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'm confused what point you are trying to make... If the only reason Los Angeles could compete with Chicago was because it has denser suburbs, then it would make sense.
I was responding to the "Yeah, Chicago has a more urban core, but people forget that it's real suburban outside of its core" argument. The argument being that LA's denser city limit surburbia can somehow compensate for its far less urban core. Who really cares if the Valley is denser than the Bungalow Belt? Nobody really sees those places as very "urban" to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
But looking at the population density graph JimmyKem posted its clear that is not the case. Combine that info with Dweebo's structural density graph I would say that Chicago is the more urban city, though not by much and Los Angeles is the more urban metro area, mainly due to urban satellite cities, not more-dense suburbs.
I feel like looking at data to determine whether Chicago is more urban than LA is like looking at data to determine whether Megan Fox is hotter than Meg Ryan. It's a conclusion that most people can intuitively reach without consulting MIT studies on facial attractiveness. It's only a small minority of manboobs and feminists who would shriek, "It's all in the eye of the beholder!"
Besides, population density is just one factor here, which is something that's all too often glossed over in these threads. Chicago is dense, but is also structurally dense in the sense that it has a taller and more continuous streetwall with a better urban fabric overall. Not just dense in the sense that it has X number of units per acre/sq. mile.
"Happening" as in pedestian traffic? You think Pasadena has more pedestrian traffic than Central Boston?
Now if you're talking about clubs or something, that's a different story.
What the hell does this have to do with anything I said?
And again, I don't think anyone is arguing that the city of Chicago is not more urban than LA, just that it is not the runaway that some are making it out to be. I agree Chicago has a better streetwall and taller buildings (or more importantly, that it is all concentrated in one fairly large area) but Los Angeles is not as far behind as is often made out to be.
I was responding to the "Yeah, Chicago has a more urban core, but people forget that it's real suburban outside of its core" argument. The argument being that LA's denser city limit surburbia can somehow compensate for its far less urban core. Who really cares if the Valley is denser than the Bungalow Belt? Nobody really sees those places as very "urban" to begin with.
I feel like looking at data to determine whether Chicago is more urban than LA is like looking at data to determine whether Megan Fox is hotter than Meg Ryan. It's a conclusion that most people can intuitively reach without consulting MIT studies on facial attractiveness. It's only a small minority of manboobs and feminists who would shriek, "It's all in the eye of the beholder!"
Besides, population density is just one factor here, which is something that's all too often glossed over in these threads. Chicago is dense, but is also structurally dense in the sense that it has a taller and more continuous streetwall with a better urban fabric overall. Not just dense in the sense that it has X number of units per acre/sq. mile.
One point to make about your Megan Fox analogy - I can quickly and easily take in every square inch of Megan Fox and Meg Ryan in about 20 seconds. Not so much with metropolis', which is why data helps see the entire picture a little more clearly.
One point to make about your Megan Fox analogy - I can quickly and easily take in every square inch of Megan Fox and Meg Ryan in about 20 seconds. Not so much with metropolis', which is why data helps see the entire picture a little more clearly.
That's true. I have no problem with data. It's just the way people use it. Valid data doesn't necessarily validate the conclusion we draw from that data. But people on here often act like it does (not pointing you out). You can use perfectly valid data to reach totally ridiculous conclusions.
I was responding to the "Yeah, Chicago has a more urban core, but people forget that it's real suburban outside of its core" argument. The argument being that LA's denser city limit surburbia can somehow compensate for its far less urban core. Who really cares if the Valley is denser than the Bungalow Belt? Nobody really sees those places as very "urban" to begin with.
I feel like looking at data to determine whether Chicago is more urban than LA is like looking at data to determine whether Megan Fox is hotter than Meg Ryan. It's a conclusion that most people can intuitively reach without consulting MIT studies on facial attractiveness. It's only a small minority of manboobs and feminists who would shriek, "It's all in the eye of the beholder!"
Besides, population density is just one factor here, which is something that's all too often glossed over in these threads. Chicago is dense, but is also structurally dense in the sense that it has a taller and more continuous streetwall with a better urban fabric overall. Not just dense in the sense that it has X number of units per acre/sq. mile.
Predictable response--when you can't duck the fact that L.A. overall is a more dense environment than Chicagoland, act like it doesn't matter! Excellent cop-out.
Here's the thing about that Megan Fox analogy--you can't objectively measure beauty. It IS in the eye of the beholder, no matter how many posters choose Fox over Meg Ryan. You can however, compare urbanity using statistics, and they are objective. Population density, built density, etc. Posters compare cities using these statistics all the time. Now I'm supposed to believe they make up a tiny portion of what "urban" means? Come on.
NYC is the most urban city in the United State--not because everyone says so, but because all the objective data used to measure urbanity points to it being the most urban city in the United States. You can't dismiss data simply because it doesn't give you the results you like.
This other argument--the one that says we're only supposed to look at the peak dense areas and ignore everything else, is weak IMO. Part of the reason why Chicago or Philly have more of a "big city" vibe than Washington DC or Boston is because they maintain density further out from their cores. It's not just what goes on the parts you feel like looking at. It's the whole picture. In L.A.'s case, the whole picture = an urbanized area twice as dense as Chicago's. To not factor that in is to cherry-pick.
Predictable response--when you can't duck the fact that L.A. overall is a more dense environment than Chicagoland, act like it doesn't matter! Excellent cop-out.
Here's the thing about that Megan Fox analogy--you can't objectively measure beauty. It IS in the eye of the beholder, no matter how many posters choose Fox over Meg Ryan. You can however, compare urbanity using statistics, and they are objective. Population density, built density, etc. Posters compare cities using these statistics all the time. Now I'm supposed to believe they make up a tiny portion of what "urban" means? Come on.
NYC is the most urban city in the United State--not because everyone says so, but because all the objective data used to measure urbanity points to it being the most urban city in the United States. You can't dismiss data simply because it doesn't give you the results you like.
This other argument--the one that says we're only supposed to look at the peak dense areas and ignore everything else, is weak IMO. Part of the reason why Chicago or Philly have more of a "big city" vibe than Washington DC or Boston is because they maintain density further out from their cores. It's not just what goes on the parts you feel like looking at. It's the whole picture. In L.A.'s case, the whole picture = an urbanized area twice as dense as Chicago's. To not factor that in is to cherry-pick.
Wow I want to see what kind of lame response he'll have to this post lol
Predictable response--when you can't duck the fact that L.A. overall is a more dense environment than Chicagoland, act like it doesn't matter! Excellent cop-out.
It's your response that's predictable. You're like the West Coast version of MDAllStar. You focus on the things that bolster your argument to the exclusion of everything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Population density, built density, etc. Posters compare cities using these statistics all the time. Now I'm supposed to believe they make up a tiny portion of what "urban" means? Come on.
Is there ever a time where you don't go around making strawman arguments? This is becoming very tiresome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
NYC is the most urban city in the United State--not because everyone says so, but because all the objective data used to measure urbanity points to it being the most urban city in the United States. You can't dismiss data simply because it doesn't give you the results you like.
Technically, L.A. would be more urban than New York because it has a denser urban area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
This other argument--the one that says we're only supposed to look at the peak dense areas and ignore everything else, is weak IMO.
Again, L.A. is technically denser and therefore more "urban" than New York because its urban area is denser. But nobody, including you, would ever make such a ridiculous argument because NYC's peak density (a metric you just decried above) is exceedingly higher than LA's (this goes for population and structural density). Nobody is going to say that L.A. is more urban than NYC because the region overall is more uniformly dense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Part of the reason why Chicago or Philly have more of a "big city" vibe than Washington DC or Boston is because they maintain density further out from their cores. It's not just what goes on the parts you feel like looking at. It's the whole picture. In L.A.'s case, the whole picture = an urbanized area twice as dense as Chicago's. To not factor that in is to cherry-pick.
You say you're looking at the "whole picture," but you're really not. It's easy to see that Philly has much more urbanity than DC because you see structurally dense rowhousing for miles. That's one of the first things you notice when entering the city on I-95 from Trenton. People's impressions of the city would probably be different if the area from Cottman Avenue down to Spring Garden were full of free-standing buildings and SFHs.
I mean, this is so common sensical that 81 people voted for Chicago in this thread over 15 for LA. If L.A. were matched against Philadelphia (which it was in a different thread comparing several different cities), it would lose that matchup, too (despite L.A. having a higher population density in its core). So either 81 people are stupid, ignorant, L.A. haters who don't know anything at all about cities, or there are a fair number of people who are accounting for more than just population density in their analysis. Which one do you think it is?
So either 81 people are stupid, ignorant, L.A. haters who don't know anything at all about cities, or there are a fair number of people who are accounting for more than just population density in their analysis. Which one do you think it is?
One thing to note about Los Angeles is that historically it has been extremely low density. It is probably one of the only cities in the country that has consistently gained population density over the last century. So I think part of the reason is not that people are stupid, or ignorant, it is just that for decades and decades Los Angeles was considered the "suburban city" - old ideas die hard and for many the immediate response to LA is that it is only a big city due to its sprawling nature and huge borders. I wouldn't call them stupid or ignorant, just basing their ideas on what they believe is common knowledge.
Every played LA Noire? As you drive along in 1930's Los Angeles you notice pretty much everything west of Beaudry Avenue was single family homes. That includes what is currently the densest parts of the city such as Westlake, Pico Union and Koreatown. Even Hollywood was mostly made up of SFHs - the city didn't really start to densify in earnest until the 70's onward. There is a really great web site a poster in the LA forum cites often that has aerials of Los Angeles from every decade spanning the 30's to today. The changes are incredible. I'll have to find the link.
BTW, if I voted for LA it was only because I do find the metro area to be more urban than Chicagoland. For cities, there is no question that Chicago is the more urban city. Better watch their back though because LA is going through a mini-construction boom that is starting to look like a full-fledged one (just one example):
One thing to note about Los Angeles is that historically it has been extremely low density. It is probably one of the only cities in the country that has consistently gained population density over the last century. So I think part of the reason is not that people are stupid, or ignorant, it is just that for decades and decades Los Angeles was considered the "suburban city" - old ideas die hard and for many the immediate response to LA is that it is only a big city due to its sprawling nature and huge borders. I wouldn't call them stupid or ignorant, just basing their ideas on what they believe is common knowledge.
Okay, but I think it's fair to say that a lot of people on this Board have been to Los Angeles, including yours truly. Many are basing their opinions on their perceptions of the city within the past 3 to 4 years, not based on episodes of Dragnet. Los Angeles is not some highly inaccessible place you can only visit once in a lifetime (if you're lucky) like Tibet or Cuba.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
Every played LA Noire? As you drive along in 1930's Los Angeles you notice pretty much everything west of Beaudry Avenue was single family homes. That includes what is currently the densest parts of the city such as Westlake, Pico Union and Koreatown. Even Hollywood was mostly made up of SFHs - the city didn't really start to densify in earnest until the 70's onward. There is a really great web site a poster in the LA forum cites often that has aerials of Los Angeles from every decade spanning the 30's to today. The changes are incredible. I'll have to find the link.
L.A. Noire was too boring. I went back to COD. I prefer blowing sh*t up. I don't want to play a game that requires me to think and use my intuition. Unless, of course, it's "Where in the World is Carmen San Diego?" I'll make an exception for that.
Anyways, I don't doubt L.A. has changed a lot. But again, I don't think most people on here are comparing the L.A. of the 1950s, 60s or 70s to the Chicago of the present-day. I wasn't even alive in the 70s so I'm certainly not doing that.
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.
