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.
How? That is the truth. If you want to how an academic conversation, you must use real stats. Was what I said false? The same thing is true for DC. Langley Park is one of the densest areas in the DC area. You want to guess why? Anthropologists study cultural differences to understand the way people live. What kind of educational background do you all have? Didn't you discuss these types of things in school or among peers in research?
How do you not remember this from like three weeks ago? You posted streetviews of Westlake and acted all incredulous that the place had a density of 90k. Yes the household sizes were larger in Westlake versus your handpicked already-gentrified DC neighborhood. The stats showed Westlake would still be denser (or at least very, very close) even with the very low household size of this bougie DC neighborhood. Westlake is undoubtedly the worst neighborhood in LA for overcrowding (maybe Pico-Union), so this is clearly not the reason LA is mystifyingly dense. The fact is LA is densely developed.
And no matter how the place achieves 90k ppsm - the fact is that there are that many people living in a small neighborhood, and have to do most of their chores sans a personal automobile. If every person living in that neighborhood had a car (which is ludicrous, why would they have their own car but pile into a tiny apartment) the underground parking lots would have to be 10 stories deep. There is undoubtedly going to be a lot of pedestrian activity (which there is), no matter if it is zero-lot development or not (and really the buildings are like 3 feet apart).
Besides the fact that the exact argument was made in another thread and I proved it to be completely inaccurate. I guess for some reason it makes their cities less enjoyable to know that LA is densely populated and has people walking around. Crazy.
You actually agreed with me. You said that the density would be way higher in a neighborhood with the structural density of the DC neighborhood we were comparing. Come on man, don't do that. At least be honest.
Okay. *BajanYankee rubs hands together* This is what I'm talking about! Right in the heart of downtown! I've got my Swiss backpack, my iPod, and I'm ready to explore.
keep following and wave to the folks at the concert hall. Keep following till you reach 6th.
I'm a bit confused here. I started at 6th and Grand. Walked down Grand. Made a left on Olympic. Maybe you should just provide the links for me as I did for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scrantiX
You'll be in the heart of LA's financial center, then make a right on 6th and you'll be going into Pershing Square. From there if you choose to keep walking your urban delights, head to the Jewelry district in between Olive and Broadway a couple of blocks south of Pershing Square.
I have just one question.
What happens if I leave the CBD? Let's say that I head west from 6th and Grand to explore the rest of the city by foot.
I can think of one or two in SF -- wedged into fairly unusable shapes of land near The Embarcadero -- which hold 5-10 cars each. So yeah, you're right, I suppose. Otherwise, there is a large lot south of the ballpark...for now. It will soon be developed with an arena. I cannot think of a surface lot more than a block from the waterfront in all of downtown SF.
There are a relatively decent amount of surface parking lots between Market St and the Bay Bridge, especially around the Transbay Terminal. A lot of land that used to be under the former Embarcadero Freeway are surface lots. There is a lot of current and proposed development in that area so 10 years from now a lot of those lots could be gone.
Another thing, I don't understand where someone in DC gets the idea to start talking about car culture. Washingtonians sit in traffic for hours of their day like its a hobby, millions of cars on roads resembling surface parking lots, not to mention folks averaging less than 10 MPH between DC and Baltimore between 4-8 PM for at least 35 minutes. Washingtonians are no strangers to the car and don't bother posting your crap transit stats, MDbigshot considers DC and Baltimore one metro, combined DC's pampered "40% transit usage" rating goes down considerably with the additional 3M Baltimore brings on board.
Not even your toy train set can save you from that reality. So before you start firing shots at LA, look out the window bruh, you're not living in no Hong Kong.
How do you not remember this from like three weeks ago? You posted streetviews of Westlake and acted all incredulous that the place had a density of 90k. Yes the household sizes were larger in Westlake versus your handpicked already-gentrified DC neighborhood. The stats showed Westlake would still be denser (or at least very, very close) even with the very low household size of this bougie DC neighborhood. Westlake is undoubtedly the worst neighborhood in LA for overcrowding (maybe Pico-Union), so this is clearly not the reason LA is mystifyingly dense. The fact is LA is densely developed.
And no matter how the place achieves 90k ppsm - the fact is that there are that many people living in a small neighborhood, and have to do most of their chores sans a personal automobile. If every person living in that neighborhood had a car (which is ludicrous, why would they have their own car but pile into a tiny apartment) the underground parking lots would have to be 10 stories deep. There is undoubtedly going to be a lot of pedestrian activity (which there is), no matter if it is zero-lot development or not (and really the buildings are like 3 feet apart).
What? You are the one who is mistaken. You yourself showed that the DC census tract at 66,000 people per square mile had half the household size of the 90,000 census tract in L.A. We both agreed that if the D.C. census tract had the same household size as the L.A. census tract, the D.C. census tract would have a higher population density than the L.A. census tract.
What? You are the one who is mistaken. You yourself showed that the DC census tract at 66,000 people per square mile had half the household size of the 90,000 census tract in L.A. We both agreed that if the D.C. census tract had the same household size as the L.A. census tract, the D.C. census tract would have a higher population density than the L.A. census tract.
Ok you are right about that, but my general premise stays the same. You also have to keep in mind these are two neighborhoods you chose, in DC it is one of the nicer gentrified neighborhoods and in Los Angeles, Westlake is a point of entry for many immigrants. We are talking one of the best neighborhoods in DC versus one of the poorest. Congratulations!
45k vs. 66k
So a place with 45k ppsm is not urban? And the fact is those people still live there, adding vibrancy to that area. It is like nothing you will ever experience in DC.
Another thing, I don't understand where someone in DC gets the idea to start talking about car culture. Washingtonians sit in traffic for hours of their day like its a hobby, millions of cars on roads resembling surface parking lots, not to mention folks averaging less than 10 MPH between DC and Baltimore between 4-8 PM for at least 35 minutes. Washingtonians are no strangers to the car and don't bother posting your crap transit stats, MDbigshot considers DC and Baltimore one metro, combined DC's pampered "40% transit usage" rating goes down considerably with the additional 3M Baltimore brings on board.
Not even your toy train set can save you from that reality. So before you start firing shots at LA, look out the window bruh, you're not living in no Hong Kong.
??????? Are you talking about DC proper or MD and VA suburbs? People in DC meaning "the city" don't sit in traffic.
Ok you are right about that, but my general premise stays the same.
45k vs. 66k
So a place with 45k ppsm is not urban?
No, I never said LA was not urban to begin with. I said it was not "as urban" as the NE and I was also talking about the built environment only by the way. We differ on what the formula for urban truly is. I personally think urbanity is the combination of population density and built environment. Because LA has high household size, yet low intensity built environment, it's not "as urban" as NE row house style cities. When using an apple to apples comparison taking extended families living under one roof out the equation, urbanity is pretty easy to see. You should be able to see it at 4 am when no one is on the street. Its definition is seen based on the built environment.
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.
