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 have no idea why San Diego, Phoenix and Houston have been left off this list because these seem like the most obvious points of comparison especially with the number of LA transplants which have moved there.
LA is a unique city in having boomed right before and during the surge of automobiles which drastically changed the urban form of the US and so it has a strange mix of both more traditional dense cities and the sprawl of the latter 20th century. Obviously, the metro area is a lot more of the sprawl (as nearly all American metros are), but there are still some densely built neighborhoods from before that weren't completely destroyed by road widening, highway expansion, and urban renewal. Personally, I wish LA had kept more of its layout and architecture and layout from prior to the mid-20th century, but ah well.
I have no idea why San Diego, Phoenix and Houston have been left off this list because these seem like the most obvious points of comparison especially with the number of LA transplants which have moved there.
LA is a unique city in having boomed right before and during the surge of automobiles which drastically changed the urban form of the US and so it has a strange mix of both more traditional dense cities and the sprawl of the latter 20th century. Obviously, the metro area is a lot more of the sprawl (as nearly all American metros are), but there are still some densely built neighborhoods from before that weren't completely destroyed by road widening, highway expansion, and urban renewal. Personally, I wish LA had kept more of its layout and architecture and layout from prior to the mid-20th century, but ah well.
The later densification of traditionally far flung suburban areas seems pretty unique to L.A. too. You get this weird hybrid style (most commonly found in the San Fernando Valley), throughout the metro area. Looks leafy and quiet until you look closer and realize it's block after block of apartments.
When I was in LA, I felt like it was developed very similarly to the big cities in Texas.
One big difference between LA and Texas cities (among many others) is the number of multifamily housing structures in Los Angeles vs those in Texas. LA has more multifamily (2 units+) than SFHs, while I am highly doubtful any of the Texas cities do. When you look at Texas cities from satellite view, you see a downtown area that is surrounded on all sides by single family homes, and almost exclusively. Los Angeles on the other hand has a heavy footprint of large multifamily buildings (with a minority of SFH and duplexes sprinkled in) that to the northwest stretches all the way to Hollywood and then further west to West Hollywood. Basically this is just a sign of the infill Los Angeles has the Texas cities do not have (some of them will probably get this filled in eventually too).
Additionally the freeways in Texas are gargantuan, especially with those frontage roads on either side, something that doesn't exist in LA proper, at least as far as I know (I don't think Sepulveda or Sawtelle count). Also the wide open spaces you see in the Texas cities (just an example, something like this: dallas, tx - Google Maps) are hard to find in Los Angeles, outside of parks like Elysian and Griffith.
Actually looking at the condo-apartment areas north of downtown (I'm looking between Lemmon Ave and Oak Lawn Ave) they look a lot like the newer infill in the San Fernando Valley, like in Woodland Hills or Encino. So I can see the comparisons there for sure.
I don't think the Texas cities are like LA at all. They might look similar but that's where it ends. As cities they seem to fucntion much differently. LA is just weird. Like an earlier poster said, LA has a strange mix of old fashion dense urban form with "pre-sunbelt" sprawl that is much more dense than other sunbelt sprawly areas. For example: Houston and Dallas don't have LA's "traditional" bustling downtown, nor do they have LA's congestion and traffic. They may think so but don't kid yourselves.
Phoenix isn't like LA at all, it's like a giant Riverside-San Bernardino with a little bit of Palmdale thrown in. El Paso isn't even close, it's too sleepy.
To me Miami isn't really the same either, but I think they share common threads when it comes to vibe and image to the outsiders looking in. But that's it.
In the end, I don't really see a point to compare any city to LA because even LONG BEACH feels like a totally different place. And it's just right down the road.
Also, about DTLA: I always thought the area around Figueroa/financial district was more like a mini taste DT Chicago and the Historic core like a mini slice of New York/Philadelphia.
The later densification of traditionally far flung suburban areas seems pretty unique to L.A. too. You get this weird hybrid style (most commonly found in the San Fernando Valley), throughout the metro area. Looks leafy and quiet until you look closer and realize it's block after block of apartments.
I made a pilgrimage to Tujunga recently (best known as the film location of E.T.; I lived there until I was 7) and found apartment blocks there too.
Yep, this is exactly what I was talking about in my post above. The newly developed infill in LA seems to resemble a lot of the new infill in Dallas and Houston.
What I don't get is why is the density level of these areas in Dallas so low? They look fairly densely developed but then the densities are between like 8-12k ppsm, where in LA they seem like they are closer to 15-20k (or higher)?
Last edited by munchitup; 11-08-2012 at 05:46 PM..
I don't think the Texas cities are like LA at all. They might look similar but that's where it ends. As cities they seem to fucntion much differently. LA is just weird. Like an earlier poster said, LA has a strange mix of old fashion dense urban form with "pre-sunbelt" sprawl that is much more dense than other sunbelt sprawly areas.
I think the "pre-sunbelt" sprawl you are referring to is definitely a California (or at least West Coast) phenomenon.
For example, the city I'm from has a residential stock almost identical to that of South Central and it's located a few hundred miles from LA. Same thing with San Jose being one of the most dense metros in the country but lacking many "very dense" areas. Los Angeles on the other hand has no lack of "very dense" areas.
One big difference between LA and Texas cities (among many others) is the number of multifamily housing structures in Los Angeles vs those in Texas. LA has more multifamily (2 units+) than SFHs, while I am highly doubtful any of the Texas cities do. When you look at Texas cities from satellite view, you see a downtown area that is surrounded on all sides by single family homes, and almost exclusively. Los Angeles on the other hand has a heavy footprint of large multifamily buildings (with a minority of SFH and duplexes sprinkled in) that to the northwest stretches all the way to Hollywood and then further west to West Hollywood. Basically this is just a sign of the infill Los Angeles has the Texas cities do not have (some of them will probably get this filled in eventually too).
Additionally the freeways in Texas are gargantuan, especially with those frontage roads on either side, something that doesn't exist in LA proper, at least as far as I know (I don't think Sepulveda or Sawtelle count). Also the wide open spaces you see in the Texas cities (just an example, something like this: dallas, tx - Google Maps) are hard to find in Los Angeles, outside of parks like Elysian and Griffith.
Actually looking at the condo-apartment areas north of downtown (I'm looking between Lemmon Ave and Oak Lawn Ave) they look a lot like the newer infill in the San Fernando Valley, like in Woodland Hills or Encino. So I can see the comparisons there for sure.
Ya, Central Dallas is very multifamily developed. There's very very few SFH until you get north into Highland Park. Oak Lawn, Knox-Henderson, Deep Ellum, Uptown, Design District have very little SFH's.
LA's multi-family is much more extensive, but Dallas is smaller. Once you enter the Park Cities and Preston Hollow the neighborhoods there are very much like Beverly Hills and Bel Air. There are similarities, they aren't exactly alike. I'm aware of that.
Miami - I see where people are going with this, but driving around feels more distinctively Florida than California with a more tropical feel. Greater Miami feels like a major metro area but nowhere as huge as LA.
Phoenix - I believe the best answer out of the bunch. Dry weather, similar vegetation, car culture, etc, etc.
Tucson - Has a mix of Southern California meets the desert Southwest, but feels to small and isolated to have that LA type vibe and feel.
Las Vegas - Feels to new and suburban.
Albuquerque - I assume what LA might have resembled more or less in the 1940's with the mountain backdrop.
Houston - Have only been to the airport, but the city seems to green to have that LA feel.
Dallas - Distinctively Texan, with a slight Southwestern feel.
Just my 2 cents.
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.
