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)
View Poll Results: Which city is more Urban
Chicago 114 79.17%
Los Angeles 30 20.83%
Voters: 144. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-24-2013, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,103,705 times
Reputation: 3979

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
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.
Yeah I get that, didn't have much replay value either. I probably only liked it because it was in LA - actually my wife was more into solving the crimes, I just wanted to try to drive around 30's LA as fast as I could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
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.
That's not really what I was trying to say... It was more that people have this idea of LA in their head before they visit even. Partially it is from LA's history as a planned low-density city (that plan failed ). Another reason is the blurring of LA and its suburbs -You hear people talk about visiting LA and you ask where they stayed and their response is "Claremont" or "Carson" - a lot of people just assume this is what all of Los Angeles looks like, including myself (a person who didn't think LA was a "real" city until I moved here).

Also a lot of people have never visited LA and still have a notion that it is a big suburb - this may partially be owed to "Hollywood", who in the 90s seemed to think the only LA that existed was north of Sunset Blvd (or east of the LA river and south of the 10 if they wanted to show the "barrio" or "projects").

Another reason is that it is just really patchy and goes from streaks of great urban design to spots that looks like they were designed specifically to move cars at the highest possible volume. In this regard it gets blown out of the water by Chicago (though it too has its own smaller issues with this), luckily it seems to be one of the most important issues to city politicians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-24-2013, 10:57 AM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,193,007 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
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..
In my case, it's not that LA is inaccessible, I've been there 5 times in the last 9 years.
But I have never been downtown. As an out-of-towner, fighting the freeways, LA "seems" big and sprawly.
There have been enough internet debates about how LA is very urban, for me to open my eyes and see beyond my limited time on the freeways, that LA has evolved into something beyond it reputation as "sprawl".

I've also been to Chicago 4 times in the last 6 years and every time I made a point of going downtown, so my perception is that Chicago is much more urban. Not necessarily a correct assumption.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2013, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,249 posts, read 26,220,119 times
Reputation: 11706
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
That's not really what I was trying to say... It was more that people have this idea of LA in their head before they visit even. Partially it is from LA's history as a planned low-density city (that plan failed ). Another reason is the blurring of LA and its suburbs -You hear people talk about visiting LA and you ask where they stayed and their response is "Claremont" or "Carson" - a lot of people just assume this is what all of Los Angeles looks like, including myself (a person who didn't think LA was a "real" city until I moved here).

Also a lot of people have never visited LA and still have a notion that it is a big suburb - this may partially be owed to "Hollywood", who in the 90s seemed to think the only LA that existed was north of Sunset Blvd (or east of the LA river and south of the 10 if they wanted to show the "barrio" or "projects").

Another reason is that it is just really patchy and goes from streaks of great urban design to spots that looks like they were designed specifically to move cars at the highest possible volume. In this regard it gets blown out of the water by Chicago (though it too has its own smaller issues with this), luckily it seems to be one of the most important issues to city politicians.
All of what you say may be true. I just find it interesting that so many people on this site are like, "Man, what?" when you have planners like Donald Shoup pointing out the same things most people notice on a three-day visit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2013, 11:23 AM
 
Location: In the heights
22,116 posts, read 23,634,230 times
Reputation: 11606
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
All of what you say may be true. I just find it interesting that so many people on this site are like, "Man, what?" when you have planners like Donald Shoup pointing out the same things most people notice on a three-day visit.
The thing with just visiting though is that most of the sites/sights you're supposed to go to in Los Angeles are not the denser urban neighborhoods and generally sort of far away from each other. You go to Venice/Santa Monica, you go to Disneyland (out in Orange County and having to go through a cluster**** of anodyne suburbia), you go to Malibu (way out there in the West), you go to a shopping strip around Beverly Hills, you go to Hollywood, and you maybe go to Six Flags. That's a pretty general itinerary of what most people do when they visit Los Angeles and save for Venice/Santa Monica and Hollywood (which are quite a distance between each other so if you visit both, then you're likely going on the freeway and passing by everything else), these things aren't very urban. What is fairly urban is pretty big--not big in comparison to LA's metro size, but pretty big compared to US cities as a whole. It's a lot more urban than most people who visit think.

Several years is a long time for urban development in Los Angeles. It includes good chunks of time after rezoning and expansion of the transit system and all the development that ensues from those. We've had this discussion before and you make really good points, but I still think you should really try a stay in the urban areas of Los Angeles and just take mass transit, bikes, or walking to get a feel of what daily urban living in Los Angeles is like.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2013, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,249 posts, read 26,220,119 times
Reputation: 11706
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Several years is a long time for urban development in Los Angeles. We've had this discussion before and you make really good points, but I still think you should really try a stay in the urban areas of Los Angeles and just take mass transit, bikes, or walking to get a feel of what daily urban living in Los Angeles is like.
2009 is not "several years." That was just four years ago. And someone has already asked why people aren't eager to walk around Los Angeles and take mass transit the way they are when visiting London or New York. As if a quick glance at the average street in London and the average street in Los Angeles wouldn't reveal the answer to that question.

City-Data people are just funny. It's no different than Philadelphia posters saying, "I can't believe people believe Philadelphia is dirty." It is dirty. The few trendy parts don't negate the slums/rusty neighborhoods that constitute a much larger percentage of the city. Homerism is out of control here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2013, 11:36 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
2009 is not "several years." That was just four years ago. And someone has already asked why people aren't eager to walk around Los Angeles and take mass transit the way they are when visiting London or New York. As if a quick glance at the average street in London and the average street in Los Angeles wouldn't reveal the answer to that question.
I don't think anyone's claiming Los Angeles is to the level of London or New York City. That would be a silly thread. We're comparing it to Chicago. I still think Chicago comes out ahead, but I'll agree with the Los Angeles posters is much more urban than the average newer American city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2013, 11:43 AM
 
Location: In the heights
22,116 posts, read 23,634,230 times
Reputation: 11606
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
2009 is not "several years." That was just four years ago. And someone has already asked why people aren't eager to walk around Los Angeles and take mass transit the way they are when visiting London or New York. As if a simple look at the average street in London and the average street in Los Angeles wouldn't reveal the answer to that question.

City-Data people are just funny. It's no different than Philadelphia posters saying, "I can't believe people believe Philadelphia is dirty." It is dirty. The few trendy parts don't negate the slums/rusty neighborhoods that constitute a much larger percentage of the city. Homerism is out of control here.
Well, four is good. That falls somewhere along few and several and it's a good lot of time (that's one new light rail line, one extension to an existing line, a few major municipal projects including the new centerpiece park in downtown, rollout of an almost bus rapid transit system, proliferation of food trucks as LA has oh-so-many parking lots and a lot of new development especially in downtown). I don't think it's homerism (because I got out of LA specifically because I didn't enjoy living there). It's also definitely not as urban and London and NYC which is a no-brainer that I wouldn't argue with ever--LA isn't urban on that scale despite its huge metro population. It's urban on the scale of one or two tiers down for US cities. I do think there is a point to be made about what people actually see when they visit Los Angeles though. What other tourist draws are there? What brings people out to the more urban parts? Downtown certainly isn't a big highlight on the tourist agenda neither is Westlake, Koreatown, downtown Culver City or most of Hollywood. There are people who walk the streets in Los Angeles and there's been an obvious large increase over the years. Again, just give it a try. There are still some interesting things to see even if you aren't doing the big tourist sights that are within the more urban part of LA. Maybe take a vacation there and stay at the Standard in downtown and use that as a stepping off point. Rent a bike.

I'd really like to hear your perspective on this. You've got some great opinions and ideas and to hear both the good and bad about LA from you on a visit where it's specifically about the urban area of LA would be interesting. I could help plan an itinerary and then you go off from there and give some of your own insights on what the city has that's good and where you feel it drastically needs improvement. It'd also be interesting to here about how mitigation measures that people made to buck the crap zoning LA has had (and still, to a lesser extent but still bad, has now) like having ground level stores facing the street and fulfilling parking requirements by building parking on the upper floors or roof the buildings.

Last edited by OyCrumbler; 04-24-2013 at 11:56 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2013, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,103,705 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I don't think anyone's claiming Los Angeles is to the level of London or New York City. That would be a silly thread. We're comparing it to Chicago. I still think Chicago comes out ahead, but I'll agree with the Los Angeles posters is much more urban than the average newer American city.
Yet there are constantly NYC vs. LA threads on the LA Forum
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2013, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,249 posts, read 26,220,119 times
Reputation: 11706
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
I don't think anyone's claiming Los Angeles is to the level of London or New York City. That would be a silly thread. We're comparing it to Chicago. I still think Chicago comes out ahead, but I'll agree with the Los Angeles posters is much more urban than the average newer American city.
That wasn't my point.

A poster asked, "Why do people go to cities like London and New York and walk all over the place but not give LA the same chance?"

That's a rather dumb question, imo.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-24-2013, 11:58 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,983 posts, read 41,929,314 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Yet there are constantly NYC vs. LA threads on the LA Forum
As cities/ metros and places to live rather than just urbanity, I'd assume. Hopefully no one makes a thread claiming LA is more urban than NYC or LA is more walkable than NYC.
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