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 then LA subways are still not on SFs level. I'm a homer at tines but I dont mind showing SF love if it's real information. I disregard that dumb SoCal norcal rivalry. We're the only state who's rivalry is that tense
They're not, but LA is in the midst of I think the largest public transit expansion in the country currently.
But then you still have all the two story strip malls, gas stations, and drive thru's that are still very prevalent throughout the core. And once you leave those commercial corridors, residential neighborhoods full of front yards and garden style apartments. You seem to really overestimate the speed and amount of redevelopment.
You do have a lot of them plus car shops and dealerships, but those have been steadily getting replaced with five to eight story buildings. The residential SFHs in the core are generally small lots, and while that does detract from the urbanity, if the neighborhood is still overall dense and there is mixed use taller buildings on the many commercial streets, then it’s still effectively a very urban neighborhood.
I did say it’s a bold prediction and for a timeline that’s several years away. I don’t think it’s too wild since every time I go back, there’s always a lot of new construction and the streets feel more bustling. If we’re all still on CD by that time, it’ll be interesting to revisit the matter.
You can't forget the Santa Ana branch line either, which can add an additional 2-4 stops within Downtown LA depending on which route it takes once completed before the Olympics in 2028. I'm conflicting on whether or not I want it to go through the Fashion District or Arts District. If the Purple Line is extended into the Arts District, then the Santa Ana Branch Line should go through the Fashion District.
Because increased density helps with lowering car usage, it increases transit usage, and allows for more housing. Before even touching the single-family neighborhoods, LA can spend 50+ years redeveloping strip centers and parking lots into mixed-use developments. This will be even easier along current transit lines.
Downtown LA alone has so much room for development itself, and has the infrastructure to handle it. Hollywood is another neighborhood but NIMBYs hurt development there. Koreatown will continue to bustle and boom since there's less NIMBYism there and it'll have even better transit access once the Purple is extended as it sits between Downtown and Westwood/UCLA.
I do think those transit plans are good and likely to get done, but as of now they’re still just proposals, and I was going with what had shovels in the ground already.
I agree, LA is massive and there are tons of SFH neighborhoods, so there’s a lot of urban core and heavily trafficked corridors to build up before SFHs become an endangered species in the Greater Los Angeles area.
Well even though LA has more skyscrapers by a few buildings its all spread throughout the city while SF's is strictly in downtown. Downtown runs from embarcadero to van ness (well the continous skyline does).. also SF isnt 55 sq miles so i dont know u came up with that. Core LA has hardly any parks but SF has HUGE parks and the Presidio so it's not a true comparison of density. Weighted density is density where people actually live and SF was way more dense than any part of LA. Also we have 3 stations in downtown LA (4 if u include union) and last time I was in SF I seen more in its downtown area. Also I doubt we have more heavy rail commuters than SF. The trains there are packed and it looks like manhattan at times. You can just look and see that LA is not as dense as SF anywhere and that's a good thing because we have big city amenities like SF or NYC but also front and side yards in our city proper unlike the claustrophobic east coast and SF. If u want urban you can live in downtown LA. Best of both worlds. You have t ok leave SF proper to have breathing room. Other than that you're stuck on the hilly unwalkable island
My mistake I meant 46 miles.
Los Angeles has 15 heavy rail stops in this area compared to 8 for (the entire city of) San Francisco.
In regards to LA, I don’t think the drop is quite as worrying because the Blue Line had been in multiple segments shut down for renovation with the total time spent renovating being very long. Given how popular that line was and how there weren’t anything close to a good alternative mass transit route for most trips, it was pretty much a guarantee ridership was going to be down on that severely. The others are more getting hit with the additional traffic, some due to rideshare, impeding bus traffic. The Blue Line is back now, and while it’ll take a bit to bring back its riders, it’ll likely keep increasing in ridership. Meanwhile, the transit expansions are mostly or completely separated from traffic, and there’s always the hope that LA does some sensible street use redesign with dedicated and enforced bus lanes.
Los Angeles has 15 heavy rail stops in this area compared to 8 for (the entire city of) San Francisco.
Well, in that 46 sq miles, SF also has about 30 light rail stations.
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.
it is—lol indeed!
