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.
There is some truth to this, to me why LA is hard to perfectly quantify on this metric. Its construct is different.
I agree this area doesnt say suburb though in parts it does feel like it but this stretch in many ways doesnt scream highly urban city either
LA has more expanse, more of everything over a wider footprint; now to me the most urban parts of Philly feel more urban than the most urban parts of LA
as japp1188 said - on city: Philly on metro: LA
Fair enough. Metro City does look spectacular, very underrated from my point of view.
My definition of "urban"? An area of land overflowing with a world class museums, dining, shopping, bars, universities, nightclubs, parks, concert venues, unique attractions, etc, etc.
The Westside of LA, from downtown to Santa Monica, provides more of these than any other area in the country not named Manhattan. Aside from the occasional single family houses, there is very little that says "suburb" about this area.
I have spent a fair amount time in LA over the years and in many areas. the developed expanse of LA is way larger than Philly but Philly has a larger urban feeling core (well beyond the DT). It depends on the criteria to me. Beyond even the population density in the "city" part of Philly the developed density is higher, more compact overall. Now LA has amazing consistency in the developed space - though I think part of why people view it a little different is that much of LA feels more like the close in burbs in the older NE cities than is does like the city (obviously there are differences). If the question is which feels like a more more/larger urbanized area it is LA by a landslide. If examining to me what feels like city (and again this my perspective) than to me it would Philly.
The miles of rowhomes in Philly just feel more urban to me as the city. Now again this is my own perspective
and as afar as places I have spent a lot of time in LA, East Hollywood, Hollywood, Midwilshire, and Westlake dont truly feel as urban to me as the continuity in the city/more urban parts of Philly, urban and pretty vibrant and pretty developed, but to me not as urban overall.
Overall LA is maybe the toughest to accurately quantify as it is huge and developed at a very significant level over a wide expanse.
So which city feels more urban on feel, to me it is Philly as to which is a larger urban area the answer is LA
I understand what you're saying and agree no doubt, to me this question should be which cities downtown is more urban since that's what everyone is arguing about, I grew up in Inglewood and I focus more on what is around me, I almost never venture in to the westside or downtown or hollywood I mainly stay in my city and south central and I consider this suburban urban and walkable. People talk so much about the yuppy areas of LA and they never mention my side of town cause it don't have starbucks and cupcake stores on every corner, we got liquor stores on every corner where I'm from, different but still urban imo
I understand what you're saying and agree no doubt, to me this question should be which cities downtown is more urban since that's what everyone is arguing about, I grew up in Inglewood and I focus more on what is around me, I almost never venture in to the westside or downtown or hollywood I mainly stay in my city and south central and I consider this suburban urban and walkable. People talk so much about the yuppy areas of LA and they never mention my side of town cause it don't have starbucks and cupcake stores on every corner, we got liquor stores on every corner where I'm from, different but still urban imo
In the same way, yes. Im comparing Philly to LA. I know you're thinking about our endless Philly/SF comparisons. Philly and SF go more head to head, where LA, while a different kind of urban, is just so much more massive than either, and I find it absurd that some dont think LA is urban.
In the same way, yes. Im comparing Philly to LA. I know you're thinking about our endless Philly/SF comparisons. Philly and SF go more head to head, where LA, while a different kind of urban, is just so much more massive than either, and I find it absurd that some dont think LA is urban.
I absolutely think it is urban but the most urban city portions of both SF and Philly feel more urban to me (an not just their DTs). On expanse there are aspects of LA that to me make the coninuity of developed area actually larger than even NYC. It dpends on the question to me on level of urbanity to me Philly (and SF) have a more urban city part. LA has a greater volume of urbanity. I am not sure what the question in this thread actually is however. Depending on the question it could be either one honestly
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.
e-PICT7358 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
digitonin/675745998/