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.
Koreatown does not have a lot of heavy pedestrian traffic. If I stood on a random street corner in Koreatown, and compared to pedestrian traffic at Hollywood/Highland, Wilshire/Rodeo, or 3rd Street in SM, there would be no comparison. In fact there is no equivalent corner anywhere in Koreatown.
Yet, at the same time, Koreatown has higher population density than all these places. That's why you can't blindly look at density. I would much rather live a pedestrian/bike/transit oriented lifestyle in SM than in Koreatown.
Density is density, and should be considered in full, but Central/Westside LA are not the areas I'm talking about. Most of the areas around downtown that have the highest density have higher-than-average per-unit density.
And LA's Koreatown, while dense, is a good illustration that you can't blindly just take density stats at face-value. It's still a very auto-oriented neighborhood with limited pedestrian activity. It does not have the same quality of urban form as a Santa Monica, Hollywood or even Beverly Hills, despite higher density.
Disagree, as a whole there is more pedestrian activity in Koreatown. Beverly Hills and Santa Monica have good pedestrian activity in their CBDs, but they are much quieter outside those areas (and Beverly Hills is lot more dense than than people think Google Maps Street View). You're far more likely to see pedestrians along non-commercial corridors in Ktown, to say nothing of Wilshire Boulevard/6th street/3rd street, which makes sense since it has two heavy rail lines running through the neighborhood. There is no golden triangle/3rd street promenade tourist magnet equivalent in Ktown however.
This isn't directed at you, but Koreatown is the perfect example of the failure of using google maps as an argument.
. You want a multilevel shopping place like that try the Beverly Center in West LA. The parts that reminded me a bit of NYC, especially upper manhattan like Washington Heights or something similar was Koreatown and downtown.
Beverly Center sits on top of a giant parking garage, has free parking with validation, and is surrounded by strip malls. It's a total auto-oriented format. To me, doesn't seem very similar to typical shopping in Manhattan.
[color=black][font=Verdana]I did the leg work for everyone so people can actually see how large 5 miles X 2 miles really is. Continuous urban development based on the most intense urban design assessed through built environment and structural density is as follows for the top 6 cities in America:
Your map of DC seemed out of scale compared to the rest of the selections, as the area you selected in DC would only take 2.5 hours walking, compared to 4-5 hours in the other selections.
Beverly Center sits on top of a giant parking garage, has free parking with validation, and is surrounded by strip malls. It's a total auto-oriented format. To me, doesn't seem very similar to typical shopping in Manhattan.
Now that's just asking for too much. So because there is a parking garage underneath it its not urban?
The contiguous, green-shaded areas of these cities demonstrates contiguous walkability.
I can agree with that, Miami is a bit too high though. I know this might be an unpopular opinion, but Philadelphia has the infrastructure and bones to be the 2nd largest continuous walkable area in the US (after Brooklyn-Queens), with little to obstructions from geography or industry like Chicago has. Not saying it would be the densest, but it would be at that threshold where it would be perfectly functioning walkability.
I know this might be an unpopular opinion, but Philadelphia has the infrastructure and bones to be the 2nd largest continuous walkable area in the US (after Brooklyn-Queens), with little to obstructions from geography or industry like Chicago has. Not saying it would be the densest, but it would be at that threshold where it would be perfectly functioning walkability.
I agree with this. Depending on how you look at the question, Philly could be #2 for contiguous walkability. It won't be the highest density, but it will be contiguous, dense, and walkable.
Now that's just asking for too much. So because there is a parking garage underneath it its not urban?
Within the few blocks leading up to it, yes, but walk any direction away and its plain to see that people are either driving to get there or catching a bus. I've walked there on Sat afternoons in 75 degree weather, and could count on one hand the amount of people I've seen doing the same. It's not similar to SF, Boston, Chicago, Philly, or DC, let alone Manhattan.
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.
