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.
SF does have a few very high density census tracts in the Chinatown area, perhaps others, that as of the 2010 census were much higher than anything in Los Angeles, though I haven't checked the 2020 census for the same. However, the 47 square miles mark rather than the much smaller census tract metric, did put SF proper and Central LA at similar places for a while. Here's a look at the two using 2013 ACS data:
There are some notable issues with how much parkspace to include and with different in the street form in how the density feels, but the two over the 47 square miles are similar in density. Central LA does have SFHs, though they are generally on small lots. What Central LA also has is a whole lot of apartment buildings and a lot of mid-rises and even high-rises that are outside of downtown proper. They line Wilshire, show up in Koreatown and Westlake, and have a notable presence in Hollywood in Central LA. These are also the neighborhoods in LA that have seen perhaps the most construction activity over the last decade.
SF does have a few very high density census tracts in the Chinatown area, perhaps others, that as of the 2010 census were much higher than anything in Los Angeles, though I haven't checked the 2020 census for the same. However, the 47 square miles mark rather than the much smaller census tract metric, did put SF proper and Central LA at similar places for a while. Here's a look at the two using 2013 ACS data:
There are some notable issues with how much parkspace to include and with different in the street form in how the density feels, but the two over the 47 square miles are similar in density. Central LA does have SFHs, though they are generally on small lots. What Central LA also has is a whole lot of apartment buildings and a lot of mid-rises and even high-rises that are outside of downtown proper. They line Wilshire, show up in Koreatown and Westlake, and have a notable presence in Hollywood in Central LA. These are also the neighborhoods in LA that have seen perhaps the most construction activity over the last decade.
Interesting that the urban core of LA is almost as dense as SF's core but still feels much more car oriented. The main differences between the metros, is that SF feels very urban and dense but its suburbs feel more tranquil and low density (which is also the case of NYC and Chicago) while LA feels like an endless sprawl of medium density. I prefer SF metro's model but there are desirable aspects of LA's model, such as living in a single family home area with proximity to urban amenities. I do think San Jose could end up becoming more like LA's model of a vast swath of medium density.
Interesting that the urban core of LA is almost as dense as SF's core but still feels much more car oriented. The main differences between the metros, is that SF feels very urban and dense but its suburbs feel more tranquil and low density (which is also the case of NYC and Chicago) while LA feels like an endless sprawl of medium density. I prefer SF metro's model but there are desirable aspects of LA's model, such as living in a single family home area with proximity to urban amenities. I do think San Jose could end up becoming more like LA's model of a vast swath of medium density.
It feels car oriented but it still feels crowded, and there's a bunch of pedestrians. The roads are typically wider and the sidewalks skinnier, so that adds to it feeling more car-oriented. But the bus routes are better, there are tons of midrises sprinkled in the neighborhoods, highrises along the busier streets, etc., so it is still walkable. You can certainly live in Central LA without a car fairly easily. I did it for a week once while my car was in the shop a few years ago and was surprised how easy it was. I didn't have to rideshare once unless it was for absolute convenience.
Interesting that the urban core of LA is almost as dense as SF's core but still feels much more car oriented. The main differences between the metros, is that SF feels very urban and dense but its suburbs feel more tranquil and low density (which is also the case of NYC and Chicago) while LA feels like an endless sprawl of medium density. I prefer SF metro's model but there are desirable aspects of LA's model, such as living in a single family home area with proximity to urban amenities. I do think San Jose could end up becoming more like LA's model of a vast swath of medium density.
This. SF feels like a western take on Philly or Baltimore in terms of form and function (minus the hills).
While Central LA lacks in a super tight-knit urban grid, it makes up for in sheer numbers due to a more liberal zoning policy and it's endless mid-density SFH.
This. SF feels like a western take on Philly or Baltimore in terms of form and function (minus the hills).
While Central LA lacks in a super tight-knit urban grid, it makes up for in sheer numbers due to a more liberal zoning policy and it's endless mid-density SFH.
If this isn't a "super tight-knit urban grid", then I'm not sure what is. This is a street view from downtown L.A., where within the historical district, spatial density is as tight as anywhere else in the nation:
Of the five densest zip codes in CA, five are in S.F. and five are in L.A.
There really hasn't been an argument to place L.A. on some kind of lower density tier than S.F. since the 1910's. You created an analogy with S.F. and cities like Baltimore. I'm assuming this mostly a reference to row houses, which I contend don't give S.F. any kind of urban/density advantage (either in numbers or appearance).
Also, the average street width in S.F is only 5 feet narrower than L.A., something the human eye would barely be able to discern on a busy day, and underground subways play a much larger role in the movement of people around central L.A. than S.F in 2022.
When I was a kid I would've definitely picked the bay but after visiting both recently, I would pick LA. I saw car break-ins, heard gunshots, saw human feces on the sidewalks, and so many homeless in San Francisco. I was so surprised... what happened to the vibrant and wonderful city I remembered as a kid? A lot of the streets were empty except for in Chinatown and around Pier39/Fisherman's Wharf. It could be one of the best cities in America but it's not and that's a shame.
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,937 posts, read 36,948,491 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShenardL
When I was a kid I would've definitely picked the bay but after visiting both recently, I would pick LA. I saw car break-ins, heard gunshots, saw human feces on the sidewalks, and so many homeless in San Francisco. I was so surprised... what happened to the vibrant and wonderful city I remembered as a kid? A lot of the streets were empty except for in Chinatown and around Pier39/Fisherman's Wharf. It could be one of the best cities in America but it's not and that's a shame.
It's definitely gotten worse since I lived there, but its always been an issue (in my lifetime). Communities around the country have been bussing their problems *(one way tickets out of town) to west coast cities for 40+ years. There have been some good exposes on this. It can't be fixed without the contributor communities taking some responsibility for what they do, and that's unlikely to happen.
Interesting that the urban core of LA is almost as dense as SF's core but still feels much more car oriented. The main differences between the metros, is that SF feels very urban and dense but its suburbs feel more tranquil and low density (which is also the case of NYC and Chicago) while LA feels like an endless sprawl of medium density. I prefer SF metro's model but there are desirable aspects of LA's model, such as living in a single family home area with proximity to urban amenities. I do think San Jose could end up becoming more like LA's model of a vast swath of medium density.
Yea, it can feel and actually is lot more car-oriented in LA. I think one thing to note is that the urban core I posted is about the size of entire city of San Francisco. That's not something that a person really covers on a walking basis very often, so it's actually a pretty zoomed out scale overall. For those areas, I think the difference is that San Francisco sort of peaks very heavily in a small part of its northeast quadrant and then slowly ebbs down in density from there. The Central Los Angeles part on the other hand has some pretty large chunks of very high density, but not SF's highest peak density when it comes to a walkable/neighborhood scale. LA has a lot of quite dense three to eight floor apartment complexes for fairly large chunks in Westlake, Koreatown, and Greater Hollywood while there are also fairly large, especially along the hillsides, single family home areas, so there's actually quite a bit of variance in the population density (and all quite splotchy in comparison) rather than vast swaths of medium density. A lot of this occurred due to zoning restrictions among other things. One area that's a particularly interesting example of this is the Palms neighborhood which is just outside of this Central Los Angeles map and part of the west side. That area is very heavily built up and its surrounding areas are not--and this was specifically done via zoning differences.
I'll also add though that the map was based on the 2013 ACS and among the fastest growing population areas of LA was downtown over the period from 2013 to the 2020 census.
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.
