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.
I'm not considering the northern areas in Philly. And I consider 2-3 area rowhouses, at least the way they are built in Philly to be very urban. You are like the only person who just tosses these areas out. They are certainly more useful than large government building deadzones and spread out which you seem to hold in high regard. I don't consider those areas to be "block after block" urban. You do, that is the difference in the numbers. I am taking out large areas of DC the same way you are taking out large residential areas. Basically what Duderino said I agree with 100%.
Chicago gets cut several times. Chicago is cut by freeways going really close to DT, it also has a large dead zone going south, then a very patchy area still to the NW of DT where Cabrini Green used to be then that runs into old industrial areas. Chicago is of course larger if you turn a blind eye to these areas, but OP wanted consistency, and it is not consistent.
I don't consider the DC large monolithic areas as part of this "zone" any more than I consider somewhere like Chicago Museum Campus area, I would not include that area, nor would many people, so why would people include these large gov/museum zones in DC?
Just stop right there. Apparently you've never been to Koreatown. From Koreatown to downtown you can easily get around by train and bus. When I first got off the train at Wilshire and Vermont, my first impression was; is this LA or upper Manhattan? It was very urban and very dense.
Have you seen Wilshire Corridor? A mile or something stretch of high rise condos? Wilshire also goes into downtown you know.
So please just end the ridiculous anti-LA stuff cus it's getting out of hand. The city is just as dense and urban as NYC and Chicago or any northeast city. Just cus it doesn't have skyscrapers all over town doesn't make it any less urban or dense.
Sometimes I wonder if any of you ever visited LA past 1990? The city is NOT the suburban sprawl anti pedestrian super car centered place you guys think it is. It's not Dallas or Houston.
No disrespect, but until LA becomes more dense on paper, these attacks will continue. I can appreciate LA's 8,200 plus per square mile, but it is not the 27,500 plus you see in NYC. LA is dense in comparison to cities like Washington DC, Boston and Philadelphia, which is something most people do not know. But in comparison to Chicago and New York, LA simply is not there yet. LA and Atlanta are actually quite similar. It is a "pound for pound" argument, nothing to suggest that LA is not dense.
LA is the second largest city, but as far as population densities, there are many cities more dense than LA. As one would expect with the second largest city, it has the second most densely populated areas in it's metro region, behind NY.
A better argument would be the areas of LA that are more dense than areas of NY.
LA and NYC neighborhoods go back and forth; clearly, there are parts of LA just as dense as parts of NY, but overall, NYC is 3 1/2 times as dense. I see at least 20 neighborhoods in LA that are denser than parts of NY on that list. The entire list is greater than 10,000 per square mile, which speaks volumes about LA's density, but does not explain how, with so many neighborhoods of a density greater than 10,000 per square mile, the city overall still falls below that benchmark.
It also suggests that the densest parts of LA, while denser than neighborhoods in the outer boroughs, are not closing in on Manhattan. Plus LA's real issue isn't even NY; the top four densest areas are actually in NJ.
All people are doing on C-D is making a direct comparison between Manhattan, at 70k per square mile, to LA, which does not tell the entire story. In all truth the closest LA is really coming to NY is Staten Island, if you want to go city vs. city.
The LA Metro has 27 places with a density greater than 10,000 per square mile, which is very impressive. Maywood being the most dense. But that is still less than half of the NYC Metro, with roughly half the density.
I do agree that the persistent bickering about LA vs. NY needs to stop, but the answer is even more complex than the cultural differences between both cities. LA is dense. It just is not NY dense, sort of ... One of the Cleveland, OH suburbs is more dense than LA, if people really want to go there. There are dense areas everywhere, LA just has more of them than the rest of the country outside of NY.
No disrespect, but until LA becomes more dense on paper, these attacks will continue. I can appreciate LA's 8,200 plus per square mile, but it is not the 27,500 plus you see in NYC. LA is dense in comparison to cities like Washington DC, Boston and Philadelphia, which is something most people do not know. But in comparison to Chicago and New York, LA simply is not there yet. LA and Atlanta are actually quite similar.
LA is the third largest city, but as far as population densities, there are many cities more dense than LA.
A better argument would be the areas of LA that are more dense than areas of NY.
LA and NYC neighborhoods go back and forth; clearly, there are parts of LA just as dense as parts of NY, but overall, NYC is 3 1/2 times as dense. I see at least 20 neighborhoods in LA that are denser than parts of NY on that list. The entire list is greater than 10,000 per square mile, which speaks volumes about LA's density, but does not explain how, with so many neighborhoods of a density greater than 10,000 per square mile, the city overall still falls below that benchmark.
It also suggests that the densest parts of LA, while denser than neighborhoods in the outer boroughs, are not closing in on Manhattan. Plus LA's real issue isn't even NY; the top four densest areas are actually in NJ.
All people are doing on C-D is making a direct comparison between Manhattan, at 70k per square mile, to LA, which does not tell the entire story. In all truth the closest LA is really coming to NY is Staten Island, if you want to go city vs. city.
The LA Metro has 27 places with a density greater than 10,000 per square mile, which is very impressive. Maywood being the most dense. But that is still less than half of the NYC Metro, with roughly half the density.
I agree with most of your post except for the bolded, LA actually compares favorably to Chicago, though not by much. Also second part in bolded is obviously wrong.
I'm not considering the northern areas in Philly. And I consider 2-3 area rowhouses, at least the way they are built in Philly to be very urban. You are like the only person who just tosses these areas out. They are certainly more useful than large government building deadzones and spread out which you seem to hold in high regard. I don't consider those areas to be "block after block" urban. You do, that is the difference in the numbers. I am taking out large areas of DC the same way you are taking out large residential areas. Basically what Duderino said I agree with 100%.
Chicago gets cut several times. Chicago is cut by freeways going really close to DT, it also has a large dead zone going south, then a very patchy area still to the NW of DT where Cabrini Green used to be then that runs into old industrial areas.
Yeah I have trouble undertanding how thi does not qualify as dense urban continuity
And these areas have more than just residential and are not all ingle residence by any means - many are multi unit. and this is an area with totally orgnanic mixed use - Before people even had a name for it
Now this styling has its pluses and minuses but MD may be one of the only people who does not this to be dense, continuous and urban.
MD has a form that is basically DC contruct i the model that all others are compared to and sets the frames such that it compares all to the DC development style - DC is more the outlier on many aspects due to many influences from the Gov't etc.
Going by places is misleading, there are plenty of neighborhoods of NYC denser those dense NJ cities. And the Los Angeles city limits includes some uninhabited areas. Looking at non-contiguous census tracts, the NYC urban area is much denser [ignore the London Urban Zone]
Just like SF is denser in a small zone than Chicago (but then Chicago extends far longer), the same occurs in LA, Chicago has a denser core area than LA, but then they look similar and LA for far longer. LA's main dings have historically been it's just hard to get around, not that it isn't necessarily built up. Also a few large housing zone that exists around the Wilshire Country Club for example, and their city doesn't historically revolve around DT.
Just like SF is denser in a small zone than Chicago (but then Chicago extends far longer), the same occurs in LA, Chicago has a denser core area than LA, but then they look similar and LA for far longer. LA's main dings have historically been it's just hard to get around, not that it isn't necessarily built up. Also a few large housing zone that exists around the Wilshire Country Club for example, and their city doesn't historically revolve around DT.
If we're talking the 50 sq miles of the core, LA is already denser than Chicago, however this thread has nothing to do with population density so I'm not sure why people keep bringing it up.
And these areas have more than just residential and are not all ingle residence by any means - many are multi unit. and this is an area with totally orgnanic mixed use - Before people even had a name for it
Now this styling has its pluses and minuses but MD may be one of the only people who does not this to be dense, continuous and urban.
MD has a form that is basically DC contruct i the model that all others are compared to and sets the frames such that it compares all to the DC development style - DC is more the outlier on many aspects due to many influences from the Gov't etc.
Exactly, plus the streets are narrower than (insert almost any U.S. city) It most definitely gives an intimate urban experience which is not broken up, I think the kind that most are looking for.
I agree with most of your post except for the bolded, LA actually compares favorably to Chicago, though not by much. Also second part in bolded is obviously wrong.
But there are cities and municipalities more dense than LA. Just that no one knows about them because they are only 1 square mile, and aren't known on a first name basis. You and I both know that Chicago is still more dense than LA, just not by much (only 3,000). and the case of Lakewood, OH is one of those rare anomalies because no actual city from Ohio is over 10,000 per square mile. Most in Cleveland would be surprised to hear that one of their suburbs is twice as dense than their entire city.
The thing about LA is that it is not a matter of if, but when. People are still moving into the city, which speaks for itself, so I really do not understand how these conversations digress the way they do on here.
No disrespect, but until LA becomes more dense on paper, these attacks will continue. I can appreciate LA's 8,200 plus per square mile, but it is not the 27,500 plus you see in NYC. LA is dense in comparison to cities like Washington DC, Boston and Philadelphia, which is something most people do not know. But in comparison to Chicago and New York, LA simply is not there yet. LA and Atlanta are actually quite similar. It is a "pound for pound" argument, nothing to suggest that LA is not dense.
LA is the second largest city, but as far as population densities, there are many cities more dense than LA. As one would expect with the second largest city, it has the second most densely populated areas in it's metro region, behind NY.
A better argument would be the areas of LA that are more dense than areas of NY.
LA and NYC neighborhoods go back and forth; clearly, there are parts of LA just as dense as parts of NY, but overall, NYC is 3 1/2 times as dense. I see at least 20 neighborhoods in LA that are denser than parts of NY on that list. The entire list is greater than 10,000 per square mile, which speaks volumes about LA's density, but does not explain how, with so many neighborhoods of a density greater than 10,000 per square mile, the city overall still falls below that benchmark.
It also suggests that the densest parts of LA, while denser than neighborhoods in the outer boroughs, are not closing in on Manhattan. Plus LA's real issue isn't even NY; the top four densest areas are actually in NJ.
All people are doing on C-D is making a direct comparison between Manhattan, at 70k per square mile, to LA, which does not tell the entire story. In all truth the closest LA is really coming to NY is Staten Island, if you want to go city vs. city.
The LA Metro has 27 places with a density greater than 10,000 per square mile, which is very impressive. Maywood being the most dense. But that is still less than half of the NYC Metro, with roughly half the density.
I do agree that the persistent bickering about LA vs. NY needs to stop, but the answer is even more complex than the cultural differences between both cities. LA is dense. It just is not NY dense, sort of ... One of the Cleveland, OH suburbs is more dense than LA, if people really want to go there. There are dense areas everywhere, LA just has more of them than the rest of the country outside of NY.
(Sorry OP for veering off topic).
It was actually 95 cities/neighborhoods at the last census, and over 100 now:
Added up, those 95 neighborhoods totaled 290 non-contiguous sq miles with a standard density over 14,000 ppsm--significantly less dense than NYC, but an easy #2 in this country.
The most impressive thing about NYC's urbanity/density is that it maintains it over a huge area of land--the city limits alone are more populous than all but a handful of metropolitans areas in the first world.
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.
