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.
Well considering that the LA metro is the densest in the nation it has efficiently used very little land to get to it's current population compared to other metros, and by looking at this map you can see that the metro is surrounded by mountains and preserved forrests so I really don't see your point.
Valley/Basin flora and fauna are different from those of the mountains and foothills. Having preserved little of the valley/basin also means that the valleys and basin are basically nonstop sprawl up until you get to the mountains and foothills with little relief. It also makes the different mountain biomes even more isolated as islands and biogeographically unable to support populations of larger fauna. I think that blows, but I understand people have differing opinions and obviously the one that favors developers has won out.
The ratio gap between suburban sprawl and central urban core is larger in LA because it lacks a Manhattan or a Loop. It is apparent that LA is more suburban horizontal growth than vertical compared to other cities. Another words it is less centralized and more spread out than NYC, Chicago or Philly with more suburban style development which is basically Phoenix on steroids with more stucco style single family and apartment buildings lacking row houses (Philly, Boston etc.)and residential highrises (NYC, Chicago). It lacks a traditional urban 19th century Wrigleyville or Backbay neighborhoods.
All this and it is still extremely urban and vibrant! Even more than most of the East Coast cities. I'd say that while it is the least urban of the three cities in this comparison, it definitely is in the same league and has similar potential for the future. And perhaps it has an even stronger potential for the future than the other two (though Toronto is mighty impressive), as it is still just a "maturing" city. I'm not sure Los Angeles has completely decided which kind of city it wants to be yet, and it is a very exciting place to be as it transitions out of a very auto-centric era.
The ratio gap between suburban sprawl and central urban core is larger in LA because it lacks a Manhattan or a Loop. It is apparent that LA is more suburban horizontal growth than vertical compared to other cities. Another words it is less centralized and more spread out than NYC, Chicago or Philly with more suburban style development which is basically Phoenix on steroids with more stucco style single family and apartment buildings lacking row houses (Philly, Boston etc.)and residential highrises (NYC, Chicago). It lacks a traditional urban 19th century Wrigleyville or Backbay neighborhoods.
To me LA looks nothing like Phoenix on steroids. I can see the San Fernando Valley being that way but on the other side of the mountains I really don't. To me it feels way to crowded. Wall to wall people living very close together. Most of the single family houses are on very small lots. What looks like sfhs in many cases are 5 and six unit apt bldgs. Parking is always hard to come by in many LA communites just like in most congested big cities. When I'm in cities like Philly or DC I'm not walking around saying, 'wow these cities are much more dense' because honestly they don't feel that way to me.
To me LA looks nothing like Phoenix on steroids. I can see the San Fernando Valley being that way but on the other side of the mountains I really don't. To me it feels way to crowded. Wall to wall people living very close together. Most of the single family houses are on very small lots. What looks like sfhs in many cases are 5 and six unit apt bldgs. Parking is always hard to come by in many LA communites just like in most congested big cities. When I'm in cities like Philly or DC I'm not walking around saying, 'wow these cities are much more dense' because honestly they don't feel that way to me.
Maybe it would have been more credible had that poster said San Jose on steroids. Or even more fitting, Oakland on steroids.
I don't see many resemblances between Phoenix (a desert city) and Los Angeles (a West-Coast city). Phoenix looks like a giant (and much nicer) Riverside to me.
The ratio gap between suburban sprawl and central urban core is larger in LA because it lacks a Manhattan or a Loop. It is apparent that LA is more suburban horizontal growth than vertical compared to other cities. Another words it is less centralized and more spread out than NYC, Chicago or Philly with more suburban style development which is basically Phoenix on steroids with more stucco style single family and apartment buildings lacking row houses (Philly, Boston etc.)and residential highrises (NYC, Chicago). It lacks a traditional urban 19th century Wrigleyville or Backbay neighborhoods.
U.S. cities lack 15th century neighborhoods common in European cities. Point? If you're trying to argue the only old cities can be urban, all I can do is laugh at the city vs city logic.
Population over 20,000ppsm
Los Angeles UA: 1,956,347 (15.99%)
Chicago UA: 1,120,257 (12.52%)
Toronto UA: 993,659 (19.19%)
Looks like L.A. has more high density neighborhoods as a percentage of its metro, and nearly as many people living at 20k densities as Chicago and Toronto combined! So much for the gap being larger here. Phoenix on steroids? Seriously, update your arguments. They're a tad obsolete at this point.
U.S. cities lack 15th century neighborhoods common in European cities. Point? If you're trying to argue the only old cities can be urban, all I can do is laugh at the city vs city logic.
Population over 20,000ppsm
Los Angeles UA: 1,956,347 (15.99%)
Chicago UA: 1,120,257 (12.52%)
Toronto UA: 993,659 (19.19%)
Looks like L.A. has more high density neighborhoods as a percentage of its metro, and nearly as many people living at 20k densities as Chicago and Toronto combined! So much for the gap being larger here. Phoenix on steroids? Seriously, update your arguments. They're a tad obsolete at this point.
When will LA receive a transit system worthy of a world class city? LA is playing catchup in terms of urbanity, too much car culture.
Oh by the way, Wrigleyville is no Back Bay. Not even close. http://goo.gl/maps/h1uPb It looks like a fun neighborhood, but is that really supposed to be what blows everything in LA away?
It's not even Fenway / Kenmore Square. Sometimes Chicago is vastly over-hyped on this board.
Seriously though, a more comprehensive system in L.A. would be nice. It does lack there. But the design of the city is such (polycentric), that it manages to be efficient in moving people anyway. Not only are commute times and distances on average shorter than other more core-centric cities, but it turns out L.A. is one of the LEAST gas-guzzling cities in the country (behind NYC): http://www.forbes.com/sites/christop...zzling-cities/
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 06-07-2013 at 10:46 AM..
When will LA receive a transit system worthy of a world class city? LA is playing catchup in terms of urbanity, too much car culture.
Maybe not one worthy of its size for a while, but it's getting one proportional to its urban dense city parts pretty soon. There's actually the political will (even passed on a tax on itself and just narrowly missed the 2/3rd's mark needed to further extend that tax). The population and retail density and potential ridership is definitely there (and likely to only grow and grow). What's lacking is the funding and the ability to keep down costs for civic projects (or just about anything since our economy is based on how much we can gouge each other) in the US. Were Congress open to the previous LA mayor's push for money upfront on transit construction (pushing 30 years of transit construction timetable into 10 years and in doing so saving overall costs on these projects as well as getting use of them far earlier), then this conversation would be a lot different. America Fast Forward might still happen, but we'll have to wait and see.
Oh by the way, Wrigleyville is no Back Bay. Not even close. wrigleyville - Google Maps It looks like a fun neighborhood, but is that really supposed to be what blows everything in LA away?
It's not even Fenway / Kenmore Square. Sometimes Chicago is vastly over-hyped on this board.
Just a few comments:
1. Of course Wrigleyville isn't Backbay (or Fenway), Wrigleyville is Wrigleyville, I think that is pretty obvious.
3. Do people on this site really believe that Density is the end all be all for Urbanity? Things like Transit Oriented Development, Streetwalls, Wide Sidewalks, are more important than Density.
4. LA is a great city, but as a whole it is not nearly as cohesive or walkable as other more "traditional" large US cities, I think that is what many are describing, as LA clearly has the density.
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.
