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.
Which one of these terms are you talking about right now?
URBAN FORM
Urban form refers to the physical layout and design of the city. Urban design takes into consideration density, street layout, transportation and employment areas and urban design issues. Growth management issues such as urban sprawl, growth patterns and phasing of developments also heavily influence urban form.
DENSITY
Refers to the number of persons, families or dwellings per unit of land. The more persons in an area, the higher the density.
Both, guy. One plays into the other. Urban form is partially dictated by density. People and their habits shape the urban form. Density shapes the urban form. The pedestrian accessibility and high density of the surrounding neighborhood offers a large potential client base for anyone who sets up shop. The amenities set up there causes people to look favorably upon the location and want to move there. The fact that koreatown does not look like a northeastern suburb is a side note--yes, it'd make the walk nicer but it doesn't prevent it. Why the hell do you think the census tracts have such high korean populations within ktown itself if it's just as advantageous if not more so to drive there? Why not live in some place roomier or nicer (or have the actual parking available that you just have to have in LA but is so damn hard for residential units in ktown) just north or west? Because then you don't actually get to walk/bike/take transit to work or stores or clubs or churches or blah blah blah. How, as an urban planner, do you somehow butt your head against the actual function of these neighborhoods, and seeing that it doesn't fit your conceptions to a 't' just completely disregard the actual experiences of people familiar with the area and all the supporting stats?
Both, guy. One plays into the other. Urban form is partially dictated by density. People and their habits shape the urban form. Density shapes the urban form. The pedestrian accessibility and high density of the surrounding neighborhood offers a large potential client base for anyone who sets up shop. The amenities set up there causes people to look favorably upon the location and want to move there. The fact that koreatown does not look like a northeastern suburb is a side note--yes, it'd make the walk nicer but it doesn't prevent it. Why the hell do you think the census tracts have such high korean populations within ktown itself if it's just as advantageous if not more so to drive there? Why not live in some place roomier or nicer (or have the actual parking available that you just have to have in LA but is so damn hard for residential units in ktown) just north or west? Because then you don't actually get to walk/bike/take transit to work or stores or clubs or churches or blah blah blah. How, as an urban planner, do you somehow butt your head against the actual function of these neighborhoods, and seeing that it doesn't fit your conceptions to a 't' just completely disregard the actual experiences of people familiar with the area and all the supporting stats?
Ok, are you just saying what you think or is your response actually coming from a credible source? Where did you get your defintion? Could you please post the link, book, or reference?
I ask this because, what you just said made absolutely no sense. Building interaction is what dictates everything before a single soul lives in any residential unit. The people living there have nothing to do with it. The people are the cart, the building is the horse. People do exactly what they are suppose to do, move into a neighborhood some planner designed for them to live in. But, the way we design them has alot to do with how successful retail is etc. The designs have absoluely nothing to do with the people living there when they are built. The higher the population density, the more successful retail is. But then we get into an entire different debate on what kind of retail would be successful. Are we talking about a Whole Foods in the neighborhood etc?
Last edited by MDAllstar; 09-19-2012 at 01:53 PM..
Ok, are you just saying what you think or is your response actually coming from a credible source? Where did you get your defintion? Could you please post the link, book, or reference?
Well, for one thing, your own definition takes density into account. There are ample sources for the idea that amenities attract people and people attract amenities.
Urban form refers to the physical layout and design of the city. Urban design takes into consideration density, street layout, transportation and employment areas and urban design issues. Growth management issues such as urban sprawl, growth patterns and phasing of developments also heavily influence urban form.
DENSITY
Refers to the number of persons, families or dwellings per unit of land. The more persons in an area, the higher the density.
You are talking about population density which has nothing to do with the built environment. Is this a debate about the most populated places or the most urban places? What exactly are you guys talking about? Maybe someone should change the thread title.
Are you out of your mind? That doesn't sound like anything close to being a strict definition for "urban form". You can define it in an aesthetic sense, as there are many different types.
It would make a difference, but functionally wouldn't change that much. It's basically widening the sidewalk at the expense of the asphalt on each side and bringing the storefronts of those with their strip parking lots to the sidewalk and eliminating the parking. There's not actually a real increase in retail density, though there might be a bit more room for some of the stores after the parking lot is gone. It functions the same--which I know from actually, you know, having experience with Koreatown.
It does make a big difference in the aggregate. If you were to shrink all of the streets in Los Angeles down to pedestrian-scale, you'd have a much more compact and walkable city. Everything would be closer. If there were more mixed-use streets where housing was placed atop commercial buildings, then neighborhoods could become even more compact.
The biggest problem with L.A. seems to be single story buildings. That Koreatown google street view is not what I would consider very urban..
On the other hand, the biggest problem with saying that DC is 'more urban' than LA is that DC is just far too small to compare and its population density abruptly drops off.
Well, for one thing, your own definition takes density into account. There are ample sources for the idea that amenities attract people and people attract amenities.
And you know which one comes before both of those, buildings!
Well, for one thing, your own definition takes density into account. There are ample sources for the idea that amenities attract people and people attract amenities.
The biggest problem with L.A. seems to be single story buildings. That Koreatown google street view is not what I would consider very urban. If the buildings were about 5-6 stories, it would be though.
Well, the commercial strip you posted was mostly one story, but there are these mini mall sort of things where there are two story buildings with each story having its own stores and storefronts.
The residential area right off of those commercial strips are generally apartment complexes from two to six floors and high density.
I know there's some article posted way back when about how it's much more comforting getting something like a two to one ratio between the street width and building heights around the street. It just looks more urban, so I do agree that it likely affects how people perceive and interact with the neighborhood. In that sense, Ktown doesn't "live up" to its purported density. However, it still functions as an urban neighborhood because the sheer convenience due to the concentration of amenities and the high residential density results in people walking anyhow despite possible psychological barriers and impedances to walking.
Are you out of your mind? That doesn't sound like anything close to being a strict definition for "urban form". You can define it in an aesthetic sense, as there are many different types.
Yes, that is true, but DENSITY based on population is pretty cut and dry which has nothing to do with the built environment. Put 10 people in every one bedroom in a suburb somewhere and see what the population density would be. Would that make the area any more urban though?
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.
