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.
After many, many votes, I can agree that Los Angeles can be best described as two parts Miami and one part Atlanta. While it's not an exact match, it's a good example of the wisdom of crowds.
Problem being Miami and Atlanta are both much less dense than LA (Miami has a higher overall density but is very small) so you need something like San Francisco to add a little bit of the old-school urban look that LA has. I still see little about Atlanta that is similar to LA honestly. Sprawl is a vague and incorrect answer.
I'd say 1 part San Diego, 1 part Miami, 1 part San Francisco.
Problem being Miami and Atlanta are both much less dense than LA (Miami has a higher overall density but is very small) so you need something like San Francisco to add a little bit of the old-school urban look that LA has. I still see little about Atlanta that is similar to LA honestly. Sprawl is a vague and incorrect answer.
I'd say 1 part San Diego, 1 part Miami, 1 part San Francisco.
LA is more urban than Atlanta but LA is not more old school urban than Atlanta. LA streets are wide because they were made for the car, over time LA start building mid rises and multi family units that were very different than the older urban look, but this why LA is urban and dense. Which is also why I got to argue with Northeastern and Midwestern that LA is urban, because it's a different type urban.
Atlanta on the other hand is a historic industrial city, with narrow streets which had a way larger historic street car system than LA. In the early 20th century and later LA infill incredibly people kept moving west. Atlanta probably was more urban than LA before 1910. I just saying LA density has nothing to do with old school.
1910
LA city 319,198 in 99.2 sq mi density 3,217.7 / sq mi
ATL city 154,839 in 26.2 sq mi density 5,909.9 / sq mi
LA metro 433,228 in 395 sq mi density 1,109.4 / sq mi
ATL metro 185,235 in 133.8 sq mi density 1,390.7 / sq mi
Actually Atlanta was more urban than LA in 1910 LA didn't really pass Atlanta density until 40s. LA sprawled and gain pop is one reason why LA pop was larger, Atlanta didn't sprawl until after the 50's. Of course by this time LA started infilling, now there's a big difference. Atlanta doesn't have no where near as much as that New-school urban look that LA has. It's not like SF.
Atlanta on the other hand is a historic industrial city, with narrow streets which had a way larger historic street car system than LA. In the early 20th century and later LA infill incredibly people kept moving west. Atlanta probably was more urban than LA before 1910. I just saying LA density has nothing to do with old school.
Here are maps of LA and ATL from 1909 (LA) and 1919 (ATL):
It's a toss-up regarding built-up "urban"-ness, with the edge probably going to LA--a full decade earlier than Atlanta.
LA the municipality had very large borders very early on, not due to sprawl but to annexation for water rights and for access to the port. The actual city (buildings) itself was quite compact in the early days.
Which one of these cities in the poll is MOST like Los Angeles?
None of the cities imo. Houston and Atlanta are nothing like LA imo. Houston's dt skyline looks similar but honestly at ground level throughout any of the cities, none look or feel like LA.
Your criteria is kind of general. But I want to make one point, L.A. is not flat. The topography of L.A. is full of hills. And I'm talking about the actual city of Los Angeles. Central L.A. is separated from the San Fernando Valley by the Santa Monica foothills. The View Park section of the city has the best views of downtown's skyline because it is yet another neighborhood in the hills. Playa Del Rey has the best view of the Marina and Santa Monica Bay because the community sits in the hills. Pacific Palisades is another hillside community that overlooks the Pacific ocean (with great views). And I haven't even gotten to the eastside hill communities.
Believe it or not, the hilly nature of Los Angeles contributes to its cultural identity. The hills create pockets of communities with just enough geographic isolation to have their own identities while still being part of the L.A. landscape. In L.A. some of the best parts of the city and some of the worst parts are right next to each other on a map. Yet, the topography of the city makes them seem like they are worlds away from one another.
I think the differences between L.A. and Houston are greater than any similarities. That doesn't make one better than the other. They are just different beasts altogether.
I was specifically referring to the LA Basin, & yes, it is very flat just like Houston & Miami.
LA is surrounded by hills & mountains true, but the closer you get towards the coast it can start to get flat. Drive through Carson & tell me its not like driving down Bellaire Blvd. in Houston only with Filipino markets & restaurants.
Here is a terrain map & as you can clearly see lots of LA has its flatness. Fly into LAX & you see a flat landscape with mountains & hills to the North & East of downtown only.
Interestingly, from 1900-1950, Queens, NY and Los Angeles followd a similar population growth pattern. Queen's postwar growth has obviously been much slower, but it has 45% more people than 1950. Queens is far denser, but there's a stark contrast between the eastern and western halves. Demographically, they have roughly the same non-white %, but LA is more tilted towards hispanics.
I was specifically referring to the LA Basin, & yes, it is very flat just like Houston & Miami.
LA is surrounded by hills & mountains true, but the closer you get towards the coast it can start to get flat. Drive through Carson & tell me its not like driving down Bellaire Blvd. in Houston only with Filipino markets & restaurants.
Here is a terrain map & as you can clearly see lots of LA has its flatness. Fly into LAX & you see a flat landscape with mountains & hills to the North & East of downtown only.
Hmm last I checked Carson was not in the city of Los Angeles. Yes parts of Los Angeles are flat, but for the most part I would consider it to be a hilly city. Even Hollywood is not flat - it gradually goes downhill as you head south towards Wilshire.
As far as your skyline shots, all one has to do is look at the residential in the foreground to instantly rule out Los Angeles.
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.
Yes parts of Los Angeles are flat, but for the most part I would consider it to be a hilly city. Even Hollywood is not flat - it gradually goes downhill as you head south towards Wilshire. 
