bad to go along with the good. People tend to visit just the touristy areas and aren't aware of the rest of the city. But the bad stuff is never too far away unfortunately, I mean given the compactness of a city like this. A large section of the downtown Market St. area for example is filled with these really sleazy, low-rent porn theaters and XXX video shops. A few of them are higher class strip joints that aren't so bad but the majority seem to be really shady, low-rent type of places where you see all kinds of shady characters hanging around. There must be a million of these joints in San Francisco.
Let's say you're heading east on Market street one minute walking with a bunch of other tourists in a relatively safe area, then you just make a right onto South of market and all the sudden you're in the ghetto, I mean literally. Just the worst nastiest, grossest run-down neighborhood you can imagine. All the sudden you see streets filled with all kind of homeless, drug addicts, dealers selling in broad daylight, prostitutes who look like they're strung out on crystal meth, you name it. Homeless begging for change and the stench of urine everywhere, just the lowliest looking kind of characters you can imagine
If you're a tourist and don't know any better its pretty easy to stray into one of these places because they're actually a lot more common than people care to admit. I lived in SF in the late 90s for a couple years or so so I don't know if they have cleaned it up or not since that time but it was just incredible to me that a prominent high-profile city can allow such an incredible amount of squalor to exist within its borders. I mean these bad areas are really close in proximity to the tourist areas and not far from the financial and downtown areas where everybody works. I spent a couple years to go to school in SF but man I never been so happy to get out of a place.
Mission district, Bayview-Huntrers Point, certain areas South of Market, Western Addition, the Tenderloin, I mean the list goes on. People seem to be too ashamed or too embarrassed to talk about it very much but if you ever spent a decent amount of time in SF you know this stuff exists, its right there in your face. Its like a big dirty little secret or something. Most of the travel brochures probably don't mention it or describe what they're really like. I guess people prefer to be blissfully or willfully ignorant sometimes take your pick.
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.
