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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-20-2015, 04:56 PM
 
205 posts, read 289,093 times
Reputation: 408

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago76 View Post
By the numbers, it is walkable. And then you walk it. You go down Venice where a lot of the commercial activity is and you notice a ton of vehicular traffic using a 6 lane road. You see a lot of offstreet parking everywhere and standalone/recessed commercial buildings. It's entirely possible to get around on foot. The problem is that it's not very inviting to do so. And relatively few people do, considering the number of people in the area and the pedestrian-friendly weather.
It's true that there was a lot of traffic (and it wasn't the most scenic area to walk), but I don't think it's accurate that not a lot of people were walking--many of my friends and neighbors didn't have cars, and there were always lots of people on the sidewalks. The Ralph's had to send trucks out to pick up their grocery carts, because so many people walked home with a cart full of groceries. As for all the drivers on Venice--folks driving through a neighborhood aren't an indication that people aren't walking within the neighborhood. Even in NYC you don't find a lot of thoroughfares devoid of cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-20-2015, 05:00 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,264,546 times
Reputation: 2924
LA might have less sprawl than other areas but only because it is bounded by the San Gabriel Mountains and
the Pacific Ocean. If not for these natural obstacles I'm sure the LA area would have kept on expanding out
endlessly and would be even much sprawlier than it is today. You can't expand into the ocean, or the
mountain ranges. Metros in more landlocked noncoastal, flatter areas might not have as many physical
limitations to outward growth.

And it would be more accurate to include Orange County and the Inland Empire collectively known as the
Greater LA Area. For all intents and purposes those are part of the LA area as well. The Greater LA metro
area probably beats all other metros hands down as the king of sprawl. But the area is so vast for one county to
manage that they had to break it up into several smaller counties. So its merely semantics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 09:04 PM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,190 posts, read 2,499,614 times
Reputation: 5262
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xander_Crews View Post
Ran across this article today, thought I would share it here and get some more opinions on it. Seems like the kind of headline that would make heads explode in this forum, heh heh
People, let me tell ya 'bout my new best friend, Barnaby Jones!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 09:10 PM
Status: "Enjoying the extended daylight." (set 3 days ago)
 
Location: Suburban Dallas
46,816 posts, read 36,996,604 times
Reputation: 28328
L.A. had sprawl years ago. Back in the 1960s, it seemed everyone was moving to the area. Perhaps the reason for otherwise these days is that some folks are leaving it when job opportunities pop up in other states.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 09:27 PM
 
Location: Thunder Bay, ON
2,610 posts, read 3,759,792 times
Reputation: 1616
Even if you include Orange County, including the southern part around Mission Viejo, and Riverside-San Bernardino's urban area, LA still covers less land than the urban areas of NYC, Chicago and Atlanta, despite being second only to New York City's urban area.

Even if you add Thousand Oaks, Santa Clarita and Simi Valley, LA would still fall short of Atlanta's landmass, despite having about 3 times the population.

By the way, the NYC numbers don't include anything in CT, Trenton or Poughkeepsie/Newburgh.
Chicago numbers don't include Round Lake, Kenosha or Racine.
Atlanta numbers don't include Gainesville.

In order for LA to overtake Atlanta's sprawl, you'd have to add in the communities of the High Desert too.

And even if you add in Hemet, Palm Springs, Indio, Temecula, Oxnard... LA would still fall short of New York's numbers, and that's New York without anything in CT.

Now in terms of weighted density, New York's urban area is denser, but LA is still going to be in the top 5 in the US for weighted density.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 10:09 PM
 
7,495 posts, read 9,753,950 times
Reputation: 7394
Well of course not, now they're working on displacing the homeless to gentrify downtown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 10:41 PM
 
4,023 posts, read 3,264,546 times
Reputation: 2924
Either way, when you consider OC and the Inland Empire the greater LA metro doubles in geographical size and jumps toward the top of the list. Atlanta might be even bigger than LA but regardless both are areas of tremendous extreme auto sprawl and nightmarish traffic congestion. At one time LA was number one in sprawl but stopped because it came up against the edges of the ocean and mountain ranges and could sprawl no more giving other metro areas time to catch up and eventually surpass it. That's how LA got its famous reputation for sprawl that sticks to this day.

North American metros are areas of extreme sprawl in general and debating which one has more or less of it is kind of like arguing who's monster truck is bigger. It might make for an interesting trivia question to know but doesn't make for much practical difference and doesn't really prove anything. New York metro area might be geographically larger but that doesn't make LA more urban than NY if that's what the article is trying to suggest. Far from it. NY has a much larger urban core and it's still pretty easy to live there without a car for example. Whereas the only people who seem to be walking in LA and don't own cars are the Mexican immigrants and poorer blacks that are near half the population. There are the beaches, some commercial outdoor malls and Hollywood strip where people walk but that doesn't count for much
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-20-2015, 11:28 PM
 
Location: SoCal & Mid-TN
2,201 posts, read 2,136,654 times
Reputation: 2636
To quote Dorothy Parker, LA is "72 suburbs in search of a city" and there is a lot of merit in that statement. LA County is 4,751 square miles and, according to the 2010 census, is the most populous county in the US. This includes the high desert areas in the NE section of the county. Because of the mountains, the cities that make up LA metro are separated and choppy. There are still open areas, mainly in the mountains, which are relatively sparsely populated because they are very steep. While it is true that the city was originally a streetcar city, that era was relatively short lived as cars were already causing traffic problems for the streetcars by 1915. The city was widely marketed as paradise and it worked. The population grew steadily. The original settlement and current downtown area are miles from the beach. The opening of the port led to increased development in the San Pedro and Long Beach areas. Oil discoveries led to drilling in areas to the east and southeast (Baldwin Hills, Long Beach, etc). Citrus crops dominated the SF and SG Valleys and the Inland Empire, Pasadena was a winter getaway for wealthy from the NE. In 1909 LA became the first large city to adopt zoning laws which, as someone mentioned above, reslted in distinct residential and commercial areas. The city grew - but water was a problem. Once the Los Angeles acqueduct opened in 1913, developers started to look at new areas - like the SF and SG Valleys. People increasingly viewed the streetcars as undependable, crowded and inconvenient. Cars were seen as the progressive was forward. The Arroyo Parkway was the first freeway in the US and opened in 1940, and the rest, as they say, is history. The population outgrew the public rail system and cars were new and novel - and convenient. And LA was tailor made to be the city of the car - a new city, with mountains, ocean, desert - too far from each other to be convenient for public transport but ideal for the car. Look back at some old advertising for LA - cars dominate many ads - cars driving by beautiful, smiling people in a city marketed as paradise. The Southern California mystique - new, open, free, modern.

The war industries of WWII brought hundreds of thousand to the LA area. Now that the city had water, subdivisions popped up everywhere. By the end of WWII, the citrus farms of the San Fernando Valley were giving way to subdivisions and development. And so went the San Gabriel Valley and the Inland Empire. It's sad to me because I'm a history buff, to see all of those orange trees plowed down for industry and tract housing but that's the way it goes. Now it is hard to tell where the metro area (not the county) ends or begins. When I first came to LA in 1993, I drove in from east. Coming in on the 10, I hit San Bernardino and there was development all the way to the ocean. Start on the 5 freeway in the NE part of the county and there is almost constant development all the way to the Mexican border. It all just runs together.

I live in Burbank and work in LA. One the weekends I rarely leave Burbank as everything I need is close by. Not close enough to walk, but a short drive. I live in an equestrian area with sidewalks and older homes and large trees. I love it. That's the the thing about LA - there's something for everyone. Urban, suburban, mountains, etc. We've got it all - and if you want to see all of it, you need a car.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2015, 01:14 AM
 
Location: West Hollywood
3,190 posts, read 2,499,614 times
Reputation: 5262
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid View Post
Either way, when you consider OC and the Inland Empire the greater LA metro doubles in geographical size and jumps toward the top of the list.
OK, but why would you do that? They're separate counties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spikett View Post
To quote Dorothy Parker, LA is "72 suburbs in search of a city" and there is a lot of merit in that statement. LA County is 4,751 square miles and, according to the 2010 census, is the most populous county in the US.
There are much larger counties with much fewer people so how could Los Angeles County be nothing but "72 suburbs"? The entire notion of Los Angeles being suburban sprawl has been thoroughly debunked. It's just the East Coast media and their influence that keep putting that image out there.
"Los Angeles is nothing but disconnected suburbs."
"The traffic is so brutal it takes an hour to drive 1 mile, no matter when."
"The people there are so superficial and self-serving. It's impossible to meet genuine people."
"Everyone in Lala Land is a failed actor or a failing actor."

Etc.
It's all BS. I just moved to a condo in an urban, walkable area that's nowhere near any suburbs. I would have to drive ~30 minutes to get to some expansive suburbs, but those would either be close to the beach or in the "ghetto." Drive a little longer and I could be in the valley where there are a lot of pockets of suburbia, but nothing in the vein of "suburban sprawl."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-21-2015, 04:06 AM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,953,386 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by memph View Post
Even if you include Orange County, including the southern part around Mission Viejo, and Riverside-San Bernardino's urban area, LA still covers less land than the urban areas of NYC, Chicago and Atlanta, despite being second only to New York City's urban area.
One of the problems with this type of analysis is that California has huge counties by east coast standards and big swaths of those counties are more or less uninhabited. You run into ocean on one side of the NYC metro and pretty quickly in the other direction you start to run into hills and steep slopes. The difference is that land around NYC has always been farmable - and pretty good farmland at that so there are villages around there that date to the 1600s and there are no unincorporated places. Even if its a village of 200 people it's still incorporated. Those places, even as exurban or rural as they are, get included in NYCs urban area but for some reason it's not the same thing when you're looking at LA.

LA (city) land area - 469 s/m & 3.9 million people = density 8,202 ppm
NYC + Hudson + Essex - 477 s/m & 9.8 million = density 20,593 ppm

Incorporated LA County - 1,400 s/m & 8.55 million = 6,107 ppm
NYC + Hudson + Essex + Bergen + Union + Middlesex + Nassau - 1,406 s/m & 13.48 million = 9,587 ppm

and btw - even if you exclude Manhattan from the above you still come up with a density of 8,568. And in case you don't get what I'm doing here - I'm excluding the less dense, unincorporated parts of LA & Orange County from the totals along with the roughly 1 million people that live in these ~3,300 square miles of unincorporated areas. I'm then comparing the incorporated areas of LA & the OC to NYC and the counties that surround it. Since there are no unincorporated areas in the New York suburbs I'm using those whole county area and population stats. This gives a huge leg up to LA.

Incorporated LA County + incorporated Orange County - 1,915 s/m & 11.49 million = ~6,000 ppm
NYC + Hudson + Essex + Bergen + Union + Middlesex + Nassau + Monmouth - 1,875 s/m & 14 million = 7,466 ppm

People in greater LA don't actually live more densely than people in the NYC area it's that NYC has grown so big that it's started sucking the Poconos and the Lehigh Valley into its statistical orbit. Once you cross the mountains east of LA there's no one out there to suck in - because there's no water.
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
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