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.
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.
Is there ever a time where you don't go around making strawman arguments? This is becoming very tiresome.
Technically, L.A. would be more urban than New York because it has a denser urban area.
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.
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?
I wouldn't call them stupid. A whole lotta ignorance in their comments though.
"Common sense" = preconceived notions. That's all it is. REAL common sense would tell you that alL.A., with more high density tracts than any U.S. city outside NY, is an urban environment. Yet the "big suburb" myth persists to this day.
Common sense should tell that two cities of highly similar core densities, are in similar tiers of urbanity. But it doesn't in this one special case. City-data boosterism at its worst.
NY metro vs LA metro is not the same as Chicagoland vs LA. NYC is a much denser city, with a more populous metro. It turns leafy suburban far later than your typical NE metro, simply because its much larger. Contrast that to Chicago. Chicagoland isn't much denser in the core than L.A. and far less dense away from it. Chicagoland gets to about 8.5 million in roughly 2450 sq miles of land. L.A., in a similar land area, gets to 14.7 million.
I wouldn't call them stupid. A whole lotta ignorance in their comments though.
Oh well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
"Common sense" = preconceived notions. That's all it is. REAL common sense would tell you that alL.A., with more high density tracts than any U.S. city outside NY, is an urban environment. Yet the "big suburb" myth persists to this day.
Hmm.
So why is it non-common sensical for someone to go the Loop, with its massive highrises and rumbling El trains, and conclude that it's more urban than DTLA?
Or go to River North and conclude it's more urban than Koreatown.
Or go to Lincoln Square and conclude it's more urban than Hollywood.
Or go to Lakeview and conclude it's more urban than any neighborhood in Los Angeles.
What makes that such a difficult exercise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Common sense should tell that two cities of highly similar core densities, are in similar tiers of urbanity. But it doesn't in this one special case. City-data boosterism at its worst.
So it's 82 Chicago boosters/LA haters/ignorant people versus 16 realists?
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.
Don Shoup has done great work in bringing attention to the inefficiency and waste that parking minimums and "free parking" create, but his area of expertise is not density or urban form.
I wouldn't call them stupid. A whole lotta ignorance in their comments though.
"Common sense" = preconceived notions. That's all it is. REAL common sense would tell you that alL.A., with more high density tracts than any U.S. city outside NY, is an urban environment. Yet the "big suburb" myth persists to this day.
Common sense should tell that two cities of highly similar core densities, are in similar tiers of urbanity. But it doesn't in this one special case. City-data boosterism at its worst.
NY metro vs LA metro is not the same as Chicagoland vs LA. NYC is a much denser city, with a more populous metro. It turns leafy suburban far later than your typical NE metro, simply because its much larger. Contrast that to Chicago. Chicagoland isn't much denser in the core than L.A. and far less dense away from it. Chicagoland gets to about 8.5 million in roughly 2450 sq miles of land. L.A., in a similar land area, gets to 14.7 million.
I do think for city alone, Chicago is in a separate tier above Los Angeles. However I think for the metro area as a whole the Southland is in a tier above Chicagoland.
Don Shoup has done great work in bringing attention to the inefficiency and waste that parking minimums and "free parking" create, but his area of expertise is not density or urban form.
He's an urban planner. And not only is he an urban planner, he was Chair of UCLA's urban planning department. I think it's safe to say he knows a thing or two about urban form. Just because he's known for publishing articles on parking regulation in planning circles doesn't mean that's all he's ever published on.
That's like saying that Larry Tribe has done some great work in bringing attention to First Amendment issues, but his area of expertise is not the rest of the Constitution.
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.
Is there ever a time where you don't go around making strawman arguments? This is becoming very tiresome.
Technically, L.A. would be more urban than New York because it has a denser urban area.
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.
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Oh well.
Hmm.
So why is it non-common sensical for someone to go the Loop, with its massive highrises and rumbling El trains, and conclude that it's more urban than DTLA?
Or go to River North and conclude it's more urban than Koreatown.
Or go to Lincoln Square and conclude it's more urban than Hollywood.
Or go to Lakeview and conclude it's more urban than any neighborhood in Los Angeles.
What makes that such a difficult exercise?
So it's 82 Chicago boosters/LA haters/ignorant people versus 16 realists?
"Oh well" sums up your posts nicely. Basically nothing but google views, Donald Shoup articles, appealing to a popularity poll.
He's an urban planner. And not only is he an urban planner, he was Chair of UCLA's urban planning department. I think it's safe to say he knows a thing or two about urban form. Just because he's known for publishing articles on parking regulation in planning circles doesn't mean that's all he's ever published on.
That's like saying that Larry Tribe has done some great work in bringing attention to First Amendment issues, but his area of expertise is not the rest of the Constitution.
Sorry, I was unclear: Shoup has often argued that parking regulations help make cities less pedestrian friendly. I meant to say that Shoup's expertise is not in the area of the correlation/relationship between Urban Form (how the city is built) and Density (how the city is used).
I assume you are referring to Shoup's oft-quoted (on C-D) casual statement in an article from Los Angeles magazine:
“You can’t have the number of cars we have in L.A. without our parking lots,” says Shoup. “And you can never create urban density with the parking lots we’ve built.”
Obviously LA has in fact created both high population and structural density even with ridiculous parking requirements, so it's difficult to know how to interpret his use of the term "urban density." It might be a proxy similar to the way "urban" is used on here to refer to things like pedestrian friendliness. I just wanted to be clear that Don's use of "urban density" was not in an academic article so we don't really know how to interpret it. Don has written about the relationship between Density and parking, but it's still difficult to know what he meant in the above statement.
I agree that LA's urban environment is less pedestrian and street-oriented. But this is a different discussion than either density or "urban-ness." There are other urban planners, like say, James Rojas, who have argued that Los Angeles's built environment may not be supportive to pedestrian and street life, but yet the city is still highly active in these regards. According to Rojas and other "everyday urbanists," urban environments can be and are adapted by new populations with new conceptions of urban life. Latino immigrants in Los Angeles have turned many former "sleepy suburbs" into vibrant neighborhoods full of pedestrian activity, commerce, and civic life. Increased population density, accessory dwelling units, and sidewalk vending are all hallmarks of these neighborhoods.
Los Angeles is a very active and intensely used city despite the fact that its built environment is not particularly well designed for this.
Just take a walk down The Magnificent Mile on a beautiful day in Chicago and you will know the winner of this poll. end of story.
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.
" when you have planners like Donald Shoup pointing out the same things most people notice on a three-day visit.
