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.
Philly already has a great urban infrastructural advantage over most western and southern citieshttp://www.septa.org/maps/system/ due to its vast rail network. SEPTA | Clickable Regional Rail & Rail Transit Map
Yea, definitely--they just need to make a few minor physical changes to the network and then a seemingly much larger task of shifting how they run on that infrastructure away from the commuter rail mindset and more towards how a RER or S-Bahn type system runs. Since Philadelphia already has two potential urban core through-running pathways physically built and electrified, there's not all that much physical impediment to quickly create what would likely be the most extensive rail transit network per capita in the US.
LA's actually spending a good deal of money right now to make Union Station through-running, though its commuter rail lines aren't electrified and there are no such existing lines going into the busy westside. I do think that Metrolink doing through-running is an important first step and LA is somewhat lucky among US metropolitan areas to have inherited such a large, potentially great advantage of existing rail ROW. I think through-running with electrification and grade separation at more spots as well as use of the Harbor Subdivsion along with a few extensions could also be a relatively low-hanging fruit for massively and rapidly improving mass transit in LA, but it's certainly nowhere near as low-hanging in terms of physical infrastructure as SEPTA Regional Rail (and NJT Atlantic City branch) running as a RER/S-Bahn.
I’m not saying DTLA can’t or isn’t improving in this area, but there are inherent functional pedestrian benefits when a cities streets aren’t wide and car centric.
But yes I do agree the rapid implementation of all of those things have helped contribute to DTLA feeling a lot less like a glorified thruway but an actual destination you’d want to hang out in.
Does DTLA have wide streets? Yes it does, but most arent that wide. As a resident I find it to be an American traditional big city downtown. Is my walking experiences horrible where I think I'll be run over by some speeding car? Of course not. I walk to the grocery store, pick up my clothes at the cleaners, go to the movies, see a concert, eat out, go to the park or library or visit a museum. All on foot. i use public transportation.
Does DTLA have wide streets? Yes it does, but most arent that wide. As a resident I find it to be an American traditional big city downtown. Is my walking experiences horrible where I think I'll be run over by some speeding car? Of course not. I walk to the grocery store, pick up my clothes at the cleaners, go to the movies, see a concert, eat out, go to the park or library or visit a museum. All on foot. i use public transportation.
Again, by no means am I stating or implying DT LA is not urban or walkable. I was just there in October and and agree it’s light years ahead of what is was in the early 2000’s and is unquestionably a top 10 DT in the country by virtually every metric.
But in the context of this thread, it’s objectively hard to argue that it’s more transit & pedestrian orientated or as intensely developed as CC at this time.
Philadelphia had fully become what it is by 1900, when LA was still a small city in the Southern California desert.
Philadelphia's character remains to a good extent blue-collar and industrial in a way LA's isn't, even though the city today resembles Philadelphia in its "Workshop of the World" years in having a dazzling array of small light industrial businesses.
This city didn't try to reshape itself along LA's polycentric, dispersed, more auto-reliant lines.
And the entertainment industry has a much smaller presence and influence here than in LA.
They really are different cities, and because of the age difference, they can't help but be.
Two port cities that made very noted efforts to be regional leaders.
I'd say those similarities are much more meaningful.
L.A. annexed the valley because they could, it wasn't a move to be "polycentric" or any other city-data forum words.
One could argue that Los Angeles had become what it is by 1925 (full consolidation of film industry, petroleum/port business, largest mass transit system in the nation), so the timeline is really much closer.
Again, by no means am I stating or implying DT LA is not urban or walkable. I was just there in October and and agree it’s light years ahead of what is was in the early 2000’s and is unquestionably a top 10 DT in the country by virtually every metric.
But in the context of this thread, it’s objectively hard to argue that it’s more transit & pedestrian orientated or as intensely developed as CC at this time.
Exactly. I think folks have been very complimentary of LA, in fact, and it's even more of a feat to accomplish what LA has when it arguably was the city that defined post-war American car culture.
Philadelphia has the unfair advantage of coming of age in the colonial American era, so no one should expect both cities to exhibit the exact same historic urban form. But if we're talking about modern urban trends, then LA is definitely top tier.
I wasn’t referring to you. I was referring to Lofrisco. I was just pointing out that because East coast cities are older, they are built differently and certain metrics like “tight/narrow streets” (and other “urban” features like row homes) aren’t applicable to newer cities like LA. That’s why I said it’s an “apples to oranges” comparison but both are still just as urban, just in different ways.
I mean what more do you guys want from Los Angeles ?
It’s a city of 4 million and a county of 10 million”
It’s city core is as urban as it can get for California standards;
It’s located on the Westcoast,not the NorthEast …
It wouldn’t be smart to build 130 skyscrapers in a region prone to have Earthquakes ‘
It had one of the largest railroad systems in the world around the 1920’s and it was deconstructed due to the rise of the automobile.
Los Angeles is a city you’ll either love or hate, so again what more do you guys want from Los Angeles ?
Two port cities that made very noted efforts to be regional leaders.
I'd say those similarities are much more meaningful.
L.A. annexed the valley because they could, it wasn't a move to be "polycentric" or any other city-data forum words.
One could argue that Los Angeles had become what it is by 1925 (full consolidation of film industry, petroleum/port business, largest mass transit system in the nation), so the timeline is really much closer.
I think Duderino gave you a pretty good answer, but I still think you don't quite get the time differential.
In 1900, the population of Philadelphia was much closer to what it is now than the population of LA was to what it is now. In that year, Philadelphia had almost 1.3 million people living within its 135 square miles (about one-third of which was still largely undeveloped), while LA was a city of just about 102,500 and had yet to annex the territory in the San Fernando Valley.
According to this website, LA's greatest decade of growth in percentage terms was the decade that followed, when the city nearly tripled its population. But in numeric terms, it was the 1920s. when it added more than 700,000 residents to the total (presumably in part through the annexation of the San Fernando Valley and the Port of San Pedro).
By 1920, Philadelphia was all but built out (again, save for the Northeast), and its population of 1.8 million was close to its 1950 peak of 2 million (and the city's population actually declined by 1 percent during the Great Depression).
The Red Car system was at its zenith in the 1920s, granted, and LA took its present form on the backs of the Pacific Electric lines. But the auto had already made inroads, and in 1933, the residents of LA were presented with a choice: Launch a program of widening major streets and connecting them across shifts in the grid to form a network of broad thoroughfares or work towards a rapid transit system. They chose the atreets. And that certainly also altered LA's growth trajectory and development patterns away from what they might have been had they chose the elevateds.
Philadelphia had fully matured by 1920. LA was just becoming the mature metropolis it would become. The timelines are different enough to make them more different than similar in at least one key respect.
Oh, and: The "polycentrism" would have happened anyway, Valley annexation or no, simply because business centers were becoming more dispersed throughout most of the 20th century, and not just in LA. If anything, I'd say that DTLA now is more of a metropolitan center than it was in 1920.
I mean what more do you guys want from Los Angeles ?
It’s a city of 4 million and a county of 10 million”
It’s city core is as urban as it can get for California standards;
It’s located on the Westcoast,not the NorthEast …
It wouldn’t be smart to build 130 skyscrapers in a region prone to have Earthquakes ‘
It had one of the largest railroad systems in the world around the 1920’s and it was deconstructed due to the rise of the automobile.
Los Angeles is a city you’ll either love or hate, so again what more do you guys want from Los Angeles ?
I'd like there to be better mass transportation and more walkable neighborhoods in terms of more things interesting and available via walking which would take advantage of the great year-round weather and so that there are multiple centers around the metropolitan area that are densely built in order to accommodate more housing; more local parks and capping / burrowing some freeways would be great, too.
I think Duderino gave you a pretty good answer, but I still think you don't quite get the time differential.
In 1900, the population of Philadelphia was much closer to what it is now than the population of LA was to what it is now. In that year, Philadelphia had almost 1.3 million people living within its 135 square miles (about one-third of which was still largely undeveloped), while LA was a city of just about 102,500 and had yet to annex the territory in the San Fernando Valley.
According to this website, LA's greatest decade of growth in percentage terms was the decade that followed, when the city nearly tripled its population. But in numeric terms, it was the 1920s. when it added more than 700,000 residents to the total (presumably in part through the annexation of the San Fernando Valley and the Port of San Pedro).
By 1920, Philadelphia was all but built out (again, save for the Northeast), and its population of 1.8 million was close to its 1950 peak of 2 million (and the city's population actually declined by 1 percent during the Great Depression).
The Red Car system was at its zenith in the 1920s, granted, and LA took its present form on the backs of the Pacific Electric lines. But the auto had already made inroads, and in 1933, the residents of LA were presented with a choice: Launch a program of widening major streets and connecting them across shifts in the grid to form a network of broad thoroughfares or work towards a rapid transit system. They chose the atreets. And that certainly also altered LA's growth trajectory and development patterns away from what they might have been had they chose the elevateds.
Philadelphia had fully matured by 1920. LA was just becoming the mature metropolis it would become. The timelines are different enough to make them more different than similar in at least one key respect.
Its really splitting hairs. DTLA still looks like 1920's today, by 1932 L.A., Philadelphia, NYC, Cleveland, Detroit, etc.-all one peer group.
If Philadelphia had a massive rapid transit system today, this might help in drawing a distinction, but they don't.
Los Angeles rapid transit will be about 70% of what Philadelphia has by 2028. As of right now, Los Angeles light rail ridership is about triple that of Philadelphia, and bus ridership is nearly double.
So there is no "hey we're the real legit urban mass transit city" argument to made for Philadelphia, either today or historically in this contest.
As more and more people are realizing, L.A.'s superior car infrastructure is just gravy on top of an already leading mass transit system. Its not one or the other.
Just like having successful central and western neighborhoods doesn't make the city "polycentric" (lol city data), its just more gravy on top of an already world famous downtown and core.
As far as population booms, think of it in the greater context of world cities and realize how close the two are.
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.
