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.
These are probably LA's most urban looking residential areas imo and can easily match any other cities urban form save NYC. Isn't Seinfeld's apartment around here somewhere? I just wish this area stretched on further and carried over into it's commercial corridors.
Just curious on this line of thinking, apparently it's a sensitive subject though.....
Basically you wouldn't accept my answer and kept looking for ways to make me admit that the Sunset is more urban than East Hollywood, which I don't think is. Because (especially in the very suburban context of the Sunset) I think the street-wall and buildings pushed up to the curb is highly overrated. Especially considering East Hollywood's distance between buildings is only about 10 or 15 feet, as is the distance from the curb.
But I'm frustrated because all I ever said was the curb cuts in LA are not that much larger than SF's. Then it turned into this ridiculous "Is SF more urban than LA" argument, of which I do not really have a firm opinion and don't care either way. Because I know they're the two best cities in the US anyways
Sunset District = 7.1 miles from the Financial District
Hollywood = 7 miles from DTLA
That's what I was referring to. They're the same distance to their respective CBDs. That makes it a fair comparison.
I don't think you really get it. You know the two or three blocks that you guys go crazy over in Hollywood? There are some cities that have those two or three blocks replicated over and over and over and over again over an area of several square miles without seeing parking lots, SFHs and strip malls! They're like a better version of Santa Monica that doesn't transform into sprawl after a few blocks.
So no, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. You can't compare two neighborhoods three miles apart in Los Angeles to two neighborhoods three miles apart in Paris. What's in between those neighborhoods is drastically different.
I don't think you really get it. You know the two or three blocks that you guys go crazy over in Hollywood? There are some cities that have those two or three blocks replicated over and over and over and over again over an area of several square miles without seeing parking lots, SFHs and strip malls! They're like a better version of Santa Monica that doesn't transform into sprawl after a few blocks.
So no, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. You can't compare two neighborhoods three miles apart in Los Angeles to two neighborhoods three miles apart in Paris. What's in between those neighborhoods is drastically different.
Just because you cannot pleasantly walk between East Hollywood and DTLA does not mean it does not function in a very similar way to the Sunset. Again both are mostly residential communities with no discernible job center and are what would be considered "streetcar suburbs".
It's proven over and over again that LA is very dense, both as far as jobs, residents and everyday amenities. I think this sprawl would in some way or another be able to be proven statistically, right? I get what you are trying to say, but it is a fallacious argument that you cannot prove with anything other than streetviews. Paris =/= San Francisco, Los Angeles =/= Atlanta, New York =/= San Francisco. Stop being so hyperbolic.
I wouldn't doubt that. I think it should be done maybe at the 10, 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 sq miles though to give a better sense how it expands when doing comparisons.
It has been done. Nei and dweebo have the graphs. I think at 15-20 sq miles, Chicago and L.A. are virtually neck and neck in density. The obvious difference is that Chicago's CBD and densest neighborhoods (Wrigleyville, Rogers Park, etc) are flat out superior to L.A.'s. At 50-60 sq miles, they're still running close, with L.A.'s big guns entering the picture (Hollywood, WeHo, Mid-city, DT Beverly Hills, etc) and around 150 sq miles, L.A. begins to pull away from everyone, excluding NYC.
Los Angeles is the only sunbelt city with this kind of high density. That's what makes it unique from the Atlantas and Houstons of the world. At the same time, it looks and feels different from cities with similar high density--the Chicagos and San Franciscos of the world. For better or worse (I say better, many say worse lol) L.A. is an oddball in every way, right down to its urban form.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 02-07-2013 at 05:49 PM..
I mean, you have to account for the fact that SF has a much more cohesive built environment over a larger footprint than LA. It's the cohesive built environment that makes a city what it is after all.
And your LA view is a few blocks from a subway station. Though if we're going to go there, I had the pleasure of walking here in Boston last summer:
I wouldn't doubt that. I think it should be done maybe at the 10, 25, 50, 100, 150, 200 sq miles though to give a better sense how it expands when doing comparisons.
25 square miles for LA has 625,000 people. Most of these areas are rather poor, though.
I temped for about a week half a mile away from that station. I couldn't believe there was absolutely nothing to eat. I think I had to find a Dominos and get one of those nasty subs they have.
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.
