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.
I meant as it relates to the topic of urban fabric.
Understood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy
This is my point. Anyone that doesn't take public transportation in London and instead walks everywhere is obviously either staying centrally or on the west end. Their impression of London's overall walkability is influenced by their limited experience.
I don't think that's it. It's not like experiencing more of London beyond the touristy areas would change their perception of the city's walkability. London's simply one of the most vibrant true walking cities in the world and it is massive. It's quite easy to see why people would walk there.
Similarly when people say that LA has wide streets, I know that they spent most of their time driving and not walking. Not that LA doesn't have plenty of relatively wide streets, but when walking that's not the overwhelming perception because the wide streets tend to be 1/2 mile or so apart. And if you're on a wide street chances are that the large majority of the streets that you're crossing are much narrower. And they don't feel anymore like freeways than anywhere else. They aren't like Orange County or Maricopa where traffic lights are a mile or more apart and people are driving 55 mph.
I'm not sure if the streets are actually wider. But there's certainly a perception that they are wider because there are often medians and turn lanes and the arterial routes generally have less street parking than those in other cities. I also think the lack of streetwalls creates the perception that streets are wider even if in reality they are not much wider than many streets in cities that have consistent streetwalls.
Here's an interesting blog discussing this topic:
Quote:
The best streets on earth have building walls on either side that are as tall as the space between the building faces. Technically speaking, they have a street enclosure of 1:1 or greater. A street with good enclosure feels like an outdoor room, and people prefer outdoor rooms to streets with little enclosure that just bleed out into the landscape. A 1:1 or greater enclosure is easier in Europe because their streets are narrower. We work hard in the US to achieve enclosures of 1:3 in most places, but can still exceed 1:1 occasionally like on 14th Street in Washington DC shown above.
I don't think that's it. It's not like experiencing more of London beyond the touristy areas would change their perception of the city's walkability. London's simply one of the most vibrant true walking cities in the world and it is massive. It's quite easy to see why people would walk there.
And it's also clear why people would choose not to drive there. As an aside, it's a bit of a different city than New York City. Past the inner area, instead of having long commercial corridors, commercial development is concentrated in neighborhood centers built around an underground stop. In between, large sections are soley residential.
Similarly when people say that LA has wide streets, I know that they spent most of their time driving and not walking. Not that LA doesn't have plenty of relatively wide streets, but when walking that's not the overwhelming perception because the wide streets tend to be 1/2 mile or so apart. And if you're on a wide street chances are that the large majority of the streets that you're crossing are much narrower. And they don't feel anymore like freeways than anywhere else. They aren't like Orange County or Maricopa where traffic lights are a mile or more apart and people are driving 55 mph.
I'm not sure if the streets are actually wider. But there's certainly a perception that they are wider because there are often medians and turn lanes and the arterial routes generally have less street parking than those in other cities. I also think the lack of streetwalls creates the perception that streets are wider even if in reality they are not much wider than many streets in cities that have consistent streetwalls.
I think the lack of a totally consistent street wall does make the roads in LA seem wider. But 2Easy is right that the vast majority of roads in LA are quite narrow (okay compared to NYC they are wide). The arterials are the exception to the rule, and are generally the only streets with turn lanes. I might be wrong but I feel like all of LA's arterials have street parking though. Only place I can think of near me is Cahuenga and Highland north of Yucca St, where they are basically just extended on-ramps to the 101.
It would be nice to see LA work on the streetwalls - the good news is that they are. Downtown LA has a design guide, the Hollywood Community Specific Plan presents a design guide for developers.
As far as Nei asking if the demographic change has been a major player in LA's seachange towards transit, I'd say it is a big part of it. That and embarrassment over not having a world-class system, extreme frustration over traffic and frustration over the lack of mobility. Also one thing to note is that the city attempted to build a transit system various times over the years, even successfully building a subway to Wilshire / Western before an explosion turned the line north to Hollywood. So even though the national attention has just recently been fixed on LA's transit expansion, this has been a work in progress for decades.
The arterials are the exception to the rule, and are generally the only streets with turn lanes.
I would hope so. It would be interesting to see a residential street with a turn lane.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
I might be wrong but I feel like all of LA's arterials have street parking though. Only place I can think of near me is Cahuenga and Highland north of Yucca St, where they are basically just extended on-ramps to the 101.
It just seems like you see fewer cars parked on the street.
I know that parking is restricted along commercial streets for a variety of reasons (rush hour, street cleaning, etc.). But it seems that there are hardly ever any cars along these streets, which is one reason they may seem wider.
My friend (the one from Boston) lives on the street. Pretty quiet, rarely see cars driving on it. Interestingly it is Alta Vista Boulevard, and Blvd is typically the name given to large arterial street. I wonder if it was built intended to be a main thoroughfare but ended up just being another residential street.
That Philly streetview is so weird. Why are the cars parked in the middle divider?
But 2Easy is right that the vast majority of roads in LA are quite narrow (okay compared to NYC they are wide).
Is NYC that unusually narrow? I think it's fairly normal for eastern cities. I guess I took its width as "normal". In contrast, a british poster looked at some views of Brooklyn and said the most strking thing about them were how wide the streets were. And for some reason he thought the buildings looked new . That and how inconsistent (in size & color) the commercial buildings are. This
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.
. That and how inconsistent (in size & color) the commercial buildings are. This
