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.
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.
Yea, those are green and they are nice and have large yards and also large wooded areas in between or on the properties. I think it's far preferable than bulldozing over all the natural landscape for more crap sprawl. I remember walking around the beautiful pond in a valley and the hillsides around it when I was growing up in the San Gabriel Valley and now seeing the pond drained and more crap real estate with half-assed bits of greenery placed about to replace what was formerly beautiful. Same thing happened in college with the hills next door (though a protest got them to stop building over the entire thing--just most of it). LA has had crap conservation within its own boundaries and has reserved little greenspace or even parkspace in comparison save for the hard to develop mountains which people then point to as conservation/greenspace. Sorry, conservation is not just keeping what's most convenient at the time and the developers are slowly working up the foothills and on top anyways.
It's stats like these ("LA has the densest urban area!") that are basically crap and don't take into account of how land usage functions. It's simply bad and useless stats. Denser though spidery development in the suburbs is fine, and I actually appreciate that part of NYC's metro area when you head out of the city. LA needs to do more of the same, but so much of the flatlands of the valley(s) are claimed (and the basins are a different natural terrain than that up the hillsides) and built upon that I don't think there's any politically tractable way of returning it to nature. This I find ironic given the West Coast's natural bounty and how much we politically side with environmentalism.
What has been done in the valleys (and the basin, too) sucks. That's pretty much all there is to it.
This road is not particularly wide. The low height of the buildings and the setbacks make it feel wider, however, even if it isn't wider than a typical commercial thoroughfare in Boston. If you tore it all down and infilled, it would have more of a feeling of enclosure, but the lack of stop lights and pedestrian crossings would do nothing to slow traffic, which is probably the biggest reason I would not walk there.
Why would I be walking here? If I needed to go to one of the shops in this strip mall, I would just get in my car and drive to it. If I lived at a house around the corner, I might walk to it if I just wanted the exercise. But I wouldn't walk more than a block or so here.
Further down the street is worse from a functional perspective, imo. Even if you infilled the parking lot, why would I walk here? There's nothing to walk to. You could make the argument that there's nothing to walk to on a brownstone-filled street either, but at least you have people walking up and down their stairs, jogging, biking, etc. It feels like it's a place for people.
I can't picture this as a street that has any type of meaningful pedestrian life (other than extremely poor people who can't drive or someone walking from the auto repair shop to that furniture store to pass time). It looks lonely and desolate.
This road is not particularly wide. The low height of the buildings and the setbacks make it feel wider, however, even if it isn't wider than a typical commercial thoroughfare in Boston. If you tore it all down and infilled, it would have more of a feeling of enclosure, but the lack of stop lights and pedestrian crossings would do nothing to slow traffic, which is probably the biggest reason I would not walk there.
Why would I be walking here? If I needed to go to one of the shops in this strip mall, I would just get in my car and drive to it. If I lived at a house around the corner, I might walk to it if I just wanted the exercise. But I wouldn't walk more than a block or so here.
Further down the street is worse from a functional perspective, imo. Even if you infilled the parking lot, why would I walk here? There's nothing to walk to. You could make the argument that there's nothing to walk to on a brownstone-filled street either, but at least you have people walking up and down their stairs, jogging, biking, etc. It feels like it's a place for people.
I can't picture this as a street that has any type of meaningful pedestrian life (other than extremely poor people who can't drive or someone walking from the auto repair shop to that furniture store to pass time). It looks lonely and desolate.
They do actually have basic amenities to walk to, so even though it's badly designed, when you live there you also walk to those things especially to take out the hassle of parking and traffic. Also, all your streetviews have people walking in them. It's true the design is pretty crap, but you walk just the same for the same reasons (traffic, expenses, parking) for the most part. Could be a lot better though. Special factoid for you: you can get an okay philly cheesesteak about a two minute walk from your third location. Why? I don't know.
They do actually have basic amenities to walk to, so even though it's badly designed, when you live there you also walk to those things especially to take out the hassle of parking and traffic.
Ray was asking specifically about design and walkability. We're not talking about whether you could walk from the H&R block in the first link to the Pizza Hut on Beverly Boulevard. If we compare this street with arterial thoroughfares in the urban cores of other major cities, we see a completely different picture. And keep in mind I only provided commercial thoroughfares, which should have much more foot traffic and vibrancy than a quiet residential side street.
And we're strictly talking core to core comparisons here. You don't really have any deadzones in core DC, Boston, Philly, SF or Chicago like the ones you see in LA. For the most part, every commercial thoroughfare will be vibrant and even the residential side streets will have quiet a bit of pedestrian activity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Also, all your streetviews have people walking in them.
Does that now push Atlanta up to a Tier 2 city? And you can't simply say that "LA is different because it is way denser than Atlanta" because NYC has many dense, auto-centric areas that are equally devoid of pedestian life. You seem to believe that high population density will overcome any physical impediments to walking when it's actually quite the contrary. I could show you some dense areas of Brooklyn and Queens that are "dead" due to their terrible auto-centric design and moderately dense areas of DC that are teeming with streetlife because everything is mixed-use and built on a highly pedestrian scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
It's true the design is pretty crap, but you walk just the same for the same reasons (traffic, expenses, parking) for the most part.
I don't doubt that. But you said that LA is "knocking on the door of a Tier 2 city" (as defined in the chart I posted). That's a major exaggeration.
Last edited by BajanYankee; 11-30-2012 at 09:14 AM..
This road is not particularly wide. The low height of the buildings and the setbacks make it feel wider, however, even if it isn't wider than a typical commercial thoroughfare in Boston. If you tore it all down and infilled, it would have more of a feeling of enclosure, but the lack of stop lights and pedestrian crossings would do nothing to slow traffic, which is probably the biggest reason I would not walk there.
Why would I be walking here? If I needed to go to one of the shops in this strip mall, I would just get in my car and drive to it. If I lived at a house around the corner, I might walk to it if I just wanted the exercise. But I wouldn't walk more than a block or so here.
Further down the street is worse from a functional perspective, imo. Even if you infilled the parking lot, why would I walk here? There's nothing to walk to. You could make the argument that there's nothing to walk to on a brownstone-filled street either, but at least you have people walking up and down their stairs, jogging, biking, etc. It feels like it's a place for people.
I can't picture this as a street that has any type of meaningful pedestrian life (other than extremely poor people who can't drive or someone walking from the auto repair shop to that furniture store to pass time). It looks lonely and desolate.
I don't disagree with anything about the statement except it feeling desolate. It's definitely ugly and poor urban-design - the second two locations are in the semi-industrial studio district of Hollywood, definitely affects the feel of the neighborhood. It would be nice to see the studios retool their campuses to better interact with their surroundings, something Paramount Pictures is actually doing (located a few blocks from the streetviews).
However, I do disagree with your notion that it would feel lonely and desolate, it is actually quite lively with pedestrians - obviously not to the level seen a mile north on Hollywood Blvd, but as much as you would see in other dense cities' inner street-car suburbs (which is basically what Hollywood is). Most of the people are fairly low-income and Hispanic but that is mostly just reflects the demographic of the neighborhoods.
BTW if you lived in Hollywood you would not live in that neighborhood, for a variety of reasons. Kind of funny to think about you living there.
Last edited by munchitup; 11-30-2012 at 09:06 AM..
Now here's a question I have for you. You've got one guy saying this just two weeks ago.
Quote:
Once you accidentally leave the tourist area, real Los Angeles opens-up: utilitarian low-rise buildings & warehouses, auto body shops & pawn shops, tattoo and smoke stores, old box-type apartment structures, blighted development, and an endless parade of empty concrete sidewalks.
Then you have Lovehound, a respected poster in the LA forum, saying this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lovehound
I haven't seen any pedestrian life and our transit culture involves cars (or trucks or SUVs). It's a recurring topic on the Los Angeles forum "Can I live in L.A. without a car and utilize public transit?"
Which seems consistent with the perspective of a respected urban planner.
Quote:
The LA region's combination of high, evenly distributed density puts it in an unfortunate position: it suffers from many of the problems that accompany high population density, including extreme traffic congestion and poor air quality; but lacks many of the benefits that typically accompany more traditional versions of dense urban areas, including fast and effective public transit and a core with vibrant street life
Now it could be that all three of these guys are smoking crack. You tell me. I just want to know how you add up these statements and conclude that LA is a Tier 2 city.
I don't doubt that. But you said that LA is "knocking on the door of a Tier 2 city" (as defined in the chart I posted). That's a major exaggeration.
Actually that chart is about pedestrian activity, so yes it is knocking on the door of Tier 2. There's no way you are going to convince me anything about pedestrian activity in any city using Google streetview. As far as the flawlessness of its urban design, I guess it has a ways to go to be in Tier 2 but I think is superior to the rest of its Tier 3. Maybe LA just needs to stand alone in a separate tier since there really are no other cities like it.
Actually that chart is about pedestrian activity, so yes it is knocking on the door of Tier 2.
Quote:
Gigantic seamless walkable areas with intense, 3-Dimensional centers of commerce and residential density. Its also where you'll find generous amounts of people walking through residential side streets as part of their commute.
So in your mind, L.A. has "gigantic seamless walkable areas?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
There's no way you are going to convince me anything about pedestrian activity in any city using Google streetview.
See the quotes above. It's possible that those three guys are crackpots, but their view of LA's pedestrian life and yours could not be any different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
As far as the flawlessness of its urban design, I guess it has a ways to go to be in Tier 2 but I think is superior to the rest of its Tier 3. Maybe LA just needs to stand alone in a separate tier since there really are no other cities like it.
Ehhh. I've never been to Portland. Seattle actually has a decent walkable core radiating out from its CBD and some nice, cohesive neighborhoods. So I probably wouldn't place LA above Seattle. The city LA is most comparable to, imo, is Miami. I would say the difference between LA and Miami is that the former has more pockets and those pockets have higher pedestrian activity. But by and large, the layout of both cities is quite similar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
BTW if you lived in Hollywood you would not live in that neighborhood, for a variety of reasons. Kind of funny to think about you living there.
Why is that?
Last edited by BajanYankee; 11-30-2012 at 09:22 AM..
So in your mind, L.A. has "gigantic seamless walkable areas?"
Nope. Did I ever say that? That chart is for pedestrian activity. In Los Angeles the pedestrian activity is not limited to linear commercial strips, it happens everywhere and in every neighborhood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
See the quotes above. It's possible that those three guys are crackpots, but their view of LA's pedestrian life and yours could not be any different.
They were talking about the design of the neighborhoods, not the function. I don't know where you got it into your head Lovehound is a respected LA poster, haven't seen him/her post in a very long time. If I remember correctly that poster is your typical baby-boomer era Angelino. His/Her comments do not surprise me in the least (especially considering this is probably the 20th time you've posted this too - do you have a special folder on your desktop labeled "Quotes to burn LA posters with"?) but I do disagree with them.
Ray was asking specifically about design and walkability. We're not talking about whether you could walk from the H&R block in the first link to the Pizza Hut on Beverly Boulevard. If we compare this street with arterial thoroughfares in the urban cores of other major cities, we see a completely different picture. And keep in mind I only provided commercial thoroughfares, which should have much more foot traffic and vibrancy than a quiet residential side street.
And And we're strictly talking core to core comparisons here. You don't really have any deadzones in core DC, Boston, Philly, SF or Chicago like the ones you see in LA. For the most part, every commercial thoroughfare will be vibrant and even the residential side streets will have quiet a bit of pedestrian activity.
Does that now push Atlanta up to a Tier 2 city? And you can't simply say that "LA is different because it is way denser than Atlanta" because NYC has many dense, auto-centric areas that are equally devoid of pedestian life. You seem to believe that high population density will overcome any physical impediments to walking when it's actually quite the contrary. I could show you some dense areas of Brooklyn and Queens that are "dead" due to their terrible auto-centric design and moderately dense areas of DC that are teeming with streetlife because everything is mixed-use and built on a highly pedestrian scale.
I don't doubt that. But you said that LA is "knocking on the door of a Tier 2 city" (as defined in the chart I posted). That's a major exaggeration.
Design of LA's places places are generally bad. It's a commercial corridor but a lesser one than what's up in Hollywood. LA does ebb and flow a bit more but over a much larger area--you'll have to decide yourself what the tolerances should be set to. Then again, you still haven't actually so much as do a vague non-commital maybe some day kind of thing with trying to live in the urban parts of LA and getting around by walking/biking/transit. Again, try it. Don't know what tiers you're talking about. Where'd you get tiers from? Also, there isn't anything in LA right now that is as urban as the near north side in chicago nor is there anything up to par really in any of the other cities of the tier, right?
What are the retail/population/job dense parts of NYC that are devoid of pedestrian life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
Now here's a question I have for you. You've got one guy saying this just two weeks ago.
Then you have Lovehound, a respected poster in the LA forum, saying this.
Which seems consistent with the perspective of a respected urban planner.
Now it could be that all three of these guys are smoking crack. You tell me. I just want to know how you add up these statements and conclude that LA is a Tier 2 city.
You've got two guys stating otherwise, or at least digging at the nuances of it. LA is not pedestrian friendly in terms of bad design. It does function as such though because you will have a lot of people walking or using transit for their daily whatever in a pretty large absolute amount of area in the city. Again, you should actually try to experience how it functions.
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.
