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.
I don't see how that is any less urban than say, a triple decker in Boston or a single family rowhouse in San Francisco. Sure it has like 4 parking spots in front but is that really all that detrimental?
I've stated this before but I have a lot of love for dingbats.
I'm talking about urban FORM, which has much more to do with design and aesthetics than density.
It's unattractive and detracts from the walkability and urban form of a city imo. I definitely think having 4 parking spots out in front is detrimental as it takes away from the walkability. It also takes away street parking which I can't stand, that's the problem I have with so many buildings and homes in SF having garages, takes away a ton of street parking. What's even worse is that LA has alleys yet they still put parking out front many times, same thing with SD.
I'm talking about urban FORM, which has much more to do with design and aesthetics than density.
It's unattractive and detracts from the walkability and urban form of a city imo. I definitely think having 4 parking spots out in front is detrimental as it takes away from the walkability. It also takes away street parking which I can't stand, that's the problem I have with so many buildings and homes in SF having garages, takes away a ton of street parking. What's even worse is that LA has alleys yet they still put parking out front many times, same thing with SD.
That is ridiculous, can you tell me in scientific terms how four cars in front of a building hurts walkability? I get it, it's ugly in your opinion. I find the Sunset District of San Francisco to be incredibly ugly, but I don't think that the garages and cookie-cutter architecture actually hurt walkability.
Los Angeles is, by most measures, the second most densely populated city in the U.S.
Unless Memph from the urban planning board was off (and I doubt it; dudes a machine), there were 1.9 million L.A. residents living in census tracts above 20,000 ppsm, well ahead of #3 Chicago (1.1 million) and Philadelphia (900k or so).
L.A. has 6.6 million residents living in census tracts above 10,000 ppsm. Only New York, with a absurd 10+ million residents above 10,000 ppsm, had more.
L.A. is San Francisco density and topography spread out on Miami''s urban footprint...and even that doesn't quite work. Haha.
As far as the L.A. look, I like it and prefer it. It's not for everyone, but I personally lament nothing (although the Purple and Pink lines would be nice).
These stats don't work though, because you are cherry picking the data. Unless all those people live in a cohesive boundary, the density no longer applies.
I'm not saying it's not built up but it lacks a nice urban form that is found in more traditional, older cities.
A perfect example is all the dingbat apartments built in the 1960' and 1970's that replaced single family homes.
I guess the term for the new buildings in the Los Angeles aerial I showed is "dingbats". But most urban cities have bland dense housing stock. In NYC, there are beautiful brownstones. But plenty of the city has stuff like this:
Denser than most of the housing stock, but more so than other types buildings like these are responsible for the city's high density. Definitely urban, more so than dingbats, but I'm not sure most would call them "nice" at least from the exterior. Interior some are very nice, some not so much.
That is ridiculous, can you tell me in scientific terms how four cars in front of a building hurts walkability? I get it, it's ugly in your opinion. I find the Sunset District of San Francisco to be incredibly ugly, but I don't think that the garages and cookie-cutter architecture actually hurt walkability.
because the car creates a divot in the side walk and you get cars pulling in allover the place through the sidewalk and bike lanes (if they are there) It's annoying just to have one or two of these on a block in Chicago, much less every house. It also takes up one or two public spots as a car can't parallel park in front of the driveway. Then if somebody wants to come to that neighborhood and park to car pool, or park then explore, there is a lacking of street parking. SF has the same problem having garages. If you are biking you always have to be on the lookout for a car coming out of nowhere. Same if you are a pedestrian walking, but particularly jogging on the sidewalk. The foot traffic in LA is comparatively dead in most areas compared to even SF so it might not be seen as much of a problem, but when there is a good amount of neighborhood foot traffic it's a big problem.
These stats don't work though, because you are cherry picking the data. Unless all those people live in a cohesive boundary, the density no longer applies.
You could draw say a shape of 50 or 100 square miles and see how much people are within. I think then LA doesn't do better than Chicago, but it's not too different. Chicago in 1950 on the other hand...
That is ridiculous, can you tell me in scientific terms how four cars in front of a building hurts walkability? I get it, it's ugly in your opinion. I find the Sunset District of San Francisco to be incredibly ugly, but I don't think that the garages and cookie-cutter architecture actually hurt walkability.
It's been about 8 years since my urban design course but I'll try to explain it the best I can.
It's the perception it creates with the pedestrian and how comfortable/welcomed they feel in an environment. Think about it, when you're walking along a street that has a building adjacent to the sidewalk do you worry about a car backing out into you? Do you not feel there is any difference between that and when you walk by 4 open car spots along a sidewalk/street? And on top of that there is no barrier between you and the street that street parking creates. A pedestrian simply doesn't feel as comfortable in an auto-oriented environment.
Well I still don't agree it's the second densest city in the country OVERALL and I made a comment about it's built environment not really reflecting that density, so what? And why are you responding to my previous comment about urban form when it wasn't directed at you nor was it responding to anything you said? You jump in and respond to people that were never talking to you all the time, so why are you getting your panties in a bunch about it?
What's there to disagree with tough guy? LA being the second densest city is a fact not a matter of opinion.
These stats don't work though, because you are cherry picking the data. Unless all those people live in a cohesive boundary, the density no longer applies.
I'd argue that those stats work best because they neglect unpopulated industrial areas/parks/etc that can easily skew density statistics.
Regardless, if you cut out a contigous 225 sq mile chunk of land surrounding DTLA, it would contain more people than modern day Chicago. Not a lot more, but more, and the consistent density keeps going and going and going...
What's there to disagree with tough guy? LA being the second densest city is a fact not a matter of opinion.
Technically no it's not at all.
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.
