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.
Just get ready for a let-down ... I'm willing to wager it ends up being BRT.
Me too. Although I don't know how let down I'd be, considering there may be no viable alternative, irrespective of cost. Light rail down the median of the 405 is not going to happen for lack of space and increased gridlock during construction; real estate prices parallel to the 405 (Sepulveda?) make selecting an alternate ROW a non-starer; tunneling is hugely expensive and problematic in this area and at that distance; and an L is not going to happen either, because of noise and cost. So, my best guess it a dedicated bus route, perhaps elevated in part like the carpool lane on the 110. I'd love to see a another vision, but this would certainly be better than nothing.
LA is more Urban than Chicago and OVERALL more than SF. NYC is more urban than all three. NYC and Chicago have more urban cores than LA but Chicago tends to drop way off as soon as you leave the Loop. LA not so much. LA carries it's density much better over a large area than the other three. So, my point is then...LA to me offers the best of combination of what NYC, SF and Chicago offer. LA is VERY urban but not as urban as New York, which as a result means that LA isn't as unbearably crowded and congested as Manhattan. That's a good thing. LA also, carries density FURTHER than Chicago and SF which that too is a good thing. Add the weather in LA (which is much better than SF's weather) and that to me is the best combination for being the perfect metro.
Now, what I would really like to see is NYC + LA. THAT to me would be the greatest city on earth! NYC's vibrancy, LA's larger area of higher density and dense suburbs, NYC's Financial/Cultural/Educational prowess, LA's industrial/Cultural/Educational prowess, LA's weather, geography and natural scenery, NYC's intergrated transit and streetlife....that would be amazing.
LA is more Urban than Chicago and OVERALL more than SF. NYC is more urban than all three. NYC and Chicago have more urban cores than LA but Chicago tends to drop way off as soon as you leave the Loop. LA not so much. LA carries it's density much better over a large area than the other three. So, my point is then...LA to me offers the best of combination of what NYC, SF and Chicago offer. LA is VERY urban but not as urban as New York, which as a result means that LA isn't as unbearably crowded and congested as Manhattan. That's a good thing. LA also, carries density FURTHER than Chicago and SF which that too is a good thing. Add the weather in LA (which is much better than SF's weather) and that to me is the best combination for being the perfect metro.
Now, what I would really like to see is NYC + LA. THAT to me would be the greatest city on earth! NYC's vibrancy, LA's larger area of higher density and dense suburbs, NYC's Financial/Cultural/Educational prowess, LA's industrial/Cultural/Educational prowess, LA's weather, geography and natural scenery, NYC's intergrated transit and streetlife....that would be amazing.
I agree that if you stuck Manhattan in the middle of LA - and made LA's ocean water a bit warmer - you might just have the perfect city.
LA is nothing more than a over glorified network suburbs pieced together saying we are it. Too sprawled out horizontally and less vertical than NY and Chicago. It's less centralized by comparison. LA is basically a larger Phoenix on steriods. If you like lots of driving and suburbs then LA is the undisputed king of suburban sprawl of America. Just my two cents
LA is more Urban than Chicago and OVERALL more than SF. NYC is more urban than all three. NYC and Chicago have more urban cores than LA but Chicago tends to drop way off as soon as you leave the Loop. LA not so much. LA carries it's density much better over a large area than the other three. So, my point is then...LA to me offers the best of combination of what NYC, SF and Chicago offer. LA is VERY urban but not as urban as New York, which as a result means that LA isn't as unbearably crowded and congested as Manhattan. That's a good thing. LA also, carries density FURTHER than Chicago and SF which that too is a good thing. Add the weather in LA (which is much better than SF's weather) and that to me is the best combination for being the perfect metro.
Now, what I would really like to see is NYC + LA. THAT to me would be the greatest city on earth! NYC's vibrancy, LA's larger area of higher density and dense suburbs, NYC's Financial/Cultural/Educational prowess, LA's industrial/Cultural/Educational prowess, LA's weather, geography and natural scenery, NYC's intergrated transit and streetlife....that would be amazing.
Did you try this place called...the entire northside? LA offers the worst to me of all of them, it just never gets dense enough, anywhere unless the area is sketchy to be suitable to what I'm looking for. Even then it's only "population dense" it's never narrow street dense or vibrant enough. But if you like "pretty dense" then it has a lot of options. I mean there are plenty of places in NYC, Chicago or SF I wouldn't want to live, but they all do have the "super density" I'm looking for. LA doesn't have it whatsoever. You are correct that LA does carry density further than Chicago or SF, just that density is never high enough or vibrant enough, anywhere, for my liking. Even New Orleans in the DT/French Quarter is denser, more historic, narrower streets and more vibrant than anywhere in LA. So to me, New Orleans beats LA even for what I'm looking for.
There is nowhere in LA that retains this level of density as observable in Chicago
automatic ball point (this is 5 miles from downtown)
desmond h
(and it's still getting denser as you can see ^)
Now none of this means that LA doesn't have more going on than Chicago... it does, no doubt. It's just not on a desirable framework for many urban enthusiasts, and hence, not an option for a living situation. LA's larger area of "higher density" is a bad thing, they developed all over the great nature out there. Most of us call that sprawl.
SF actually has them all beat if we want to talk about balance, going very dense in compact, then straight over the bridge into pristine nature and surrounded by beautiful coast line, never too hot, never too cold.
Los Angeles UA: 1.9 million
Chicagoland: 1.1 million
At pretty much any density range, L.A. comes out ahead. Objectively, Los Angeles is a bigger denser city. These posts attempting to equate Chicago's density and urbanity to NYC's are delusional. Chicago definitely has the nicer concentration of polished walkable urban neighborhoods, not necessarily more dense, but nicer...but don't let that fool you into think it's a "bigger city" than L.A. because it really isn't.
Don't bother. I tried making this same argument (20k density +) of LA against Boston earlier and apparently it wasn't good enough to be "world class urban" (probably some made up term). LA had more 20k density but apparently it still isn't "world class urban" but Boston which has less apparently is. I already ripped these easterners to shreds with pictures, stats, websites but what do I know, I only live in this state. We should let people in Manhattan judge everything about our state because their opinions are worth more than ours.
It's easy, there's so much California envy in this one thread but hey if I lived in that rathole Manhattan I would envy California to.
Don't bother. I tried making this same argument (20k density +) of LA against Boston earlier and apparently it wasn't good enough to be "world class urban" (probably some made up term). LA had more 20k density but apparently it still isn't "world class urban" but Boston which has less apparently is. I already ripped these easterners to shreds with pictures, stats, websites but what do I know, I only live in this state. We should let people in Manhattan judge everything about our state because their opinions are worth more than ours.
It's easy, there's so much California envy in this one thread but hey if I lived in that rathole Manhattan I would envy California to.
You're a terrible poster. People are entitled to their opinion. There's nothing wrong with voting for what you vote for being there's no wrong answer. The thread was created to see what the majority of people thought and we've gotten that answer. That's that. Just because you like something doesn't mean someone else does and that doesn't make them wrong. You haven't proven anything to anyone with your OPINIONS. If you're arguing about that's factual, then that's fine. But most of what you've posted in here is opinionated and now you're crucifying people because they like New York better? lol. Just stop.
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.
