Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 118 79.73%
Los Angeles 30 20.27%
Voters: 148. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-25-2013, 08:14 AM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
31,886 posts, read 34,388,425 times
Reputation: 14966

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220 View Post
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).
You're still not making yourself clear. When did "density" mean "how the city is used?" Your definition of "urban form" I agree with, but as far as I know, density is a relatively straightforward mathematical calculation where we divide the number of people (our numerator) by the size of the area (our demoninator) to get the number of people per ______. "Density" has nothing to do with "how the city is used."

And I don't really care if Shoup ever talks about the "correlation/relationship between urban form and density (how the city is used)." (whatever that means). The built environment plays a large role in our perception of urbanity whether you guys want to acknowledge it or not. I mean, is physical design/build something you guys care to address at all? Or are you convinced that it's a marginally relevant footnote to this discussion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220 View Post
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's not so difficult to interpret if you're not willfully blind to the obvious.

Quote:
The need to house humans might push toward an increasingly dense center, but the zoning requirement to house cars pushes back, sending development outward. With off-street parking requirements, higher density simply brings more cars and more congestion, as well as increased disruptions in the urban fabric.
I would say that gives us a good idea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220 View Post
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.
Actually, he does use "urban density" in an academic article. But to resolve any ambiguity, I will simply email him at shoup@ucla.com and flat out ask him what he meant when he said "urban density." I will email him and then send the email to nei (who can review the email addresses and authenticate it). Whatever he means by "urban density," it's pretty clear that population density alone is not sufficient to achieve it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220 View Post
Don has written about the relationship between Density and parking, but it's still difficult to know what he meant in the above statement.
Are you guys on a first name basis? Does he refer to you as "Dweeb?"

And Shoup has written extensively about parking and sprawl, which is obvious in light of the quote I posted above. He's not so much concerned about the relationship between parking and density because population density is something Los Angeles has had no trouble achieving up to this point. He's writing about the effects of parking on development, which should be obvious to anyone who's reading the article with any degree of emotional detachment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-25-2013, 08:29 AM
 
Location: NYC
7,305 posts, read 13,442,540 times
Reputation: 3714
Herm wrote a lot about a whale.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2013, 10:47 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,828 posts, read 9,357,471 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
Post more of the facts then
Here's one.

Los Angeles Urbanized Area (without the city of Los Angeles)
1267 sq miles
Population: 8,358,371
Density: 6,597 ppsm

Chicagoland
2442sq miles
Population: 8,608,208
Density: 3,524 ppsm

Even without its principal city, the Los Angeles UA is on a different level of density from Chicagoland (which includes Chicago in those numbers). It's almost superfluous to knock L.A.'s form in lieu of those numbers. More to come.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2013, 11:35 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,084 posts, read 15,766,317 times
Reputation: 4049
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220 View Post
Los Angeles is a very active and intensely used city despite the fact that its built environment is not particularly well designed for this.
And honestly this is more important to me than having a by-the-books built form. It would be nice for Los Angeles to continue to take steps to improve the pedestrian experience, and I am impressed at the speed in which things can get done here sometimes (and frustrated by the lack of speed of other things).

I would much rather walk around in an environment that is full of pedestrians and vibrancy but is lacking (sometimes severely) in "form" than walk around in the ideal urban environment that is lacking in "function". There is a point where the lack of "form" can become too overwhelming (say missing sidewalks, big-box strip malls, consecutive empty lots), though I don't find too many places in my section of Los Angeles to have this issue.

Sometimes empty parking lots can be helpful for me as a pedestrian - instead of walking all the way around the grid, I can cut right through the middle of the block! (obviously alleyways would be much better for this purpose.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2013, 11:39 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,084 posts, read 15,766,317 times
Reputation: 4049
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
Actually, he does use "urban density" in an academic article. But to resolve any ambiguity, I will simply email him at shoup@ucla.com and flat out ask him what he meant when he said "urban density." I will email him and then send the email to nei (who can review the email addresses and authenticate it). Whatever he means by "urban density," it's pretty clear that population density alone is not sufficient to achieve it.
It will be interesting to see if he responds. I hope he does!

One thing to note is that article seems to be very CBD-specific. And I agree that for a CBD the amount of parking Los Angeles has / requires is absurd, and really does hurt the vibrancy in places (namely Bunker Hill at night). Luckily Shoup works closely with the city to fix these issues, seen by the Lincoln Heights / Piggyback Yard / Chinatown district which has had all parking requirements lifted (something that is revolutionary not only for Los Angeles, but the entire US). It would also be interesting to see how many of those spots are in garages and how many are surface lots. IMO garages can hurt vibrancy even more, by reducing the "feet on the street" - obviously areas look better with parking buried underground, but as mentioned in my last post that is less important to me than "function".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2013, 11:50 AM
 
940 posts, read 2,017,966 times
Reputation: 742
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee View Post
You're still not making yourself clear. When did "density" mean "how the city is used?" Your definition of "urban form" I agree with, but as far as I know, density is a relatively straightforward mathematical calculation where we divide the number of people (our numerator) by the size of the area (our demoninator) to get the number of people per ______. "Density" has nothing to do with "how the city is used."

And I don't really care if Shoup ever talks about the "correlation/relationship between urban form and density (how the city is used)." (whatever that means). The built environment plays a large role in our perception of urbanity whether you guys want to acknowledge it or not. I mean, is physical design/build something you guys care to address at all? Or are you convinced that it's a marginally relevant footnote to this discussion?

It's not so difficult to interpret if you're not willfully blind to the obvious.

I would say that gives us a good idea.

Actually, he does use "urban density" in an academic article. But to resolve any ambiguity, I will simply email him at shoup@ucla.com and flat out ask him what he meant when he said "urban density." I will email him and then send the email to nei (who can review the email addresses and authenticate it). Whatever he means by "urban density," it's pretty clear that population density alone is not sufficient to achieve it.

Are you guys on a first name basis? Does he refer to you as "Dweeb?"

And Shoup has written extensively about parking and sprawl, which is obvious in light of the quote I posted above. He's not so much concerned about the relationship between parking and density because population density is something Los Angeles has had no trouble achieving up to this point. He's writing about the effects of parking on development, which should be obvious to anyone who's reading the article with any degree of emotional detachment.
First, I may not like using the term "urban" on this forum (just because we haven't come up with a satisfactory definition), but in a casual conversation of course I would say that the core of Chicago is more urban than the core of Los Angeles. As for metro area, I really don't know how to apply the term "urban" and not sure if it even can be. I find it much more intuitively easy to apply "urban" to commercial districts, cbds, etc and their immediately adjacent neighborhoods.

Re: "density" having to do with how the city is used, I meant population density, which often does not correlate nicely to housing density or housing structure. People live where they need/want to live, and if you were to just judge by urban form (which I'm not saying you would do) you would be missing a lot. In other words, density is one aspect of measuring how people use a city.

As for Don Shoup (and yes, sorry, here in LA in "urban geek" circles people do often refer to him simply as "Don"), I believe his use of the term "urban density" in the interview and in the article (which I also linked to), are two different definitions.

In the article, "urban density" is simply population density. In his interview, I believe "urban density" refers more to pedestrian-friendly, street life and civic-life conducive urban form. I would assume that if you emailed him he'd probably say the same thing.

And that was my only point in my first post regarding this. That Shoup's use of the term shouldn't really enforce the use of the term "urban" (as used on this forum) as something easily defined/understood. Don's writing/lectures often explore how high parking requirements in LA create hostile environments for pedestrians and discourage further development in dense areas. I agree 100% with this. I would love to do away with parking requirements, widen sidewalks, increase streetwall in some areas, etc. etc. I think urban form is very important.

I just take issue with using the word "urban" without exploring what it actually means (hence my thread on this topic..). And I took issue with using Don Shoup's casual use of the term "urban density" to support the idea that our intuitive assumptions of "urbanity" are reinforced in academia.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2013, 05:05 PM
 
1,750 posts, read 3,374,137 times
Reputation: 788
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
And honestly this is more important to me than having a by-the-books built form. It would be nice for Los Angeles to continue to take steps to improve the pedestrian experience, and I am impressed at the speed in which things can get done here sometimes (and frustrated by the lack of speed of other things).

I would much rather walk around in an environment that is full of pedestrians and vibrancy but is lacking (sometimes severely) in "form" than walk around in the ideal urban environment that is lacking in "function". There is a point where the lack of "form" can become too overwhelming (say missing sidewalks, big-box strip malls, consecutive empty lots), though I don't find too many places in my section of Los Angeles to have this issue.

Sometimes empty parking lots can be helpful for me as a pedestrian - instead of walking all the way around the grid, I can cut right through the middle of the block! (obviously alleyways would be much better for this purpose.)
It is interesting you say this, because I would wager you are in the minority with that opinion. To me, built form is infinitely more important than population density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2013, 05:12 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: Western Massachusetts
46,011 posts, read 53,160,760 times
Reputation: 15174
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
I would much rather walk around in an environment that is full of pedestrians and vibrancy but is lacking (sometimes severely) in "form" than walk around in the ideal urban environment that is lacking in "function". There is a point where the lack of "form" can become too overwhelming (say missing sidewalks, big-box strip malls, consecutive empty lots), though I don't find too many places in my section of Los Angeles to have this issue.

Sometimes empty parking lots can be helpful for me as a pedestrian - instead of walking all the way around the grid, I can cut right through the middle of the block! (obviously alleyways would be much better for this purpose.)
But what urban environment exists that is lacking in function but has an ideal form? I suppose a decayed rust belt city area or small town might be it, but it sounds like an odd combination. As to using parking lots to cut through the block, that sounds like you have an issue of the blocks being too big.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2013, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
31,886 posts, read 34,388,425 times
Reputation: 14966
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
I would much rather walk around in an environment that is full of pedestrians and vibrancy but is lacking (sometimes severely) in "form" than walk around in the ideal urban environment that is lacking in "function".
How many environments can you actually think of that have the "form" but not the function? Other than emptied out sections of Baltimore or Camden, wall-to-wall, 3-story structure neighborhoods tend to have pedestrian life and some degree of vibrancy. I couldn't imagine an urban environment that looked like Back Bay being completely desolate and empty (unless there were a Chernobyl-style reactor meltdown or something).

Or a crack epidemic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2013, 05:17 PM
 
Location: Crooklyn, New York
31,886 posts, read 34,388,425 times
Reputation: 14966
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
But what urban environment exists that is lacking in function but has an ideal form? I suppose a decayed rust belt city area or small town might be it, but it sounds like an odd combination. As to using parking lots to cut through the block, that sounds like you have an issue of the blocks being too big.
Beat me to it.
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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top