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.
this is a tough one because LA i very urban, but there's no real city infrastructure. it reminds me of north jersey or long island. very urban but suburban to the core
if NYC is an urban jungle, LA is a suburban jungle, it caters to celebrities who like large yards, trees, comfort...
i don't see a A train in LA call me crazy
LA caters to celebrities but they only make up about 1% of the population. Most of LA's single family homes are on small lots. Most angelenos are regular hard working people with regular jobs. I find LA to be quite urban, just not the same urban as Philadelphia, Boston or New York.
this is a tough one because LA i very urban, but there's no real city infrastructure. it reminds me of north jersey or long island. very urban but suburban to the core
if NYC is an urban jungle, LA is a suburban jungle, it caters to celebrities who like large yards, trees, comfort...
i don't see a A train in LA call me crazy
You're crazy. There are four (soon to be five) train lines in LA right now.
The Purple Line is still being planned, but will be there eventually. Just might be 10 years.
No disrespect to LA but how can anyone seriously say that Los Angeles is more urban than Philadelphia. LA does over more than Philadelphia but to actually say that the city of Los Angeles is more urban than the city of Philadelphia is somewhat laughable. San Francisco is the only city on the West Coast that actually rivals Philly in urbanity.
No disrespect to LA but how can anyone seriously say that Los Angeles is more urban than Philadelphia. LA does over more than Philadelphia but to actually say that the city of Los Angeles is more urban than the city of Philadelphia is somewhat laughable. San Francisco is the only city on the West Coast that actually rivals Philly in urbanity.
With all due respect to Philly, to say this is laughable. Neither can truly be said to be "more urban" than the other IMO, but if we have to pick i fail to see how one could not pick LA. Philadelphia has better public transit, certainly has a better downtown overall, and is more dense overall within city limits (not on the metro level though, and i wouldn't be surprised if the core areas of each city are actually quite similar in density)...but LA is MASSIVE compared to Philly, not to mention it actually has some parts (all within the downtown area) that are much more densely populated than anywhere in Philly. Maybe it just comes down to aesthetics and arbitrary "feelings" for many people (i.e. brick architecture and row houses = OMG THAT JUST MAKES IT SO MUCH "MORE" URBAN!!1!...never mind that the other city is quite dense itself, and is much larger)
Philly is urban, LA is stuck between suburb and urban. Virtually the whole city was built post 1920, and around the car.
Yes. The fabric and infrastructure of the cities reflect the times in which each came of age. LA is a car city. Philly is a walking city with good PT. I consider these to be some of the key characteristics determining a city's urbanity. If the thread were which city is the most expansive or which is denser further from its core - then LA. As for most urban, however - Philly.
Yes. The fabric and infrastructure of the cities reflect the times in which each came of age. LA is a car city. Philly is a walking city with good PT. I consider these to be some of the key characteristics determining a city's urbanity. If the thread were which city is the most expansive or which is denser further from its core - then LA. As for most urban, however - Philly.
Yes.
There is urbanity and then there is East Coast urbanity. People in LA think LA is urban and they are not incorrect, it is impressively dense but in a hybrid sort of fashion.
Palm trees, terra cotta roofs,front lawns, stucco, 8 lane highways,Lottaburger stands are very LA and very anti-urban.
Philadelphia is 13 miles long 8 miles wide of 1000 sq ft brick row homes, one lane streets accentuated by elevated trains, bridges, trolleys, 200 year old architecture.
Philadelphia is a much more intense brand of urbanity than LA and even SF.
There is urbanity and then there is East Coast urbanity. People in LA think LA is urban and they are not incorrect, it is impressively dense but in a hybrid sort of fashion.
Palm trees, terra cotta roofs,front lawns, stucco, 8 lane highways,Lottaburger stands are very LA and very anti-urban.
Philadelphia is 13 miles long 8 miles wide of 1000 sq ft brick row homes, one lane streets accentuated by elevated trains, bridges, trolleys, 200 year old architecture.
Philadelphia is a much more intense brand of urbanity than LA and even SF.
OMG!! LOL!! Urbanity comes in all styles of architecture, trees and vegetation and is all over North America and not just the east coast. Come on now!
I sincerely doubt Philly is a more intense urban experience than LA.
It really isnt. Los Angeles is more vibrant in my experience. Philadephia is very vibrant as well, but LA is more vibrant over a larger area and more dense over a larger area as well, whether we're talking 5,000+ persons per square mile or 10,000+ persons per square mile.
Philadelphia has a tighter albeit smaller main cluster 10,000+ppsm but LAs is quite a bit larger.
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.
Did you know there's a subway in this city?!?!
