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.
Maybe I haven't said it in this thread yet, so I'll say it now. LA has a lot of sprawl. It's mostly sprawl. It's a MSA of 12 million and a CSA of 19 million--most of that is suburban development. So in absolute amounts of suburban development and in percentage terms, LA does have much more sprawl. In terms of the total area of LA that is actually urban, it's pretty comparable.
And the vast majority of new construction for the last few decades has included underground parking instead of a surface lot. Companies that have large surface lots on their properties have been looking into ways to maximize that land, and are looking to build new structures on the empty land (Paramount, Universal, Columbia Square, Sunset / Bronson Studios are UC / Planned). Another cool innovation that Los Angeles has come up with to fill in those empty gaps and surface lots is the Small Lots Ordinance, which allows developers to build what is pretty much LA's version of row houses in lots that would be too small for large-scale development.
But yes Los Angeles does have more surface parking than Chicago or Toronto (though Chicago is definitely guilty of this to some extent, and Toronto to an even lesser extent). That doesn't make it suburban though.
Another thing is I think many people assume all or the vast majority of commercial structures in Los Angeles are strip malls or stand-alone buildings, when in fact that is not really the case. A very uneducated estimate by me would say it is at most 40% of retail (this is in the traditional core, outside of it is another story), but again that is a very vague guess just from my experiences around the city. Honestly the biggest issue for LA is not the strip malls, but the gas stations. Good god how many gas stations does a city need!?! With a few exceptions they are real eye-sores that truly disturb the urban environment.
The GTA is expected to be at 9.4 million by 2041 - not including the Greater Golden Horseshoe which is expected to be at 13.5 million (a better comparison to Chicagoland in area).. The city proper of Toronto is going to ring in at 3.404 million...
Projections show Toronto will continue to grow well into the future.. It has been growing solidly for decades (well almost two centuries now lol)..there is no reason to believe this will stop because you don't want it to be bigger than Chicago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cali3448893
Toronto wont grow forever, every city stops or slows down. Chicago will soon surpass Toronto.
Projections show Toronto will continue to grow well into the future.. It has been growing solidly for decades (well almost two centuries now lol)..there is no reason to believe this will stop because you don't want it to be bigger than Chicago.
True, although for years Chicago grew much faster than Toronto. Population growth changes readily. Who knows what will happen three decades from now.
Fair enough but I've put up some solid info on growth projections for Toronto based on reasonable methodology and probability based demographics, government policy, economic projections etc. Much better than 'who knows' - right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maintainschaos
True, although for years Chicago grew much faster than Toronto. Population growth changes readily. Who knows what will happen three decades from now.
Fair enough but I've put up some solid info on growth projections for Toronto based on reasonable methodology and probability based demographics, government policy, economic projections etc. Much better than 'who knows' - right?
Three decades is a pretty wild projection. I would think it's close to useless when the two are so close. Think of it as a possibility.
I'm not speaking for Chicago and don't care if Toronto is projected to grow more or less quite frankly.. i'm just basing this on what is projected for Toronto... historical trends and the fact that future governmental policy is only going to reinforce Canada's position as a huge immigration magnet where Toronto has primacy within Canada for this.. Additionaly, there has been a huge demographic push towards living in the DT core of the city - I doubt that will change because it is a place where people want to live and work - much more Canadian desire than American.
Toronto is also more of a primate city to Canada than even NYC is to the U.S - so are the projections wild... I don't think so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Three decades is a pretty wild projection. I would think it's close to useless when the two are so close. Think of it as a possibility.
You do realize NYC is part of the Northeast so that cancels your argument. (btw, NYC is Gotham not LA) Also we get that LA is a larger suburban network 'sunbelt' city than a older established pedestrian city like Boston. It would be like saying when Houston passes Chicago it will be more urban simply because of population without taking other urban defining criteria into consideration like structural density, ratio development evolved from pedestrians vs auto etc..Chicago and Toronto seem to be more centralized. Like I said before LA lacks a Manhattan or a Loop. It is more overwhelmed by it's surrounding suburbs that feel more sunbeltish compared to what you find out East. In some aspects LA reminds me of South Florida with all the stucco and palm trees.
Stop right there.
No, it would not be the same thing because Houston doesn't have the density Chicago does--not at 5 sq miles, not at 10 sq miles, not at 200 sq miles. Los Angeles DOES however. There are only two North American cities that are clearly more dense (residential, structural, you name it) than Los Angeles. The two other cities in this comparison are not among them.
I don't even get this suburban network argument. What do you think most U.S. urbanized areas consist of?
How does NYC debunk my argument? I compared the Los Angeles region to those three BosWash UAs for a reason--they are constantly lauded for their density, urbanity and compactness. So why does it take them over twice the land area to achieve the same population as Los Angeles and the Inland Empire?
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 06-11-2013 at 01:39 AM..
Maybe I haven't said it in this thread yet, so I'll say it now. LA has a lot of sprawl. It's mostly sprawl. It's a MSA of 12 million and a CSA of 19 million--most of that is suburban development. So in absolute amounts of suburban development and in percentage terms, LA does have much more sprawl. In terms of the total area of LA that is actually urban, it's pretty comparable.
The three cities he listed (Boston, Philadelphia, NYC) have larger urbanized areas, and only NYC has more total high-density areas than Los Angeles. I'm going to go ahead and say you're dead wrong here.
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.
