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 04-29-2013, 04:32 PM
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 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804

Advertisements

Looking at OyCrumbler's thread, no one on the LA forum is interested in comparing it with Chicago. Perhaps Los Angelenos don't think much about Chicago?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-29-2013, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,248 posts, read 26,214,003 times
Reputation: 11701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Lyoko View Post
I don't think we see eye to eye entirely on what should constitute an ideal urban form for many cities. A street wall is a stellar example, for some cities and should not be the standard for all.
We don't have to. The "ideal urban form" munchitup was referring to is more similar to what one would find in Paris, Amsterdam or San Francisco than it is to Miami. And my point was that you're not going to find too many places that have this type of form that lack the "function."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2013, 04:41 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,631 posts, read 8,315,973 times
Reputation: 7587
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
We don't have to. The "ideal urban form" munchitup was referring to is more similar to what one would find in Paris or San Francisco than it is to Miami. And my point was that you're not going to find too many places that look like this that lack the function of a true city.
Surely not, given the age of those developments and their particular styles it molded into the lifestyle of the people rather than forced upon by being built up quickly.

Even in Washington, I notice they build things and it takes several months to possibly a year or two for the vibrancy to catch up. Infill is a short term solution to addressing density, the long term prospects are to use that density and knit them into the fabric of the community and that takes time. Street wall or no street wall.

So are you in the wide and vast camp or the tight and compact camp overall?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2013, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,248 posts, read 26,214,003 times
Reputation: 11701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Lyoko View Post
Even in Washington, I notice they build things and it takes several months to possibly a year or two for the vibrancy to catch up.
Huh? Are you talking about Washington, DC or Washington State? The only new mass developments in DC are NoMa and the Navy Yard. The buildings in those "neighborhoods" were literally constructed from dirt (and warehouses and strip clubs) so they were not going to be at full occupancy as soon as they went up. Do you know what I mean? It's kind of silly to say, "Well, NoMA shows that you can have an ideal urban form without vibrancy because nobody was there when the buildings first opened back in 2009-10." That's not a reasonable example.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Lyoko View Post
So are you in the wide and vast camp or the tight and compact camp overall?
I'm not in any "camp."

Except for Camp Anawanna. The half Asian girl was hot back then.

And still hot. Yeah, buddy!

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7...mmfpo1_500.jpg

From My Brother and Me...

http://donisdope.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/images.jpg

...to all Grown Up

http://pinboardblog.com/wp-content/u...-diva_crop.jpg

Last edited by BajanYankee; 04-29-2013 at 05:04 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2013, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,101,497 times
Reputation: 3979
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Looking at OyCrumbler's thread, no one on the LA forum is interested in comparing it with Chicago. Perhaps Los Angelenos don't think much about Chicago?
I didn't get the point of the thread. Most people (including Angelenos) find Chicago more urban. Myself included. However, I did vote just to be subversive.

However just because Chicago is more urban does not mean that Los Angeles is not urban, or even not highly urban.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2013, 04:54 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,248 posts, read 26,214,003 times
Reputation: 11701
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
However just because Chicago is more urban does not mean that Los Angeles is not urban, or even not highly urban.
Nobody said that. I think there's an overly defensive posture being adopted here. I just suggested that to show that greater population density does not necessarily translate into a greater degree of urbanity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2013, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,631 posts, read 8,315,973 times
Reputation: 7587
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Huh? Are you talking about Washington, DC or Washington State? The only new mass developments in DC are NoMa and the Navy Yard. The buildings in those "neighborhoods" were literally constructed from dirt (and warehouses and strip clubs) so they were not going to be at full occupancy as soon as they went up. Do you know what I mean? It's kind of silly to say, "Well, NoMA shows that you can have an ideal urban form without vibrancy because nobody was there when the buildings first opened back in 2009-10." That's not a reasonable example.
Who says I was talking about the exact time period when those developments come online?

I've lived here long enough to know that months pass and density improves but the vibrancy is abysmal. Frankly, I'm having a very hard time seeing how people see Washington as urban as it's raved on this forum to be. Aside from a few obvious areas, I literally see far and few walking around when I am walking around and especially between 3-5 PM and after 6 PM. I wonder if this can improve with more time?

So, the street wall is there, the infill is there, the people have moved in, it's been months since they moved in, where's all the foot traffic to show for it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2013, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,248 posts, read 26,214,003 times
Reputation: 11701
Quote:
Originally Posted by Code Lyoko View Post
Who says I was talking about the exact time period when those developments come online?

I've lived here long enough to know that months pass and density improves but the vibrancy is abysmal. Frankly, I'm having a very hard time seeing how people see Washington as urban as it's raved on this forum to be. Aside from a few obvious areas, I literally see far and few walking around when I am walking around and especially between 3-5 PM and after 6 PM.

So, the street wall is there, the infill is there, the people have moved in, it's been months since they moved in, where's all the foot traffic to show for it?
Do you mean "a few obvious areas" like Adams-Morgan, Kalorama, Georgetown, Capitol Hill, U Street, Columbia Heights, Shaw, etc? Considering that "core" DC is probably around the same size as Brownstone Brooklyn (maybe a bit larger), I wouldn't call those a "few" areas, particularly considering that most of America is more like Atlanta than it is DC. NoMa is altogether different because it's sterile and it's new and it sucks and there's really no reason to go there other than a Harris Teeter (and Metro). But it's still way better than most neighborhoods as far as foot traffic goes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2013, 05:14 PM
 
Location: Tokyo, Japan
6,631 posts, read 8,315,973 times
Reputation: 7587
For example, here are some pictures I took when I first got here. After 6 PM on a regular weekday evening (first few pictures). I have more from different time periods all the way up to about a week ago. Which I'll upload in a bit.

Vibrancy is missing in the supposed "sixth best CBD in America, according to City-Data polling":

http://www.city-data.com/forum/membe...6-img-0962.jpg

http://www.city-data.com/forum/membe...4-img-0947.jpg

Active hours during the day in a residential area:

http://www.city-data.com/forum/membe...6-img-1215.jpg

Where are the people at? Even when you do find corridors with vibrancy, they're literally small neighborhoods, like a vibrant island surrounded by a sea of quietness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-29-2013, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,671,265 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Because not everyone thinks urbanity = density and nothing else. In the core and densest parts of both metros, Chicago is roughly similar. By housing unit density (see dweebo's chart), Chicago is quite a bit higher. The largest advantage Los Angeles is its outer, less urban sections, are denser than Chicago's. Except neither of those sections are all that urban to begin with, so I don't think it helps enough for Los Angeles to be more urban than Chicago. No, I'm not saying Los Angeles = Phoenix or Portland or Los Angeles = typical suburbia; I'm saying Los Angeles isn't as urban as Chicago. All in all, for cities of somewhat similar densities, a more centralized city will feel more urban to me. Ditto with the more pedestrian oriented layout of much of Chicago (not all).
Density may not be end-all be-all, but it's pretty good statistic to gauge urbanity. After all, if you had to pick the least urban city between NYC, Paris, and London, which would it be?

And be honest, whenever a poster thinks their city is more densely populated than L.A., they can't run to the computer fast enough to point it out. Happens ALL the time: http://www.city-data.com/forum/21064752-post71.html

"Nobody's still explained why Philly has a density of approximately 11,500 pp sq. mile and L.A. has a density of around 7,500. If L.A. were so much denser (or as dense) than Philadelphia, then it would have a higher population density, no? But the population density is significantly lower than Philadelphia's"


Density may not mean everything, but it means a lot.
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