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.
In addition to building way more office high rises (over 400ft), DT SF has also built way more residential high rises too over the last 10 years. Anyone who thinks downtown SF doesn't have a ton of residents, one's in luxury towers at that, must be blind and clueless.
In addition to building way more office high rises (over 400ft), DT SF has also built way more residential high rises too over the last 10 years. Anyone who thinks downtown SF doesn't have a ton of residents, one's in luxury towers at that, must be blind and clueless.
DTLA didn't take part in the previous tower boom cycle nearly as much downtown SF (the one that halted with the recession) and that's certainly true. Its giant tower build out is part of this current boom and downtown LA has nearly double the number of skyscrapers under construction compared to downtown SF and with many other non high-rises having come online in the past few years and in the coming ones. The biggest thing with these is that they are replacing lots that were mostly devoid of commercial, residential, or retail space--that's why even with the massive changes that have taken place in downtown SF, the changes in downtown LA are more obvious and the rate of development is overall more rapid.
It was definitely not just skyscrapers that made and still makes downtown SF seem much more vibrant than downtown LA--it's how well everything was connected without a bunch of blank parking lots. There are/were more restaurants, shops, residents, venues, etc. Downtown LA was mostly office spaces, parking lots, social services, and random claptrap for the most part and that's radically changed in a short amount of time. I don't know if it'll ever be as vibrant as downtown SF, but the current pace of change and development certainly seems faster than that of downtown SF and that's not saying that downtown SF isn't rapidly changing--it's only that downtown LA is changing and developing faster.
This also goes for infrastructure among the two downtowns for the near future. The Caltrain extension would have been great to have, but it's not under construction. There's no additional peak capacity available for BART in downtown. There is the Central Subway and that could be great as it's an extension with stops in downtown and in some of the densest neighborhoods, but it's a stub end layout so the frequency can only reach a certain level. Meanwhile, downtown LA is currently creating the regional connector which adds grade-separated underground stations within downtown, but more importantly, links the current light rail lines for a more efficient through-running operation. It's also implementing through-running for commuter rail at Union Station so commuter rail frequencies can be greatly increased. Not directly related to downtown is the Purple Line (a heavy rail rapid transit line) is currently getting an extension down Wilshire Boulevard that will give downtown LA a far greater transit reach including tying itself into the other sizable high-rise district in Century City (where Nakatomi Plaza is). These are pretty rapid changes and developments which aren't common for modern US cities.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-12-2018 at 12:16 AM..
Did you see what's actually under construction? DTLA didn't take part in the previous tower boom cycle nearly as much downtown SF (the one that halted with the recession) and that's certainly true. Its giant tower build out is part of this current boom and downtown LA has nearly double the number of skyscrapers under construction compared to downtown SF and with many other non high-rises having come online in the past few years and in the coming ones. The biggest thing with these is that they are replacing lots that were mostly devoid of commercial, residential, or retail space--that's why even with the massive changes that have taken place in downtown SF, the changes in downtown LA are more obvious and the rate of development is overall more rapid.
Forgive me but your post doesnt speak as loudly as this img( my img)
And this view has changed exponentially since 2016...so I know LA is experiencing a major boom, quite frankly so is SF and to the extent that LA is changing more rapidly, I think I'll wait on believing that until the area around LA Live is well, more live.
Forgive me but your post doesnt speak as loudly as this img( my img)
And this view has changed exponentially since 2016...so I know LA is experiencing a major boom, quite frankly so is SF and to the extent that LA is changing more rapidly, I think I'll wait on believing that until the area around LA Live is well, more live.
It's okay if you don't read too good, we'll take it slowly.
In terms of an urban core, I think SF wins out given the stretch of neighborhoods that are walkable from SOMA (or even the Mission) north to the Marina. I love both cities and their metro areas though.
As a plus for LA too ...... it to has older blocks getting restored, façades and re-purposed. Street-vibrancy increasing greatly and infill where lost buildings to complete its gentrification.
These LA examples ..... also take on a NYC to old Chicago architectural look.
Two more Stunners in this intersection .... and others. Intricate terracotta and with retail. They survived earthquakes to be saved for another century. Is it Chicago.... no its LA. https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0444...i6656?hl=en-US
So even in LA. You find still surprising stunners ..... in these old (skyscrapers of their day).
It's Drastic improvement is the older sections of core areas where impressive old school architecture has been restored and vibrancy street-level increased. As infill where buildings were lost continues .... LA's rise in its core NO ONE should try to lessen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Forgive me but your post doesn't speak as loudly as this img( my img)
And this view has changed exponentially since 2016...so I know LA is experiencing a major boom, quite frankly so is SF and to the extent that LA is changing more rapidly, I think I'll wait on believing that until the area around LA Live is well, more live.
These skyline views are not impressive at all. Boxes of similar height rule the day. The new high ones recently built...... are the only real change in these least impressive views of SF I've seen. The views from hill parks and especially with my favorite .... the Transamerica building in the forefront. They are the NUCH better skyline views and of course ..... with the Golden Gate clearly seen.
Still, SF does not get high esteem in votes for best skylines. Its asset is vibrancy, old SF and buildings, parks with vistas of the bay and attractions with historical neighborhoods. Especially from the hippy vs yuppy era etc.
Both cities have great attributes and contributed to American culture .... greatly. Both metros pull a huge punch.
DTLA didn't take part in the previous tower boom cycle nearly as much downtown SF (the one that halted with the recession) and that's certainly true. Its giant tower build out is part of this current boom and downtown LA has nearly double the number of skyscrapers under construction compared to downtown SF and with many other non high-rises having come online in the past few years and in the coming ones. The biggest thing with these is that they are replacing lots that were mostly devoid of commercial, residential, or retail space--that's why even with the massive changes that have taken place in downtown SF, the changes in downtown LA are more obvious and the rate of development is overall more rapid.
It was definitely not just skyscrapers that made and still makes downtown SF seem much more vibrant than downtown LA--it's how well everything was connected without a bunch of blank parking lots. There are/were more restaurants, shops, residents, venues, etc. Downtown LA was mostly office spaces, parking lots, social services, and random claptrap for the most part and that's radically changed in a short amount of time. I don't know if it'll ever be as vibrant as downtown SF, but the current pace of change and development certainly seems faster than that of downtown SF and that's not saying that downtown SF isn't rapidly changing--it's only that downtown LA is changing and developing faster.
This also goes for infrastructure among the two downtowns for the near future. The Caltrain extension would have been great to have, but it's not under construction. There's no additional peak capacity available for BART in downtown. There is the Central Subway and that could be great as it's an extension with stops in downtown and in some of the densest neighborhoods, but it's a stub end layout so the frequency can only reach a certain level. Meanwhile, downtown LA is currently creating the regional connector which adds grade-separated underground stations within downtown, but more importantly, links the current light rail lines for a more efficient through-running operation. It's also implementing through-running for commuter rail at Union Station so commuter rail frequencies can be greatly increased. Not directly related to downtown is the Purple Line (a heavy rail rapid transit line) is currently getting an extension down Wilshire Boulevard that will give downtown LA a far greater transit reach including tying itself into the other sizable high-rise district in Century City (where Nakatomi Plaza is). These are pretty rapid changes and developments which aren't common for modern US cities.
It seems rather late to the current boom as well. I agree the changes are more obvious but that's only because downtown LA was just that much worse overall to begin with, really could only go up at that point. I don't really think that equates to the definition of "more rapid" but if that's what people actually mean, "more of a change" sure I guess. I looked at it as saying "more development" going on.
DTLA is certainly going through a transit renaissance compared to other cities but again that's mainly because it was behind other cities to begin with, not saying that's a bad thing just saying. But even then with the Transbay Terminal (not sure why you would omit that massive project) I'm guessing DTSF still has more money devoted to transit construction than DTLA.
One of the comments from that articles sums this "fact" up pretty well:
"L.A. has long been the densest metro area in the country, but it’s interesting to note that there’s very little disparity in the densities between the downtown core and the more suburban areas.
In New York, for instance, density in Manhattan is nearly ten times what it is in outlying areas, while in L.A. the suburbs are 80% as dense as downtown."
Despite its reputation for “sprawling,” low density suburbs, Los Angeles has the fifth largest urban core, with 1.4 million residents. Many people learn in disbelief that Los Angeles has by far the highest density of any urban area in the nation (area of continuous urban development).*Los Angeles is approximately 30% denser than New York,*because the suburbs of Los Angeles are so densely populated that they more than compensate for the higher central area densities of Manhattan and the rest of New York City.
That's because suburbs in Los Angeles aren't your normal suburbs,they're actually independent cities in LA County
Santa Monica isn't suburb
Long Beach isn't a suburb
Compton isn't a suburb, even though you can call it that by definition of what suburb really means.
LA County is populous by 10 million and is by far the most populated county in America.So just by doing that math on that, anything outside of DTLA has 9.8 million people moving around. This is what makes Los Angeles unique.
Despite its reputation for “sprawling,” low density suburbs, Los Angeles has the fifth largest urban core, with 1.4 million residents. Many people learn in disbelief that Los Angeles has by far the highest density of any urban area in the nation (area of continuous urban development).*Los Angeles is approximately 30% denser than New York,*because the suburbs of Los Angeles are so densely populated that they more than compensate for the higher central area densities of Manhattan and the rest of New York City.
That's because suburbs in Los Angeles aren't your normal suburbs,they're actually independent cities in LA County
Santa Monica isn't suburb
Long Beach isn't a suburb
Compton isn't a suburb, even though you can call it that by definition of what suburb really means.
LA County is populous by 10 million and is by far the most populated county in America.So just by doing that math on that, anything outside of DTLA has 9.8 million people moving around. This is what makes Los Angeles unique.
LA has different city centers unlike other cities
Yeah being comprised of mostly dense yet still auto-oriented suburbs....nothing to brag about imo.
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.
