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.
^^^LA removed its streetcars. SF removed some of its, but since the advent of rail has never gone through a time period where there was not frequent and extensive rail service throughout the city.
In terms of Third Street Promenade, someone compared SM to Pacific Heights (the two areas couldn't possibly be more different, perhaps even more different than SF and LA are to each other overall). Third Street Promenade is mostly new construction (80s, 90s, and newer) filled with chains such as Forever 21, Abercrombie, H&M, Barnes & Noble, etc etc, has "street performers", that typical CA palm tree lined street look, and hoards of tourists and suburbanites from beyond West LA.
The only real thing that makes it fundamentally different from the Grove or Santana Row is that it isn't all one landlord, and it better integrates with an existing urban environment and feels a little less contrived, however, it is still much closer to the shopping that defines much of South Bay and SoCal. It is not at all in any way whatsoever similar to Fillmore St or Union St or Divisadero in and around Pacific Heights.
Abbot Kinney in Venice is slightly more similar to the feel of shopping on Fillmore in my opinion, but still vastly different in a vastly different environment.
Regarding trains in LA, walkability, car ownership, etc - the numbers just aren't there. LA is simply not a transit-oriented, contiguously walkable, car-free possible for the masses type of city. There's no way around that. That isn't to say that there aren't aspects of this or little bits of this in LA, like it isn't to say there aren't aspects of single family homes with driveways and a suburban mall (Stonecrest) in San Francisco, but it doesn't make SF typically suburban and car-oriented or LA typically urban and walkable.
Sorry, just no way around that.
Koreatown/Wilshire into DTLA is just not the same kind of urban environment you find in SF. Conversely, Pasadena is cute, charming, and walkable. So is the Golden Triangle to a degree. So is Santa Monica and Venice. And all of these areas are connected by some form of rail with 6-15k ppsm residential in between. THIS sort of setup is similar to the Bay Area where you have San Mateo, Palo Alto, Walnut Creek, Berkeley, etc all connected by rail with that sort of residential density in between.
Leaving DTLA by rail to get somewhere down Wilshire or over to Culver City or Pasadena just doesn't feel like "leaving the city", which is a feeling you get when you leave Manhattan or SF. LA doesn't have the centrality that either of those cities have. Its whole mass is just one big city called "LA".
So for that, the Bay Area is more similar to SoCal than a Seattle, in my opinion, and regionally, I can see a case for both SoCal and NorCal being somewhat similar to greater metro New York or Chicago in this regard.
But that doesn't mean SF and LA are similar.
Hmm. You kinda don't know L.A. very well to speak of it.
^^^How's that? I don't know LA very well, especially compared to a resident. But what I do know is that when you look at cities, comparing cities and their economies, their built environments, the way they work and function, you have:
NYC
Followed by cities that have aspects of NYC on smaller scales:
I said Third Street Promenade is not akin to Pac Heights, or that SM is not like Pac Heights. Are you disputing that? I said Third Street Promenade is more akin to the Grove or Santana Row than Fillmore Street. Are you disputing THAT? Seriously? It doesn't take a resident of either city to know this. I could start linking to pictures and links about each to prove that point, easily.
I said: Greater LA is connected by rail to areas where people DO walk and shop and dine and play. Places like Pasadena, Santa Monica (now with Expo), West LA, Glendale, and other areas. THIS is what I agree is similar to the Bay Area with similar islandy hotspots - San Mateo, Burlingame, Palo Alto, walnut Creek, Berkeley, San Leandro, etc etc In fact, I'd argue this is similar to Metro New York and Metro Chicago, among others (Metro Philly and Metro Boston too).
That doesn't make the City of LA similar to the City of SF.
I said Koreatown/Wilshire corridor into DTLA is not the same kind of built environment as SF. Are you disputing that? If so, then IF it is a desperate attempt to compare SF and Manhattan in any way (apparently), then that is certainly a desperate attempt to compare LA and SF.
^^^How's that? I don't know LA very well, especially compared to a resident. But what I do know is that when you look at cities, comparing cities and their economies, their built environments, the way they work and function, you have:
NYC
Followed by cities that have aspects of NYC on smaller scales:
I said Third Street Promenade is not akin to Pac Heights, or that SM is not like Pac Heights. Are you disputing that? I said Third Street Promenade is more akin to the Grove or Santana Row than Fillmore Street. Are you disputing THAT? Seriously? It doesn't take a resident of either city to know this. I could start linking to pictures and links about each to prove that point, easily.
I said: Greater LA is connected by rail to areas where people DO walk and shop and dine and play. Places like Pasadena, Santa Monica (now with Expo), West LA, Glendale, and other areas. THIS is what I agree is similar to the Bay Area with similar islandy hotspots - San Mateo, Burlingame, Palo Alto, walnut Creek, Berkeley, San Leandro, etc etc In fact, I'd argue this is similar to Metro New York and Metro Chicago, among others (Metro Philly and Metro Boston too).
That doesn't make the City of LA similar to the City of SF.
I said Koreatown/Wilshire corridor into DTLA is not the same kind of built environment as SF. Are you disputing that? If so, then IF it is a desperate attempt to compare SF and Manhattan in any way (apparently), then that is certainly a desperate attempt to compare LA and SF.
So I beg of you, where am I way off here??
You really think Santa Monica is mostly new construction? That's telling right there among many of your statements. But I really don't wanna belabor this because it's honestly not that important. Some assertions beg for correction that's all.
To be fair, Los Angeles is much larger than most of the cities ahead of it, comparable in size to a mid-sized metro, hence the lower percentage of car-free households. If we focused on Central LA, the percentage would likely be above 20%--still more car-centric than San Francisco, but they'd be far closer to each other than either is to Manhattan (78% car-free households). One could argue that LA's transit riders use it out of necessity rather than by choice, but still.
Santa Monica is A LOT newer construction than Pac Heights which has been a bastion of old money wealth is this country since the 1800s. A lot of buildings along the Third Street Promenade are 60s, 70s, 80s, and 90s construction.
Santa Monica had 53,500 people in 1940 and has 90k people today. It has nearly doubled in population in the post-war era, much of that in the 1940s. The look and feel of SM is decidely less "1920s" or earlier and more 1960s and beyond. That's not to say that SM is a brand new place, but it is to say relatively speaking, it is.
The Promenade is more like Rodeo Blvd or old Town Pasadena than those manufactured malls you are comparing it to.
I never said it wasn't similar to Pasadena - in fact 2-3 times now I have compared it to Pasadena. But it IS more akin to Pasadena or Walnut Creek or Palo Alto than it is to Pacific Heights. It's SO different from Pac Heights that it is more similar to Santana Row than Pac Heights. And btw, Santana Row is becoming very much like Pasadena, Walnut Creek, etc etc.
I think you've indicated I'm not all that unfamiliar with LA
To be fair, Los Angeles is much larger than most of the cities ahead of it, comparable in size to a mid-sized metro, hence the lower percentage of car-free households. If we focused on Central LA, the percentage would likely be above 20%--still more car-centric than San Francisco, but they'd be far closer to each other than either is to Manhattan (78% car-free households). One could argue that LA's transit riders use it out of necessity rather than by choice, but still.
Yes, this is a good point. And scaling for size, if we took away the Sunset, Bayview, Visitacion Valley, etc and only focused on central SF, which has about 500k of the population (the majority...this is really what drives SF's weighted average density so high), that carless rate would also rise fairly dramatically to something > 40%, possibly approaching 50%. 50% of that 500k is about the sample size of the 31-32% in all of SF that is carless, and it's not unreasonable to assume the vast majority of those in further out areas of SF with lower density, greater street parking, driveways, etc and limited transit have cars. Does LA have a contiguous area of 500k people that might approach 50% car-free? Or even 40+%?
I think you and I are on the same page. Just pointing out that most of SF is so radically different from LA and going beyond just "density and carless" stats, SF's economy and way of life is so much more similar to Manhattan, or any other really urban environment, than LA's.
The Bay Area and Greater LA do have more similarities than not, however.
Both Manhattan and SF are surrounded by water and have histories that are deeply tied to that. In fact, these are the only two areas as well where the term "bridge and tunnel" is used with extensive and historical context.
Only recent transplants use that term here and it's not common nor was it used historically.
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.
