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.
Maybe put another way. Urban areas are not all equal; there is an access component
Just as living in many areas of North Philly while urban are not generally desireable nor would be many areas in the LA expanse. To me LA just has more covered area of less desireable expanse without as quick access to more desireable areas. LA has very desireable areas and many not desireable
Has about as much desireability (potentially less as it is likely less cohesive and easy to access desireable areas) as this (I was born not to far from this image) Philadelphia, PA - Google Maps
I wouldnt live in either but the LA expanse is expanse in more areas to me without much cohesive accesability. Doesnt deliver on any level I personally desire (Nor does the area of Northeast I pictured)
This is not to say LA does not have great areas, it does but many on this expanse that isnt all that enticing
I'm not a fan of places like the Valley or OC, but I'll take those over ultra-suburban areas where it's just miles and miles of single family homes without a major street in sight. exurbs/small towns don't do it for me either, places where you have to gear up to go to the city because there's virtually nothing that even slightly urban about your surroundings. In that sense I prefer th multi-node style--you don't have to drive into the same on area to get and urban, or approximately urban, experience. That's my personal preference obviously.
I'm not a fan of places like the Valley or OC, but I'll take those over ultra-suburban areas where it's just miles and miles of single family homes without a major street in sight. exurbs/small towns don't do it for me either, places where you have to gear up to go to the city because there's virtually nothing that even slightly urban about your surroundings. In that sense I prefer th multi-node style--you don't have to drive into the same on area to get and urban, or approximately urban, experience. That's my personal preference obviously.
But again then would say you dont know the burbs here at all if that is what you think they are (though some of that exists), not my prefered either but there are little towns all over the burbs here. Ray a question for you and a serious one. Have you really spent time in the burbs here. That last comment leads me to believe no
The burbs here are very much multi-node actually. This is something that I dont people understand about this area at all without having actually lived here. You dont have to drive to the city (well for one you can usually take the train) but two there are many many multi-nodal centers. They look different because they are considerbly older but many things in the burbs. Though to me by no means my preferred.
Why does everyone think there is only activity in the core, while a level not matched many places in the US among the best DTs there is many areas with with much to do outside of this.
I will do examples of all seperate areas in these burbs with nothing but subdivisions as you suggest... Not saying it a panacea but not at all what you described, I really dont think you have experienced these areas at all...
Let me ask you Ray; do these look like miles of subdivisons and no character/activity. These are the multi-nodal centers in the burbs here
I can on and on and these are the same towns you find all over the burbs of NYC and Boston, yep nothing but subdivision sprawl (this whole area is dotted with towns many loaded with restaurants/shops/bars etc.) no you dont have to go into the core to find things to do and no it is by no means all subdivision sprawl (though that does exist) Now do they match the DT cores, absolutely not but not sure anything in all of LA as a singular nabe does either
You do realize that some of these towns the burbs have grown out and around have been around and developed for more than 200 years; many are quite active actually
Last edited by kidphilly; 01-29-2012 at 02:03 PM..
You are saying that if you took out the buildings where people lived, then the city would not be qualified as urban. Sure, that's absolutely true. Actually, if you took out all of Philly's rowhomes, it would also not qualify as urban. If you flattened a city's buildings to the ground, it would no longer qualify as urban. If you take a really, really large mound of dirt and covered an entire city, it would no longer qualify as urban. If you took a really big scooper and scooped a city up to be flung into the sun and incinerated, it would no longer qualify as urban.
Your train of logic doesn't seem to compute. We are not talking about a few apartments, condos, co-ops etc. here and there. We are talking about a vast spread of complexes with one right next to another. Have you been to Los Angeles before?
Also, of course not all of 100% of Philly qualifies as urban. This is also within Philadelphia and it looks really, really suburban, and that's within city limits. It's important to note that city limits to some extent mean nothing. Even if Philly didn't have suburban areas throughout 100% of its city limits, the fact is that Philly's city limits are far smaller than Los Angeles's and were we to stretch Philadelphia's city limits to the size of Los Angeles's, you would have a majority suburban city.
Again, it's true that Los Angeles is mostly sprawl (and if all American cities were defined by their metropolitan areas, then basically all American cities are sprawl). However, the urban core is large and comparable in size to the urban cores of the other cities mentioned here.
No... what I'm saying is that if you took away the apartment buildings and the manufactured "urban" things like the downtown, that it would not be urban. So no, not even remotely the same thing. Also.. that's the funny thing.. even without its buildings, Philadelphia would still be urban. Stop acting like a child.
Doesn't seem to compute because you don't agree with it. You can't manufacture "urban" with apartment complexes when the rest is all suburban sprawl.
Yes, it does. It's important to note that I've been saying that this whole time, and if you want to go outside of city limits well I already showed you an aerial of Upper Darby, which blows LA's "urban" out of the water. So nope.. don't think so. Within Philadelphia's metro are hundreds of completely independent municipalities, including very dense cities like Camden, Wilmington, and Chester to name a few.
Nope.. not true. Stop trying to say every metro is like LA because they aren't. And nope.. it isn't comparable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
Using Only Rowhomes are Urban, there is only 1 sq mile of NEw England that is urban, Backbay/ South end
Funny thing is I never said that. Stop acting like a child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
West Chester had commuter rail at one time, so I consider it a quintessential suburb, along with Downingtown. You are right, though -- what surrounds it is more exurban (i.e., Chadd's Ford, Chester Springs).
West Chester is an independent borough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheCalifornianWriter
"There's no definition of urban except the actual definition of urban." --Couldntthinkofaclevername
What ARE you talking about, clever? Also, why are you fanatic about "LA boosters"? Wouldn't you be a "Philly Booster" for your attempts to discredit LA and show how amazing Philadelphia is?
"That's not reality. The reality is that if you take the apartment complexes out, LA is completely suburban."
You may be thinking of a different part of LA than we all are. Try actually looking at our downtown and then talk.
Yup, I did say that, and it's still true.
You know exactly what I'm talking about. You don't get to make up some fantasy rules that somehow make LA urban. It's not urban by any standards nor compared to any actually urban city. Nope, definitely not a Philly booster. The only person trying to discredit anybody is YOU LA Boosters, and I'm not letting you do it.
Nope, I'm not.
And your downtown is a manufactured "urban" area. So nope.. doesn't qualify your city as urban.
No... what I'm saying is that if you took away the apartment buildings and the manufactured "urban" things like the downtown, that it would not be urban. So no, not even remotely the same thing. Also.. that's the funny thing.. even without its buildings, Philadelphia would still be urban. Stop acting like a child.
Doesn't seem to compute because you don't agree with it. You can't manufacture "urban" with apartment complexes when the rest is all suburban sprawl.
Yes, it does. It's important to note that I've been saying that this whole time, and if you want to go outside of city limits well I already showed you an aerial of Upper Darby, which blows LA's "urban" out of the water. So nope.. don't think so. Within Philadelphia's metro are hundreds of completely independent municipalities, including very dense cities like Camden, Wilmington, and Chester to name a few.
Nope.. not true. Stop trying to say every metro is like LA because they aren't. And nope.. it isn't comparable.
Funny thing is I never said that. Stop acting like a child.
West Chester is an independent borough.
Yup, I did say that, and it's still true.
You know exactly what I'm talking about. You don't get to make up some fantasy rules that somehow make LA urban. It's not urban by any standards nor compared to any actually urban city. Nope, definitely not a Philly booster. The only person trying to discredit anybody is YOU LA Boosters, and I'm not letting you do it.
Nope, I'm not.
And your downtown is a manufactured "urban" area. So nope.. doesn't qualify your city as urban.
This gets funnier and funnier. Without its buildings Philly would still be urban. Even if it was one open field? ROFLMAO
And DTLA is not urban because it is "manufactured". Another classic line. Because as we all know Center City was not "manufactured", it was planted there by God.
Please just stop. You think you are smart, but you are not. Even your fellow Philadelphians are beginning to be embarrassed by you.
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying NE burbs were all single family tract homes. Youll find a lot of small towns with miles and miles of borderline rural expanse. Those are nice places to visit, but I'm not moving to NY or PA metro to live in areas like that. Compare Phoenixville to Long Beach or Glendale or even El Monte, which is 12,000 psm over its entire city limits and is surrounded by similar dense burbs for miles and miles. It isn't super urban, but it isn't quaint and and suburban either. There isn't that cutoff/buildup effect you have out East. No, there is no "hub" where everything gravitates to (though DT, Hollywood, and the Westside come closest, still a way massive area though), but it has multiple CBDs, with little cutoff between them. I prefer that personally.
This gets funnier and funnier. Without its buildings Philly would still be urban. Even if it was one open field? ROFLMAO
And DTLA is not urban because it is "manufactured". Another classic line. Because as we all know Center City was not "manufactured", it was planted there by God.
Please just stop. You think you are smart, but you are not. Even your fellow Philadelphians are beginning to be embarrassed by you.
Only an idiot would ever say that without its buildings Philadelphia would be one open field. Stop acting like a five-year old. It's really, really sad to see.
Yup.. that's exactly what I said. Nope, Center City wasn't manufactured because it was originally Philadelphia's boundaries, and all of those buildings you see came about naturally, around plenty of rowhome-lined streets. Care to speak out of your ass some more?
Not think.. I am smart. I don't need to prove it to any of you. You think I give a F what anybody thinks or says? Unlike you people, I'm not spineless. I'm perfectly capable of standing on my own because I am a man with a set of balls.
As I said in the other thread.. I'm done with this. You delusional homers keep going with this all you like. You have absolutely no clue what you are talking about whatsoever.
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying NE burbs were all single family tract homes. Youll find a lot of small towns with miles and miles of borderline rural expanse. Those are nice places to visit, but I'm not moving to NY or PA metro to live in areas like that. Compare Phoenixville to a Long Beach or Glendale or even El Monte, which is 12,000 psm over its entire city limits and is surrounded by similar dense burbs for miles and miles. It isn't urban, but it isn't quaint and isolated either. There isn't that cutoff/buildup effect you have out East, which is more what I prefer personally. There isn't that one "hub" where everything gravitates to (the DT, Hollywood, and the Westside come closest, still a way massive area though), but has multiple CBDs, with little cutoff between them.
You seriously have no clue about our metro whatsoever.
You compare PHOENIXVILLE to the West Coast?
What about Chester? Wilmington? Camden? You seriously are speaking out of your ass.
Just to clarify, I wasn't saying NE burbs were all single family tract homes. Youll find a lot of small towns with miles and miles of borderline rural expanse. Those are nice places to visit, but I'm not moving to NY or PA metro to live in areas like that. Compare Phoenixville to Long Beach or Glendale or even El Monte, which is 12,000 psm over its entire city limits and is surrounded by similar dense burbs for miles and miles. It isn't super urban, but it isn't quaint and and suburban either. There isn't that cutoff/buildup effect you have out East. No, there is no "hub" where everything gravitates to (though DT, Hollywood, and the Westside come closest, still a way massive area though), but it has multiple CBDs, with little cutoff between them. I prefer that personally.
Well there are more city places as well. (wilmington/Around Camden (actually just outside of Camden war zones are some very expensive nabes)/Trenton/Chester/Upper Darby etc.); though will be honest none of these places interest me personally all that much and those I put on are really more those out in the exurbs with a few exceptions and was responding to you and not comparing them to Long Beach etc. which seems out of place. I was just showing that there are many towns intertwined with rural development offering things to do that dont require the core; think you are deflecting a bit honestly and dont think you understand this part of the burbs here as it functionally is different than most other areas of the country with similar tract development. (Plus remember many areas these towns are now preserved as open space that significantly drives down the density; the people that live in these areas via taxes by land collectively to stop the continuance of sprawl (odd dynamic but is true)
Fine. personally Long Beach does nothing for me. It is in that space that is urban but not urban enough and many of the urban pains. That is my issue with much of the LA expanse. Yep developed but not great urban amentity and still boxed in. for me the worst of both ends.
Also you act as though a city like Philly has no other nodal areas of interest (even within the city), again very false. There are multiple centers of activity outside of CC Philly. And believe it or not Ray the other nodes any given night will have 4-5 times the number of people out in them collectively versus the core; the core just has by far the highest concentration. Manyunk (or other areas like Chestnut Hill, No Libs, Passyunk) would be like a West Hollywood strip like area (not the same vibe but these places exist). LA and these styles are different but they are not mutually exclusive like you might suggest.
Ray answer me this question, have you actually spent time outside of the DT Philly or in the burbs? I am suspecting not
And as I said the 12K ppsm is horrid, that is the worst of both worlds IMHO, and as you say I wouldnt move to LA to live in Long Beach; just wouldnt interest me. that expanse of consistent 6-12K density is like NE Philly and I am not moving there anytime soon either, been there done that. Semi Dense and not enough consistent vibrancy; my least favorite type of location actually. Give me 30+ or more rural with a cosmo town, but this is my preference
The 225 square miles surrounding DTLA are denser than Chicago's city limit population(Chicago's city limits being 225 sq miles as well. I have no doubt that you could maintain Chicago-like density (which is 12,000 psm I believe) over 450 sq miles, double size. No doubt.
This is in comparison to CHI-CA-GO, super urban city of big shoulders. And people still think L.A. is a big suburb? Okie dokie.
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.
