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 think you need to read far enough back. They were cherry picking neighborhoods in Central Los Angeles. I showed that I could do the same thing anywhere. And I was responding directly to that guy's quote who thinks the South Side off Chicago is not really that dense. I showed that there is an area of the south Side (you didn't quote when i made the edit) that is almost as dense as all of Boston at a similar population. It really had nothing to do with Boston though - it was showing him that the South Side is still fairly dense for a lot of it (relatively - for US standards).
The "cherrypicking" argument here is a bit silly. Los Angeles didn't start off as a 460 sq. mile megacity. It slowly annexed land away from Los Angeles County over the decades. The original city of Los Angeles is as dense as any city in America that isn't NYC. That's not "cherrypicking." It's simply a flat out reality that Los Angeles sustains high densities longer than anywhere outside of NYC. I'm not sure what's particularly difficult to comprehend about this.
And again, I didn't say anything about the population density of the South Side. My point is that young professionals aren't checking for the largely African American, blighted, and auto-centric parts of the city, which is why threads about Chicago focus almost exclusively on the Loop and a handful of trendy neighborhoods on its North Side. This is true for every other city we discuss on C-D. In these "who's more urban threads," we're generally focused on the meanest and leanest areas these cities have to offer.
LA is a bit of an interesting case because it has higher density primarily as a result of geography and not due to a more urban built form compared to the Northeastern cities. It's been termed "dense sprawl" but I know some may object to that.
I was saying "lots" in comparison to Baltimore. I think DC has: U Street, logan/14th, adams morgan,columbia heights, gallery place, eastern market, georgetown, and increasingly shaw, h street, mt vernon, cap riverfront, h street, and further down the line maybe sw waterfront and noma/union market.
Definitely not as cohesively vibrant as center city philly or back bay/downtown boston. But in aggregate, i think dc has more central vibrancy of any city outside the top 6. Central seattle maybe a little more cohesive than central dc, but nowhere near as big.
The reality is that once all the areas you just named begin to reach full buildout, the vibrant core of DC will surpass a few cities in the top 6. That's a 20 sq. mile core area and outside of NYC, who has a core that large? The peak intensity may not be as high in the immediate downtown area in comparison to the other cities, but most of them don't come close to the size footprint. We can thank heights limits for that though. It makes DC built up where other cities have no demand to do so.
The reality is that once all the areas you just named begin to reach full buildout, the vibrant core of DC will surpass a few cities in the top 6. That's a 20 sq. mile core area and outside of NYC, who has a core that large?
Which cities, and exactly how will DC surpass them? The term "core" can be a bit ambiguous and subjective.
A higher percentage of DC residents live in car-free households, live in walkable areas, etc. DC's population destiny isn't even that far from Chicago's, that alone should tell you how misleading city limit statistics can be.
I am sure there are some metrics on which DC beats Chicago, but we have to look at it holistically right? The fact remains that Chicago is still 10-15% denser than DC overall, despite being 4 times the size and having large areas of blight. That alone doesn't mean that Chicago must be more urban but it certainly creates a strong presumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Based on population and housing density, Central LA is more "intensely urban" than DC. It is more dense with amenities and it's safe to say it's more job dense too. Central LA's built form is more car-centric though, which gives it the appearance of being radically different from the top 6.
I said there is a sizable area of Chicago that is more intensely urban than "anything in DC". Put another way, the most urban parts of Chicago are more urban than the most urban parts of DC (some would argue, much more urban). I don't think you can say that about LA.
LA has by far the greatest aggregate density, but it is a very nodal city. Being nodal isn't necessarily a bad thing, as Tokyo or London are also nodal. But unlike those cities, LA's nodes are not tied together by contiguous walkable urbanism between the nodes. In my mind, that makes LA more a collection of adjoining cities than a comprehensive urban city like NYC or Chicago. As such, it is really hard to rank. It has far more urban walkable areas than DC or Seattle, but they aren't as integrated together as more traditional urban cities like DC and Sea.
Very well put. The boulevards tie the nodes together, and while once upon a time the majority of them had streetcars running down them, these days they are mostly auto oriented and have far too many strip malls. In my opinion, the best thing LA could do to better tie those nodes together would be to develop a set of urban design standards for the boulevards, creating connections between LA's urban nodes that are themselves also urban.
Density is not the issue. Whenever a strip mall bites the dust its replaced with a 7+ story apartment building. But too frequently the new buildings have no ground floor retail, too many curb cuts, wide setbacks, wide hedges or planting areas, parking that isn't tucked away in the back, etc. Some urban design standards with teeth would go a long way to ensuring that we begin to repair these streets and make them live up to their potential.
Downtown LA already has rigorous design standards in place- at least for the Historic Core. Its one of the reasons I live there. Its urban and vibrant and becoming more so day by day. But yeah--it would be great if these standards could be extended outside DTLA to the places like Wilshire Blvd, Vermont Blvd, Santa Monica Blvd, Sunset Blvd, Sepulveda Blvd, Lincoln Blvd, Ventura Blvd, etc. It would make a world of difference in how the city feels and would really tie it together. I suppose that's what the mayor is trying to do with his "Great Streets" initiative, but it feels piecemeal and some of the plans have already been neutered by city councilmembers pandering to their constituents. Don't get me started on LA's power structure. Councilmembers wield far too much power and the mayor not nearly enough. NYC, you don't know how good you have it.
The reality is that once all the areas you just named begin to reach full buildout, the vibrant core of DC will surpass a few cities in the top 6. That's a 20 sq. mile core area and outside of NYC, who has a core that large? The peak intensity may not be as high in the immediate downtown area in comparison to the other cities, but most of them don't come close to the size footprint. We can thank heights limits for that though. It makes DC built up where other cities have no demand to do so.
I think that makes sense. Bos/SF/Philly are like mini-NYs, DC is becoming like a mini-Paris. Paris doesn't have the peak intensities of NYC, but sustains it density further. NYC goes from having more peak density in Manhattan to having less density in close in Brooklyn/Queens. The net result, is the peak 45 miles or so come out pretty similar in terms of total activity. Paris doesn't have areas as structurally dense as Midtown Manhattan, but it also doesn't have an areas as un-dense (relativity speaking) as Brownston Brooklyn. No high rises, but also no 3-story brownstones, it's 5-7 story flats across the board.
Taking the analogy back to DC vs. Boston, Boston always going to have a much higher peak urbanism in it's top 5-10 miles. It's always going to have more of the traditional "big city" mixed use downtown, which then gives way to dense surrounding residential neighborhoods (Allston, South Boston, East Boston, Cambridge, Brookline, JP, Dorchester). If DC continues to grow faster than Boston, it could go the same. No areas as dense as North End or Downtown Crossing or Back Bay, but there will be 8-10 story apartment buildings in areas that in Boston would be solidly tripple decker territory. Then net result, it that the 20 mile cores will be roughly the same. Just Boston will have higher peaks in the core 10 miles, while DC will have a more even distribution across the 20 miles.
Also, when it comes to Paris, literally every building except civic buildings are apartments/condos. In NYC, that's not really the case...lots of buildings are only commercial especially in the outer boroughs. I mean, 55k ppsm average density over 43 square miles is pretty insane. Paris has to be the best planned city in the world. There's a reason I said it was more walkable than NYC earlier. Even on Manhattan, there are some not so great to walk places, particularly the lower Eastside and the commie blocks. Paris does not have that at all.
Very well put. The boulevards tie the nodes together, and while once upon a time the majority of them had streetcars running down them, these days they are mostly auto oriented and have far too many strip malls. In my opinion, the best thing LA could do to better tie those nodes together would be to develop a set of urban design standards for the boulevards, creating connections between LA's urban nodes that are themselves also urban.
Density is not the issue. Whenever a strip mall bites the dust its replaced with a 7+ story apartment building. But too frequently the new buildings have no ground floor retail, too many curb cuts, wide setbacks, wide hedges or planting areas, parking that isn't tucked away in the back, etc. Some urban design standards with teeth would go a long way to ensuring that we begin to repair these streets and make them live up to their potential.
Downtown LA already has rigorous design standards in place- at least for the Historic Core. Its one of the reasons I live there. Its urban and vibrant and becoming more so day by day. But yeah--it would be great if these standards could be extended outside DTLA to the places like Wilshire Blvd, Vermont Blvd, Santa Monica Blvd, Sunset Blvd, Sepulveda Blvd, Lincoln Blvd, Ventura Blvd, etc. It would make a world of difference in how the city feels and would really tie it together. I suppose that's what the mayor is trying to do with his "Great Streets" initiative, but it feels piecemeal and some of the plans have already been neutered by city councilmembers pandering to their constituents. Don't get me started on LA's power structure. Councilmembers wield far too much power and the mayor not nearly enough. NYC, you don't know how good you have it.
Well put.
Eschaton, one of the biggest issues with trying to provide a nice, dense, walkable corridor in Los Angeles is how pock-marked Los Angeles is with auto-centric uses. While so much more of Los Angeles has pedestrian-focused, street-facing retail than most unfamiliar with the city would expect, it seems like 1 in 3 is too auto-centric for what should be a highly urban environment.
Here's a great example in Los Feliz. From this view, it looks very urban and walkable. Turn the view 360 degrees and its a big blank wall, and behind that blank wall is a ton of surface parking. However, I believe there is a major project planned for that lot.
And the residential looks wildly different compared to traditional East Coast/Midwest urban vernacular, and understandably looks less dense and urban than it actually is to those folks. Personally I don't see much wrong with the architectural/design of LA apartment buildings, other than the outrageous parking requirements. The real issue is, as DistrictDirt explains, the commercial boulevards linking the walkable nodes and high-density residential neighborhoods.
I would also like to add that the common stereotype of LA having lots of walkable nodes separated by miles of sprawl is a bit of a fallacy. Rarely can you go more than a few blocks without hitting a walkable area.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,550,614 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1
Again parts of DC are urban but other parts look like Bowman SC. So DC 6th? I just don't think so.
Lol Bowman SC, that's a good one i actually had to crack up over here, however, not accurate by any stretch. Los Angeles on the other hand, does have parts in it's city proper that are about equal to Winter Park, FL...
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.
)
