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.
Don't get me wrong folks I'm not denying that LA is urban. I use to grow near Miami and LA reminds me of SFLA. It's just has a different style of urban. Based on volume of course it's going to over lap New Orleans with more amenities, sidewalks, and people. Despite seeing the number of parking lots it's much more less compared to when first step foot in that city in 1983. The last time I was there was in 2007. It has completely change in the last 30 years. Eventually, as the population continues to increase along with the expansion of rail transit more of those parking lots will fill in. Speaking of rail transit does anyone see LA passing DC or SF?
DC no, at least not any time soon, San Francisco it is possible.
Also when it comes to urban residential highrise living Chicago is 2nd to NYC. If LA ever built this much it certainly won't happen in our life time. Chicago's urban core density is more vertical. If it built more vertical density a few miles west and north to Evanston (10 miles from downtown) it be the same size as Manhattan. The number of highrises along Chicago's waterfront could cover one side of Mahattan but that's it the rest of the infill west of it is pretty dense walkable urban neighborhood but not on Mahattan's scale.
LA's urban core structure is nothing like this. Not even close
Impressive pictures. Doesn't make Chicago any more densely populated than Los Angeles, save for a few tracts here and there, but they're nice. Two different cities, totally.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 11-29-2012 at 07:38 PM..
Impressive pictures. Doesn't make Chicago any more densely populated than Los Angeles, save for a few tracts here and there, but they're nice. Two different cities, totally.
Thanks, no LA has already passed Chicago in the population density category. Speaking of population it seems like LA metro may eventually pass NY in metro population in the near future.
Thanks, no LA has already passed Chicago in the population density category. Speaking of population it seems like LA metro may eventually pass NY in metro population in the near future.
At the CSA level, probably not for another 40 years. Not that I mind--18 million people is more than enough.
Question: filling in the parking lots would improve the pleasantness of the city's walkability. I think we can all agree on that. To what extent though? Would infill along the main arterials (http://m.la.curbed.com/archives/2012...arly_2014.php) make a pronounced difference in your opinion? Anyone else, feel free to answer.
It would also put LA as the solid #2 densest US city in the core. Boston, Philly, SF, NYC are maxed out on room for more development typically.
NYC and I'm guessing Philly and Boston as well, are maxed out in that they have large estates and lots of greenspace outside the city (like heavy development near the commuter rail lines) which I think is actually more pleasant than the tightly developed and crowded but still suburban sprawl of the San Gabriel and San Fernando Valley, Orange County, Inland Empire and Ventura County. I think it'd be a lot more pleasant if LA's metro would have concentrated the density more in its development and left a lot more areas out for greenspace and nature reserves. The developers ate up so much beautiful and bountiful area in the suburbs especially in the basin and valley areas and generally with pretty terrible development. It's pretty awful that development went that way.
NYC and I'm guessing Philly and Boston as well, are maxed out in that they have large estates and lots of greenspace outside the city (like heavy development near the commuter rail lines) which I think is actually more pleasant than the tightly developed and crowded but still suburban sprawl of the San Gabriel and San Fernando Valley, Orange County, Inland Empire and Ventura County. I think it'd be a lot more pleasant if LA's metro would have concentrated the density more in its development and left a lot more areas out for greenspace and nature reserves. The developers ate up so much beautiful and bountiful area in the suburbs especially in the basin and valley areas and generally with pretty terrible development. It's pretty awful that development went that way.
The suburbs and townships out East might be prettier and more spacious, but they gobble mucho real estate. The NYC UA is over 3,400 sq miles, for chrissakes. Boston's UA is equal in size to L.A.'s with a 1/3 the people. It's inneficient sprawl IMO.
It would also put LA as the solid #2 densest US city in the core. Boston, Philly, SF, NYC are maxed out on room for more development typically.
Most likely. Sprawl is dead, and DT and central L.A. are hot. It is all on the verge of booming again. You know real estate developers are dying to get their hands on those dead spots and strip malls too. I don't know if this infill will silence the critics, but it'll be interesting to see how it turns out. Looking forward to the next 10 years. Should be cool.
Yeah into the burbs. MUNI may be expanding though, a little more relevant. None to the level of LA, which is set to have 2 extension in the next 3-4 years, and about 5-6 more in the next 20.
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.
It's inneficient sprawl IMO.
