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.
What are you debating then? Infill? Surface parkings? Seriously, this so tired. Instead of debating a comparable size areas that show a bigger picture, you're trying to keep the comparison to tiny sections within each metro area. This is the same tactic most everyone is forced to use when debating their city's urbanity to L.A.'s.
For the record, as nice as the FQ is, I'm not seeing how it's more urban than DTLA, Ktown and Westlake.
It's more urban pedestrian friendly in the sense that the French Quarter is complete with more infill at every block without a lot of surface parking lots in between. The attached structures are walled around the perimeter of each block with narrower streets with less set backs from the sidewalk.
On a metro level, can NO really be compared to Miami? C'mon, seriously? Compare Broward to Metarie or Morrero.
When it comes to urban residential highrises Miami and the rest of SFLA is well ahead of both NO and LA. When it comes to street level historic density preautomobile at human scale then NO is better. LA has more urban population with more buildings but is spread out more and is less concentrated through out it's region. LA's density isn't built up like San Francisco.
Last edited by urbanologist; 11-27-2012 at 06:59 AM..
When it comes to urban residential highrises Miami and the rest of SFLA is well ahead of both NO and LA. When it comes to street level historic density preautomobile at human scale then NO is better. LA has more urban population with more buildings but is spread out more and is less concentrated through out it's region. LA's density isn't built up like San Francisco.
How many times do we have to tell you that LA's density is built up like San Francisco's. SF has better urban fabric (or at least closer to what you prefer) but the two cities are neck-and-neck when it comes to population / amenity / structural density. Statistically speaking.
How many times do we have to tell you that LA's density is built up like San Francisco's. SF has better urban fabric (or at least closer to what you prefer) but the two cities are neck-and-neck when it comes to population / amenity / structural density. Statistically speaking.
By "structural density," do you mean the number of units per square mile?
The question was never which is more "urban", that's obvious. That is something a lot of people in this thread don't seem to get. "Urban Fabric" isn't going to be proved with stats at all.
Also a lot of NOLA developed before the automobile, not just the FQ. It was at a time one of the largest cities in the US before 1870. I don't think LA became a large city until after 1900.
By yall arguments New Orleans is more urban by fabric then, Chicago, Detroit, DC San Fransico, Most of New York and etc too. umm no
As I said a small town can be compact that do not make it urban, Europe has many rurals compact small towns. Yall trying ignore the ideal of Urban itself, and just focus on narrow streets, no parcking lots and pretend a 2 point difference in walkabity is significant. We are not talking about a suburban edge city like environments both cores are walkable both cities cores are urban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by urbanologist
It's more urban pedestrian friendly in the sense that the French Quarter is complete with more infill at every block without a lot of surface parking lots in between. The attached structures are walled around the perimeter of each block with narrower streets with less set backs from the sidewalk.
again
You said Ktown had a 94 walkable score and the French Quarter had 96 walkable, the fact that both are over 80 makes the walkablity argument irrelevant. Your basing whole argument over a 2 point difference when they are in same range walkablity. Those the fail part of yall arguments their both overwhelmingly walkable, then they're both are in same range of walkabity. But one thing that is a sharp difference LA has way more people living in actually Walkable areas.
How many times do we have to tell you that LA's density is built up like San Francisco's. SF has better urban fabric (or at least closer to what you prefer) but the two cities are neck-and-neck when it comes to population / amenity / structural density. Statistically speaking.
Doesn't L.A.'s core have a higher peak structural density than Philadelphia? I can't find dweebo's chart. Anyway, L.A. is way up there in that category.
How many times do we have to tell you that LA's density is built up like San Francisco's. SF has better urban fabric (or at least closer to what you prefer) but the two cities are neck-and-neck when it comes to population / amenity / structural density. Statistically speaking.
Check my posts I have been saying the same thing all along, even saying that according to some of your criteria NO would win this poll - I'm just saying add this to Urbanologist's long line-up of factually incorrect comments about Los Angeles:
Quote:
LA's density isn't built up like San Francisco.
Overall, as I have stated before, I would take the flawed but still highly-urban structure of Los Angeles 99 times out of 100 over the tiny but nearly perfect inner New Orleans (plus at the end of the day you are still in the south ). Yes the area with good urban fabric is relatively big compared to how big New Orleans is but that is completely meaningless. Even Boston felt quaint in comparison to Los Angeles.
BTW SF would obliterate New Orleans if it was in the comparison.
Last edited by munchitup; 11-27-2012 at 10:29 AM..
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.
How many times do we have to tell you that LA's density is built up like San Francisco's. SF has better urban fabric (or at least closer to what you prefer) but the two cities are neck-and-neck when it comes to population / amenity / structural density. Statistically speaking.
). Yes the area with good urban fabric is relatively big compared to how big New Orleans is but that is completely meaningless. Even Boston felt quaint in comparison to Los Angeles.
