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 West Village is also .5 sq. miles. TriBeCa is less than that. And we see how those neighborhoods compare to Koreatown. Size means nothing if a neighborhood is full of strip malls, parking lots and sprawl.
Wha? West Village has a density over 60,000+ ppsm (surpassing Koreatown's) and is surrounded by 22 sq miles of equal or greater population density neighborhoods (otherwise known as Manhattan). DC's neighborhoods have neither the size, density, or scale of downtown Manhattan.
Cohesive narrow streets only get you so far, which is why Ktown blows away Santa Monica's urbanity, even though the latter is more classically walkable and polished.
Wha? West Village has a density over 60,000+ ppsm (surpassing Koreatown's) and is surrounded by 22 sq miles of equal or greater population density neighborhoods (otherwise known as Manhattan). DC's neighborhoods have neither the size, density, or scale of downtown Manhattan.
Cohesive narrow streets only get you so far, which is why Ktown blows away Santa Monica's urbanity, even though the latter is more classically walkable and polished.
That's not the point, Einstein.
It means nothing to say, "Koreatown is soooo big" when you have a sprawling, auto-centric built environment. The density of the West Village could be cut in half (making it more comparable to Clinton Hill) and its urban layout would still be radically different from Koreatown's. The built environment is more of a difference between the Village and Ktown than population density.
It means nothing to say, "Koreatown is soooo big" when you have a sprawling, auto-centric built environment. The density of the West Village could be cut in half (making it more comparable to Clinton Hill) and its urban layout would still be radically different from Koreatown's. The built environment is more of a difference between the Village and Ktown than population density.
You would have to cut West Village down to less than 1/3 its current density to get to Adams Morgan. You're in denial if you think that makes no difference vs a neighborhood that over 2.5 sq miles with a density over 42,000 ppm (Ktown). Conjuring up images of Manhattan, and using terms like "auto-sprawl" mean little when the size and scale of DC's neighborhoods are so small vs Los Angeles's.
This is where L.A. has a big edge over the other cities here "warts" and all. It's simply too large and filled out not to have a large urban fabric, even with its sometimes spotty cohesion.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 12-02-2012 at 09:30 PM..
You would have to cut West Village down to less than 1/3 its current density to get to Adams Morgan. You're in denial if you think that makes no difference vs a neighborhood that over 2.5 sq miles with a density over 42,000 ppm (Ktown). Conjuring up images of Manhattan, and using terms like "auto-sprawl" mean little when the size and scale of DC's neighborhoods are so small vs Los Angeles's.
It doesn't make that much of a difference. There are areas of NYC that have higher density levels with little pedestrian life. Density is no guarantee of pedestrian life, particularly when a neighborhood (or city) is car-oriented. I mean, what role do you think urban design plays in all of this?
It doesn't make that much of a difference. There are areas of NYC that have higher density levels with little pedestrian life. Density is no guarantee of pedestrian life, particularly when a neighborhood (or city) is car-oriented. I mean, what role do you think urban design plays in all of this?
Just to be clear, you define urbanity by how many pedestrians you can count on the street , and virtually nothing else, correct?
Haven't yet read the entire thread and may not have the endurance to do so. That being said, as I've seen you post this and similar pictures in this thread I just wanted to point out that while downtown LA does indeed have lots of parking lots, many of what appear to be parking lots from above are actually parking garages with ground floor retail. You're just seeing the top of them from this angle. Look closely. Like that huge one at 7th and Los Angeles. This is what it looks like from street level:
Haven't yet read the entire thread and may not have the endurance to do so. That being said, as I've seen you post this and similar pictures in this thread I just wanted to point out that while downtown LA does indeed have lots of parking lots, many of what appear to be parking lots from above are actually parking garages with ground floor retail. You're just seeing the top of them from this angle. Look closely. Like that huge one at 7th and Los Angeles. This is what it looks like from street level:
Chicago is definitely more urban than LA but my point was never LA is more urban than Chicago. But LA is urban and it's walkable, Open 2 link tabs at the same time one Chicago one LA, there are 16 links each. So start with Chicago 1 and LA 1, and end with Chicago 16, LA 16. I only went around there DTs.
If LA core isn't urban and walkable neither would be Chicago, keep in mind I'm not talking about their DT. Again Chicago is built denser than LA but Chicago is not built significantly denser than LA. These two cities architecturally are very different Chicago is more traditional LA is modern and more random.
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.
