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

 
 
Old 03-19-2013, 12:04 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,107,696 times
Reputation: 3982

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
If the discussion is only city limits, why do you keep bringing up Maywood as an L.A. neighborhood?

I agree that Chicago is built more densely in its core (less parking lots, slightly narrower streets, killer downtown, etc), but the city overall is way more than just The Loop and Near Northside and it isn't that far ahead as you're making it out to be. Not enough to offset Los Angeles being 60% denser in its urban footprint IMO.
I was gonna say...
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-19-2013, 12:43 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles area
14,018 posts, read 17,732,288 times
Reputation: 32304
Default Please, can someone help me understand this thread?

Not only can I not vote in the poll but I cannot participate in the discussion either because I have never been to Chicago. However, I have read the entire thread up to this point and I am a little puzzled by it. Based purely on my impressions, I would have said that of course Chicago is more urban, but I am finding out it's not that simple.

But why is it important? Is "more urban" supposed to be better? Perhaps the thread title is simply a springboard to a discussion of comparing the nature of the two cities? Or maybe this thread is just an example of what people do in the Urban Planning forum?

Anyway, I hope you members of the club will forgive my intrusion and perhaps someone will see fit to help enlighten me as to what, exactly, is going on here in a larger sense.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 01:26 AM
 
Location: Hollywood, CA
1,576 posts, read 2,536,238 times
Reputation: 1119
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
If the discussion is only city limits, why do you keep bringing up Maywood as an L.A. neighborhood?

I agree that Chicago is built more densely in its core (less parking lots, slightly narrower streets, killer downtown, etc), but the city overall is way more than just The Loop and Near Northside and it isn't that far ahead as you're making it out to be. Not enough to offset Los Angeles being 60% denser in its urban footprint IMO.
It was an example of the density statistics being inflated in Los Angeles. There's more areas with.a density over 15,000 like that in Los Angeles. But it doesn't look dense as a urban footprint. Most neighborhoods in LA arent dissimilar from most of North Orange County in urban form.

Its the same consistentcy of SFHs, Duplexes, Strip Malls, and Apartment buildings which spreads out for miles more than most American cities. But most of the urban footprint here has a feeling I call Urburban
Which is Surburban designed with an Urban attitude.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 07:30 AM
 
465 posts, read 737,333 times
Reputation: 240
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Eh. It's about 50% multifamily. Housing units in multifamily buildings typically have less people per household, so I'd guess the average person lives in a single family dwelling.
A much higher proportion of LA residents live in multifamily housing than Chicago residents.

If the standard is multifamily vs. single family, LA is actually much more urban than Chicago. I personally wouldn't use this standard, but just saying.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,107,696 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipcat View Post
It was an example of the density statistics being inflated in Los Angeles. There's more areas with.a density over 15,000 like that in Los Angeles. But it doesn't look dense as a urban footprint. Most neighborhoods in LA arent dissimilar from most of North Orange County in urban form.

Its the same consistentcy of SFHs, Duplexes, Strip Malls, and Apartment buildings which spreads out for miles more than most American cities. But most of the urban footprint here has a feeling I call Urburban
Which is Surburban designed with an Urban attitude.
First of all, it seems like you are comparing Maywood (not even in LA) to north side neighborhoods in Chicago. Of course Chicago is going to come out favorably. Why not compare Maywood to a real peer neighborhood of Chicago, like say Austin?

Secondly, about overcrowding in LA neighborhoods - while they household sizes in LA are larger, you are leaning on this crutch way too much to explain the its density.

Household sizes (the California average is 2.9):

90270 (Maywood): 21k ppsm with a household size of 4.2 people.
90020 (Koreatown north): 34k ppsm with a household size of 2.4 people.
90005 (Koreatown south): 34k ppsm with a household size of 2.6 people.
90028 (Hollywood): 18k ppsm with a household size of 1.9 people.
90057 (Westlake): 45k ppsm with a household size of 2.9 people.

Even 90044 (South LA Vermont Corridor) has a density of 17k ppsm and a household size of 3.3 people.

92711 is the main zip code for Santa Ana, a city famous for overcrowding. This zip has a density of 15k ppsm and a household size of 4.5 people, much higher than even Maywood. That is what you call inflated density statistics. Those Los Angeles neighborhoods would still be very dense with slightly lower household sizes.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Hollywood, CA
1,576 posts, read 2,536,238 times
Reputation: 1119
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
First of all, it seems like you are comparing Maywood (not even in LA) to north side neighborhoods in Chicago. Of course Chicago is going to come out favorably. Why not compare Maywood to a real peer neighborhood of Chicago, like say Austin?

Secondly, about overcrowding in LA neighborhoods - while they household sizes in LA are larger, you are leaning on this crutch way too much to explain the its density.

Household sizes (the California average is 2.9):

90270 (Maywood): 21k ppsm with a household size of 4.2 people.
90020 (Koreatown north): 34k ppsm with a household size of 2.4 people.
90005 (Koreatown south): 34k ppsm with a household size of 2.6 people.
90028 (Hollywood): 18k ppsm with a household size of 1.9 people.
90057 (Westlake): 45k ppsm with a household size of 2.9 people.

Even 90044 (South LA Vermont Corridor) has a density of 17k ppsm and a household size of 3.3 people.

92711 is the main zip code for Santa Ana, a city famous for overcrowding. This zip has a density of 15k ppsm and a household size of 4.5 people, much higher than even Maywood. That is what you call inflated density statistics. Those Los Angeles neighborhoods would still be very dense with slightly lower household sizes.
Ill tell you why those numbers are inflated in LA. Here's the link to an article about the urban design of LA. Go to city of Los.Angeles General Plan(1974).

Past Visions & Studies | Past Visions of L.A.'s Transportation Future


This city wasn't designed for this high density you are talking about. That's why most neighborhoods in LA don't have a dense urban structure. These areas just got overcrowded. When you look at the densities of the San Fernando Valley and the Westside, it's pretty clear the Urban footprint was designed for low density. Now the city is starting to catch up with the overcrowding, and building a more urban design with public transit. But these neighborhoods you are talking about weren't designed to be over 20,000 ppl per sq mile, but a lot lower.

Last edited by hipcat; 03-19-2013 at 11:51 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 12:21 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,107,696 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipcat View Post
Ill tell you why those numbers are inflated in LA. Here's the link to an article about the urban design of LA. Go to city of Los.Angeles General Plan(1974).

Past Visions & Studies | Past Visions of L.A.'s Transportation Future


This city wasn't designed for this high density you are talking about. That's why most neighborhoods in LA don't have a dense urban structure. These areas just got overcrowded. When you look at the densities of the San Fernando Valley and the Westside, it's pretty clear the Urban footprint was designed for low density. Now the city is starting to catch up with the overcrowding, and building a more urban design with public transit. But these neighborhoods you are talking about weren't designed to be over 20,000 ppl per sq mile, but a lot lower.
Right, there is overcrowding in certain parts of Los Angeles, mainly in South Los Angeles, the Eastside and poorer neighborhoods in the San Fernando Valley. The density of those areas is inflated, but not nearly at the levels you are suggesting. Los Angeles would still be one of the densest cities in the United States even if those areas were brought back to the state average household size.

However I showed four of the more urban neighborhoods in Los Angeles and they are right at the California average for household size, and my neighborhood is even under it.

Why you are focusing on overcrowded ex-streetcar suburbs like Maywood doesn't make sense to me. Especially when the neighborhoods you are mentioning are some of the most urban in Chicago outside of the Loop. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare Hollywood, Koreatown, Fairfax, etc. instead?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 03:21 PM
 
Location: Hollywood, CA
1,576 posts, read 2,536,238 times
Reputation: 1119
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Right, there is overcrowding in certain parts of Los Angeles, mainly in South Los Angeles, the Eastside and poorer neighborhoods in the San Fernando Valley. The density of those areas is inflated, but not nearly at the levels you are suggesting. Los Angeles would still be one of the densest cities in the United States even if those areas were brought back to the state average household size.

However I showed four of the more urban neighborhoods in Los Angeles and they are right at the California average for household size, and my neighborhood is even under it.

Why you are focusing on overcrowded ex-streetcar suburbs like Maywood doesn't make sense to me. Especially when the neighborhoods you are mentioning are some of the most urban in Chicago outside of the Loop. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare Hollywood, Koreatown, Fairfax, etc. instead?
Maywood is just one of the examples I've used. The most dense infrastructure in LA is from Downtown to Hollywood. But the numbers make up a small % of area and population of LA. LA is friggin massive in the amount of sqaure miles in the city at 468.6.

You can't forget that 1/3rd of the city lives in the San Fernando Valley, which has less density than South and Central LA. Without the SFH, the average density would be around 9,700 for the city. Which is denser than most Sunbelt cities, but is around similar densities as some suburbs and towns on the Northeast, and would rank 8th on the most dense major cities on the US.

Just look at the map of Los Angeles on this site. It shows where the most dense neighborhoods of LA are. And there's quite a discrepancy in density in some nabes in the SFH. And the average density of most South and East LA neighborhoods should be at the same levels as Willowbrook, Athens, and the Crenshaw district which averages around 9,000 per sq mile.

Population Density Ranking - Mapping L.A. - Los Angeles Times
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 03:34 PM
 
Location: Hollywood, CA
1,576 posts, read 2,536,238 times
Reputation: 1119
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Right, there is overcrowding in certain parts of Los Angeles, mainly in South Los Angeles, the Eastside and poorer neighborhoods in the San Fernando Valley. The density of those areas is inflated, but not nearly at the levels you are suggesting. Los Angeles would still be one of the densest cities in the United States even if those areas were brought back to the state average household size.

However I showed four of the more urban neighborhoods in Los Angeles and they are right at the California average for household size, and my neighborhood is even under it.

Why you are focusing on overcrowded ex-streetcar suburbs like Maywood doesn't make sense to me. Especially when the neighborhoods you are mentioning are some of the most urban in Chicago outside of the Loop. Wouldn't it make more sense to compare Hollywood, Koreatown, Fairfax, etc. instead?
Only Koreatown could match up in density with some of the densest neighborhoods in Chicago.

But looking at the structural density of both areas on Google. It's unfair to compare both areas, as LA was designed in a more automobile oriented area than the Chi.

Near North Side
near northside chicago - Google Maps

Koreatown.
Koreatown, Los Angeles, CA - Google Maps
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-19-2013, 04:16 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,107,696 times
Reputation: 3982
Quote:
Originally Posted by hipcat View Post
Maywood is just one of the examples I've used. The most dense infrastructure in LA is from Downtown to Hollywood. But the numbers make up a small % of area and population of LA. LA is friggin massive in the amount of sqaure miles in the city at 468.6.
As do the urban parts of Chicago. It has massive areas of SFHs as well.

Another thing to keep in mind is that while as a percentage of the whole city it is relatively small, DTLA to Hollywood (and beyond, the density extends into Beverly Hills) is about as large as the Loop + North Side. Los Angeles is not dominated by Chicago in this regard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hipcat View Post
You can't forget that 1/3rd of the city lives in the San Fernando Valley, which has less density than South and Central LA. Without the SFH, the average density would be around 9,700 for the city. Which is denser than most Sunbelt cities, but is around similar densities as some suburbs and towns on the Northeast, and would rank 8th on the most dense major cities on the US.

Just look at the map of Los Angeles on this site. It shows where the most dense neighborhoods of LA are. And there's quite a discrepancy in density in some nabes in the SFH. And the average density of most South and East LA neighborhoods should be at the same levels as Willowbrook, Athens, and the Crenshaw district which averages around 9,000 per sq mile.

Population Density Ranking - Mapping L.A. - Los Angeles Times
Eh that site is alright. I prefer the NYT Mapping the Census app a lot more. Breaks the cities down into census tracts, leveling the playing field. There are quite a few graphs posted in multiple threads on the Urban Planning forum that show the density levels of a bunch of US cities by census tract. Los Angeles and Chicago are nearly identical if I remember correctly with Los Angeles having much denser suburbs.

Also I think the bolded sounds like it is a little bit off to me. It can be proven mathematically - if the household sizes were 2.9 (CA state avg.) instead of 4.2 then the density would be something in the neighborhood of 15k ppsm. If you take a look at the neighborhood of Austin in Chicago, you'll see that it looks remarkably similar to South LA neighborhoods (obviously with Midwestern vernacular) and as chance would have it, very similar densities between 15k-25k.

http://projects.nytimes.com/census/2010/map
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.


 
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