U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-02-2013, 05:33 PM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,542,360 times
Reputation: 746

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
It's pretty built up. Most of WeHo looks like this:

Google Maps Street View

Its moderate density (18,000 ppsm) is more a product of relatively small household sizes and several unpopulated areas (along Sunset, SM, La Cienega, etc.).

L.A. seems to be far less populated along its main arterials compared to other cities with similar core density. Not sure on that one though.
It can be deceiving with single family homes because they take up more space. So even though they're only 11% of the housing units in West Hollywood, they take up a larger fraction of the land area.

The arterials of Los Angeles do have less housing along them than in other large cities. Many of the arterials, particularly on the Westside and in the Valley, were built in the early automobile age. The pattern then was single story commercial buildings. For a long time there was plenty of room to build apartment buildings on side streets. But as those have been built up, there's been a lot more building on the main arterials. You can see it in almost every section of Wilshire, except for office-dominated sections.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-02-2013, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,113,739 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlite View Post
It can be deceiving with single family homes because they take up more space. So even though they're only 11% of the housing units in West Hollywood, they take up a larger fraction of the land area.

The arterials of Los Angeles do have less housing along them than in other large cities. Many of the arterials, particularly on the Westside and in the Valley, were built in the early automobile age. The pattern then was single story commercial buildings. For a long time there was plenty of room to build apartment buildings on side streets. But as those have been built up, there's been a lot more building on the main arterials. You can see it in almost every section of Wilshire, except for office-dominated sections.

Right now what is happening on La Brea is the epitome of this new build-up on the major commercial arterials. Three huge mixed-users all between Fountain and Santa Monica, plus an adaptive re-use on SaMo / La Brea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 07:43 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,427 posts, read 11,929,235 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by HiFi View Post
Many rowhouses in manhattan are single family homes, most where built as single family homes and only now are they used as multifamily.
I'm pretty certain NYC brownstones were designed as two-family homes. The first floor and basement was one unit, and the third and fourth another.

Over time, they've been further subdivided, and I suppose in a few cases rich people have merged them into single-family residences.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 09:51 PM
 
Location: Philadelphia, PA
2,377 posts, read 2,605,403 times
Reputation: 1482
I think the question should be what cities in the US have significant urban living at all...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-02-2013, 10:16 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,834,426 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeNigh View Post
I think the question should be what cities in the US have significant urban living at all...
Pretty much anything typically thought of as a "city" has significant "urban" living. Either that or you're drawing the boundaries of "urban" too narrowly. What cities do you think don't have urban living?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-03-2013, 06:48 AM
 
12,299 posts, read 15,199,676 times
Reputation: 8108
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDF View Post
And Chicago even has that a couple blocks from the Sears tower. Try finding anything suburban in Manhattan. Any other big city is going to have its sections of suburban.
Here in the midwest, most people like to have a bit of open land in their yards. Not like New York where they have accepted that if you want green space, go to the park. Or even LA area, where single-family homes 50 miles from center city can have only a narrow strip of grass for a yard.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 03:58 PM
 
630 posts, read 841,048 times
Reputation: 224
Montreal, NY, Portland and SF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 04:20 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,834,426 times
Reputation: 9769
Quote:
Originally Posted by foo cities View Post
Montreal, NY, Portland and SF.
Don't think so. New York has a few suburban-looking areas within its borders, and plenty of suburban areas outside of it. San Francisco has little suburban development within its borders (it's quite small), but south of the airport is all suburban development until you hit San Jose.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 05:29 PM
 
Location: Canada
4,699 posts, read 8,492,106 times
Reputation: 4888
Quote:
Originally Posted by foo cities View Post
Montreal, NY, Portland and SF.
Uh... no. If you're looking only at the city limits, sure, but all four of those cities have extensive suburbs surrounding them. I grew up in a suburb of Montreal and can attest to its existance. NY has places like Long Island and Westchester. Vancouver, Washington across the river from Portland is hella suburban, and the Bay Area is reknown for sprawl. Silicon Valley itself is suburban.

Vancouver, BC could kinda count, but the reality is that its just a huge area of weird urban form that's kind of an unconventional mix of urban and suburban.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2013, 11:10 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 20 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,008 posts, read 102,606,536 times
Reputation: 33064
Omaha, Indianapolis, OKC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top