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.
They were talking about the design of the neighborhoods, not the function.
How do you get from "empty concrete sidewalks," "I haven't seen any pedestrian life," and "lacks a core with vibrant street life" to "they were talking about the design of neighborhoods, not the function?" I'm not even sure Mitt Romney could spin that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
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.
Baby Boomers can't be familar with a city they've lived in their whole entire life? That's like saying my mom is not familiar with Philadelphia because she's old. As if there's a whole different physical side of the city she hasn't experienced in 30 years.
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.
I don't disagree with this, but curious as to a breakdown between Choice Transit Users / Walkers vs. Due to economics.
How do you get from "empty concrete sidewalks," "I haven't seen any pedestrian life," and "lacks a core with vibrant street life" to "they were talking about the design of neighborhoods, not the function?" I'm not even sure Mitt Romney could spin that one.
So me and at least 10 other Los Angeles posters in this thread (and the countless others) are just lying?
Nearly 1 in 5 of all trips in Los Angeles County (gonna be higher in the city for sure) is done on foot. That's a lot of trips, a lot of people, and equates to a lot of pedestrian activity. You have articles and second hand testimonial - I have real life experience as well as a comparative experience living in one of the hallowed East Coast cities.
That kid's article was incredibly hyperbolic. Even you admitted so when you first posted it.
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.
Why would I want to do that? Those areas are not appealing in the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
What are the retail/population/job dense parts of NYC that are devoid of pedestrian life?
They are high. It's Brooklyn so it's obviously higher than Los Angeles considering that the entire Borough has a walkscore higher than DTLA. Take a stroll down Utica Avenue and tell me how many pedestrians you see.
High population density is no guarantee of an active pedestrian life. Do you think Utica Avenue sees anywhere near the pedestrian activity of the average street in core DC or Boston? You don't have to spend 20 years in East Flatbush to know the answer to that question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
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.
What does "digging at the nuances of it" mean? One guy's talking about "empty concrete sidewalks." The other is talking about "a core without active street life." Those statements are not ambiguous. There's also the guy who said, "I haven't seen any pedestrian life."
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
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.
But you have that in a lot of cities. You see people walking (mostly the poor) in Miami all over the place. How does that make it similar to Boston?
So me and at least 10 other Los Angeles posters in this thread (and the countless others) are just lying?
"Lying" is a strong word. I'd say "exaggerating" since this is the City vs. City forum where ridiculous claims get tossed around like $100 dollar bills at a Lil' Wayne party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
Nearly 1 in 5 of all trips in Los Angeles County (gonna be higher in the city for sure) is done on foot. That's a lot of trips, a lot of people, and equates to a lot of pedestrian activity. You have articles and second hand testimonial - I have real life experience as well as a comparative experience living in one of the hallowed East Coast cities.
I don't doubt there's pedestrian activity. My point is that the pedestrian activity is well below what you see in SF, Boston or DC. There are days in those cities when I could be convinced I'm in Brooklyn if I didn't know where I was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
That kid's article was incredibly hyperbolic. Even you admitted so when you first posted it.
That's not what I said. I said that the "Nobody Walks in L.A." part was hyperbolic. But that would also be hyperbolic if applied to Atlanta, Miami or Detroit.
It's like neither imo. Once you leave dt Seattle heading east you have First Hill and Capitol Hill which is dense and walkable. After that you have the Central District, Madison Valley, Leschi, Madrona, Wasington Park, Madison Park and it all ends at the lake. Dense, old but almost exclusively residential.
After dt LA heading west you have City West, Westlake/MacArthur Park, Warner Center, Koreatown, Silverlake, Hollywood etc. Pretty packed in with apts, highrises, midrises, residential, storefronts, strip centers, parks and so on. You can Google map all you want but just by living in both cities, LA's core is on another level.
Why would I want to do that? Those areas are not appealing in the least.
They are high. It's Brooklyn so it's obviously higher than Los Angeles considering that the entire Borough has a walkscore higher than DTLA. Take a stroll down Utica Avenue and tell me how many pedestrians you see.
High population density is no guarantee of an active pedestrian life. Do you think Utica Avenue sees anywhere near the pedestrian activity of the average street in core DC or Boston? You don't have to spend 20 years in East Flatbush to know the answer to that question.
What does "digging at the nuances of it" mean? One guy's talking about "empty concrete sidewalks." The other is talking about "a core without active street life." Those statements are not ambiguous. There's also the guy who said, "I haven't seen any pedestrian life."
But you have that in a lot of cities. You see people walking (mostly the poor) in Miami all over the place. How does that make it similar to Boston?
Oh, I wouldn't choose that area especially the ones off of Santa Monica that you picked. Those ones aren't very good. I was saying you should try out LA on a walking/transit scale in general. I'd probably go closer to Hollywood Blvd if Hollywood is the neighborhood you want to be in and would prefer going within a few blocks north of it rather than south. However, I will say your picks along santa monica were pretty close to a weird hostess club, summer midnight movie screenings in the cemetery among dead celebrities, karaoke, and good burlesque. Streets are ugly though.
Does your pick in Brooklyn really have much job or retail density? I looked around a bit on streetview and wandered around and it doesn't seem like it. I don't see anything but maybe a few dealerships and maybe chopshops. I did a quick search on yelp for that location for within four blocks and then within a mile, and the pickings are really sparse--which is exactly not the case for the dense (poorly designed) parts of LA we've been discussing. This might be why you're at a bit of an impasse with this concept. If what you have in mind is the flatlands as a point of reference because parts of LA do look similar in some ways and has some similar stats, it doesn't actually mean they operate the same way. What would I do in the Flatlands? What's there for me? Where's the entertainment? Where are the restaurants? Where are the (specialty ones especially) supermarkets? Where are the jobs, blue and white collar? Where are the people that the things I just listed would attract? And while the three places you pinpointed, especially the ones on Santa Monica, aren't recommended for your usual tourists, at least they have good answers to the above questions for the residents. In any of the three locations you posted at random, the following could easily happen if you live around those areas and have a job within walking/bike/transit distance: you walk/bike/transit to your job, you get off work and go home to change, you have dinner with friends nearby, you go to club or show near your place, you walk home drunk and put your penis in someone. Done. How much fun is it to have dinner and go to a club/show for your Flatlands pick?
Here's a counterexample for those guys's statements: I have seen plenty of people walking in Los Angeles. Also, I believe there were some pictures posted earlier as well as many pictures posted in the LA forums (of both areas with a lot of pedestrians and areas without--all dependent on what part of the physically huge city of Los Angeles they are taken in).
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 11-30-2012 at 10:26 AM..
Oh, I wouldn't choose that area especially the ones off of Santa Monica that you picked. Those ones aren't very good. I was saying you should try out LA on a walking/transit scale in general. I'd probably go closer to Hollywood Blvd if Hollywood is the neighborhood you want to be in and would prefer going within a few blocks north of it rather than south. However, I will say your picks along santa monica were pretty close to a weird hostess club, summer midnight movie screenings in the cemetery among dead celebrities, karaoke, and good burlesque. Streets are ugly though.
Can't beat (the original) Dawn of the Dead surrounded by mausoleums and tombs
Density can often be completely divorced from pedestrian activity. Even in NYC.
Kings Highway in Brooklyn. Keep in mind that the entire Borough of Brooklyn has a population density of 36K ppsm, which no city in the country comes remotely close to touching.
Does your pick in Brooklyn really have much job or retail density? I looked around a bit on streetview and wandered around and it doesn't seem like it. I don't see anything but maybe a few dealerships and maybe chopshops.
LOL. As if the streetview on Santa Monica was much better? There was a furniture store, and an empty lot next to a transmission service. Are these the businesses that I'm supposed to walk to? Besides, you could have gone up the street and found places to eat.
I did a quick search on yelp for that location for within four blocks and then within a mile, and the pickings are really sparse--which is exactly not the case for the dense (poorly designed) parts of LA we've been discussing.
Are you serious? You couldn't just walk around and see what was there. If you think that there isn't a lot to walk to in that part of Brooklyn, then I don't know what to tell you. That area has a walkscore comparable to Hollywood (84 vs 87) so there obviously must be things around. Is walkscore suddenly no longer a good indicator of pedestrian life?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
What would I do in the Flatlands? What's there for me? Where's the entertainment? Where are the restaurants? Where are the (specialty ones especially) supermarkets? Where are the jobs, blue and white collar? Where are the people that the things I just listed would attract?
What's there for me on Santa Monica? Why would I be walking to a tranmission shop? A parking lot? A sheetrock factory? A warehouse? You're twisting this up so badly simply because you don't want to believe that there are places that are dense (amenities and population-wise) that have little to no pedestrian life.
I mean, if you think about it, the areas near the Brooklyn Bridge (Flatbush Ave extension, much of Tillary, stretches of Atlantic towards Bed-Stuy, etc.) have lots of jobs nearby, lots of people in the surrounding neighborhoods, and lots of retail. Yet those streets are incredibly empty and desolate, which makes sense because of their poor design. And we're talking areas that have waaaaaay more people than Hollywood. What's your excuse for that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
And while the three places you pinpointed, especially the ones on Santa Monica, aren't recommended for your usual tourists, at least they have good answers to the above questions for the residents.
What are you talking about? Jerk City is right there on Utica, which is not bad Jamaican actually. And as far as your mention of transit in L.A. and people being able to access stuff whereas they couldn't in East Flat? That just made me chuckle. You do realize that there are probably as many subway and bus riders in Brooklyn alone as there are in all of LA County, right?
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.
