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 04-30-2013, 01:11 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,678,667 times
Reputation: 6288

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220 View Post
True. So then back to my "what is urban?" thread... would the criteria be as follows?:

- density of residents/households
- scale
- intensity of use/activity
- Pedestrian-orientation/convenience/accessibility
- Vibrancy of civic culture ("public life")

What is the relative importance of each variable?

Also, what is the smallest functional unit at which you can judge urbanity? It seems as though neighborhood-level would be too small because there may be very little measurable difference between a given neighborhood in a major metropolis and a given independent/isolated small town.
I think density (residential, housing, amenities, employment) and scale are the most important. Its not really close IMO.

Posters have actually argued that cities like Seattle and New Orleans are more "urban" than Los Angeles simply because there is more "intensity of use" in their downtown areas, even as Los Angeles completely blows them away in size, scale, density, and every other objective measurement. Not that I'm comparing Chicago to New Orleans--CHI is a very large city in its own right, with a sizeable urban core. Just showing how aesthetics are given way too much weight in these discussions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-30-2013, 01:21 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,247,479 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Posters have actually argued that cities like Seattle and New Orleans are more "urban" than Los Angeles simply because there is more "intensity of use" in their downtown areas
I can't remember anyone ever making that argument. People have said that those cities are more walkable than Los Angeles, but not necessarily more urban. I think you're conflating two different things.

LA vs NOLA vs Miami

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Not that I'm comparing Chicago to New Orleans--CHI is a very large city in its own right, with a sizeable urban core. Just showing how aesthetics are given way too much weight in these discussions.
Well, you can feel good knowing that you're the only objective party on C-D that has reached an objective conclusion based on objective data (data which should indicate that Los Angeles is a more urban city than Chicago since it has more high density tracts) even if Los Angeles is losing in poll in the Los Angeles forum.

But polls are just these popularity contests skewed against Los Angeles by people who subscribe to East Coast urbanity standards, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 01:23 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
45,990 posts, read 41,979,923 times
Reputation: 14810
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I can't remember anyone ever making that argument. People have said that those cities are more walkable than Los Angeles, but not necessarily more urban. I think you're conflating two different things.
Someone did. If you wait long enough, you'll find someone saying something extreme or absurd. Someone on this thread said LA is just suburbia. None of the regulars said that, though.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 01:26 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,247,479 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Someone did. If you wait long enough, you'll find someone saying something extreme or absurd. Someone on this thread said LA is just suburbia. None of the regulars said that, though.
But do the non-regulars really mean anything? I mean, you had the one San Jose guy who would always talk about Downtown San Jose crushing Center City. I don't even pay attention to those posts because they're silly and not worth reading. What is there to gained intellectually from arguing with an obvious troll?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 01:45 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,113,739 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I can't remember anyone ever making that argument. People have said that those cities are more walkable than Los Angeles, but not necessarily more urban. I think you're conflating two different things.

LA vs NOLA vs Miami
Seattle? Yes I think I remember people saying it is more urban than Los Angeles. In fact I think there was a Seattle vs. Los Angeles (not sure if it was urban-specific) but you had a great deal of people that think Seattle is a more urban city. Not sure if any right-minded posters said New Orleans was more urban, but I think there were a few that are definitely non-trolls (though NO homers perhaps).

It is certainly more reasonable to say Boston is more urban than Los Angeles, as it really has a more cohesive, pedestrian-friendly and tourist friendly environment* in the core areas. The scale argument is part of why I find Los Angeles to be a more urban city than Boston. I think Boston is superior in its core, however that falls off too fast for it to compete with Los Angeles.

* I really do think this is an important factor for how people view a city. For such a landmark destination, Los Angeles can really be hell on tourists, especially those that are not in the know / didn't do much research.

As far as this thread, it is kind of a moot point. The city of Chicago wins in most statistics I have seen presented on this thread, and it has a scale that while smaller than LA, is close enough to make me say it is the more urban city. However this is not true for the metro areas - The Southland's constellation-like design of urban nodes pushes it over top for me and negates Chicago's superior core area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 02:13 PM
 
Location: Chicago
1,312 posts, read 1,582,676 times
Reputation: 1487
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
I asked a simple question--since when do opinion polls trump facts?...
I'm guessing you haven't lived in America very long.

America is a "Democracy". In a democracy, ideally, the real facts and best ideas float to the surface.

But realistically? People make decisions on their "gut" feelings, not their brain thoughts.


Can you tell us what the most "urban" street in Los Angeles is? More specifically, can you tell us what the most urban mile (1 mile) of road is in Los Angeles? The street and the end points (streets) would be necessary.

Or, more specifically, what is the most urban one (1) mile corridor in the city of Los Angeles?

Last edited by A2DAC1985; 04-30-2013 at 02:37 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 02:58 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,113,739 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by A2DAC1985 View Post
I'm guessing you haven't lived in America very long.

America is a "Democracy". In a democracy, ideally, the real facts and best ideas float to the surface.

But realistically? People make decisions on their "gut" feelings, not their brain thoughts.


Can you tell us what the most "urban" street in Los Angeles is? More specifically, can you tell us what the most urban mile (1 mile) of road is in Los Angeles? The street and the end points (streets) would be necessary.

Or, more specifically, what is the most urban one (1) mile corridor in the city of Los Angeles?
Interesting... Here are my nominations.

Historic Core: Main / Spring from 12th / Main to Temple / Spring (a little over a mile)
Koreatown / Wilshire Center: Wilshire from Hoover to Western (1.4 miles)
Westlake / MacArthur Park: Wilshire from Beaudry to Hoover (1.4 miles)
Hollywood: Hollywood Blvd from La Brea to Gower (1.3 miles)

Particularly with the Historic Core corridor, there are adjacent ones that are also very urban.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 04:55 PM
 
Location: In the heights
22,143 posts, read 23,668,851 times
Reputation: 11622
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
I can't remember anyone ever making that argument. People have said that those cities are more walkable than Los Angeles, but not necessarily more urban. I think you're conflating two different things.

LA vs NOLA vs Miami



Well, you can feel good knowing that you're the only objective party on C-D that has reached an objective conclusion based on objective data (data which should indicate that Los Angeles is a more urban city than Chicago since it has more high density tracts) even if Los Angeles is losing in poll in the Los Angeles forum.

But polls are just these popularity contests skewed against Los Angeles by people who subscribe to East Coast urbanity standards, right?
Well, aside from the fact that there can be a good, rational argument that LA is actually less urban than Chicago it's also the fact that most people's experience of Los Angeles is suburban. That infill, zoning changes, and transit expansion happened in fairly recent times and where that hasn't hit is still a much larger part of the city (and obviously the suburbs as well) than where it has become dense and urban. LA's a city of almost 4 million in a metro of almost 13 million and a CSA of almost 18 million. The part where it's a dense urban area of the type we're discussing is more in the league of cities that are significantly smaller (the tier down from NYC that is Chicago, SF, Boston, and DC). You're going to have a lot of people who are barely cognizant that part of LA we're talking about even exists and they are going to far outnumber the people like munchitup who actually do and live it day to day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 05:21 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
28,266 posts, read 26,247,479 times
Reputation: 11726
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Well, aside from the fact that there can be a good, rational argument that LA is actually less urban than Chicago it's also the fact that most people's experience of Los Angeles is suburban. That infill, zoning changes, and transit expansion happened in fairly recent times and where that hasn't hit is still a much larger part of the city (and obviously the suburbs as well) than where it has become dense and urban. LA's a city of almost 4 million in a metro of almost 13 million and a CSA of almost 18 million. The part where it's a dense urban area of the type we're discussing is more in the league of cities that are significantly smaller (the tier down from NYC that is Chicago, SF, Boston, and DC). You're going to have a lot of people who are barely cognizant that part of LA we're talking about even exists and they are going to far outnumber the people like munchitup who actually do and live it day to day.
Well, a pretty easy way to get around that is to ask people how familiar they are with Los Angeles. I would imagine that not everyone who participates in the LA forum is an old geezer wasting away in the Valley or Orange County. There has to be more than three or four people on the LA forum who are familiar with the region at large.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-30-2013, 05:33 PM
 
Location: In the heights
22,143 posts, read 23,668,851 times
Reputation: 11622
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Well, a pretty easy way to get around that is to ask people how familiar they are with Los Angeles. I would imagine that not everyone who participates in the LA forum is an old geezer wasting away in the Valley or Orange County. There has to be more than three or four people on the LA forum who are familiar with the region at large.
Sure, we'll do that. There's also most of the San Gabriel Valley, Inland Empire, Ventura and Oxnard County, Pacific Palisades/Malibu/Topanga , South Los Angeles, and Gateway Cities and probably some others I'm leaving out.
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