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.
By Central LA I meant the relatively urban center of the city, in the 50 square miles range as per the LA Times article. And sure parts of the hills in Los Feliz and much of Silver Lake isn't very dense (although parts of Los Feliz are) but neither are certain areas in the Central areas of other cities (Georgetown for example).
These terms are relatively arbitrary so I'm not sure exactly what you mean by urban core but the core "Downtown" area is really just DTLA and the stretch of Wilshire Center in Koreatown. There's lots of dense neighborhoods around that though, up to Hollywood, out to Santa Monica and down through South Central
Oh, I didn't mean dense stats from the census bureau off the internet. I mean't density you can see and feel on the street through the built environment. I was comparing neighborhoods like downtown LA which is very urban to this kind of neighborhood which seems more suburban in built form.
These can't be considered core neighborhoods. When you say Central LA, are you talking about the urban core?
I think you're getting stuck on building typology. Look a bit closer at those streetviews and adjacent blocks. Yes, you don't have walls of rowhomes like you do in east coast cities, but the lot sizes are quite small and there are many apartment building mixed in with the single family homes. The population density for Los Feliz is 13,512 ppsm, and for Silverlake its 11,266. This is similar to neighborhoods in DC like Shaw and Ledroit Park, for example.
I think you're getting stuck on building typology. Look a bit closer at those streetviews and adjacent blocks. Yes, you don't have walls of rowhomes like you do in east coast cities, but the lot sizes are quite small and there are many apartment building mixed in with the single family homes. The population density for Los Feliz is 13,512 ppsm, and for Silverlake its 11,266. This is similar to neighborhoods in DC like Shaw and Ledroit Park, for example.
But it doesn't feel or look urban. Walking on those streets wouldn't feel anything like walking in Shaw or Ledroit Park. I guess the confusing part of this for me is what the population density stats from the census bureau have to do with how the neighborhood feels. If someone is walking through a neighborhood, they are going to get a vibe from that neighborhood. The vibe they get is not going to change based on the stats for the neighborhood off of factfinder.
Agreed... none of the other cities mentioned (except Baltimore, which I'll get to) are really very close to Seattle, and including Atlanta is laughable. In my opinion Seattle and Baltimore are clearly numbers 8 and 9 in either order. As you point out, Downtown Seattle is undeniably much more lively and dense than Downtown Baltimore. However, it is equally undeniable that Baltimore has a much more urban "fabric" that extends over a much larger area with a larger population. So it's hard to say one is certainly ahead of the other
Yeah, I have always been under the impression that Seattle is the only city in the US outside LA and the traditional top 6 that really offers a "buzzy, big city feel." (Granted on a much smaller scale than CHI,SF,PHILLY or even BOS and DC).
Baltimore is more "old school" urban than Seattle. But has less of a buzzy, vibrant big city core. Bmore's miles upon miles of rowhouses are cool to see, but on the ground many of them aren't particularly vibrant. Plus, Seattle is growing by the day which is only furthering the vibrancy gap.
Denver and Minneapolis are nice places to live and have nice downtowns with some retail and residences, but aren't really "urban big cities" with a critical mass of active street life, taxis, urban retail/restaurants/bars, etc.
Atl is making some progress in midtown and has some nice residential infill, but is still very much a sun-belt city. If you go there looking for an urban, walking/people watching vacation you are going to leave disappointed.
SD and Portland are perhaps more interesting urban destinations than the others. But, it is mostly for the ocean and weather in SDs case. From an urban standpoint, the city is pretty much on par with Den/Minn. Portland has a quirky/organic vibe. But, the city feels more like a big college town than a major urban city. New Orleans also has a cool vibe, but it is really only in the small touristy zone.
Perhaps a case could be made for Miami joining the 8 others as the US's "big urban cities." Sort of like LA it has a few vibrant pedestrian zones, an up and coming downtown and aggregate high densities. Hard to say, if downtown Miami were more walkable and had a better streetlevel experience it would be easier to make a case for it. I always go back on forth on whether it is a "well rounded" urban center or more of a SD/NO-style vacation city.
Yeah, I have always been under the impression that Seattle is the only city in the US outside LA and the traditional top 6 that really offers a "buzzy, big city feel." (Granted on a much smaller scale than CHI,SF,PHILLY or even BOS and DC).
Baltimore is more "old school" urban than Seattle. But has less of a buzzy, vibrant big city core. Bmore's miles upon miles of rowhouses are cool to see, but on the ground many of them aren't particularly vibrant. Plus, Seattle is growing by the day which is only furthering the vibrancy gap.
Denver and Minneapolis are nice places to live and have nice downtowns with some retail and residences, but aren't really "urban big cities" with a critical mass of active street life, taxis, urban retail/restaurants/bars, etc.
Atl is making some progress in midtown and has some nice residential infill, but is still very much a sun-belt city. If you go there looking for an urban, walking/people watching vacation you are going to leave disappointed.
SD and Portland are perhaps more interesting urban destinations than the others. But, it is mostly for the ocean and weather in SDs case. From an urban standpoint, the city is pretty much on par with Den/Minn. Portland has a quirky/organic vibe. But, the city feels more like a big college town than a major urban city. New Orleans also has a cool vibe, but it is really only in the small touristy zone.
Perhaps a case could be made for Miami joining the 8 others as the US's "big urban cities." Sort of like LA it has a few vibrant pedestrian zones, an up and coming downtown and aggregate high densities. Hard to say, if downtown Miami were more walkable and had a better streetlevel experience it would be easier to make a case for it.
Thi makes a lot of sense - To me the Baltimore vs Seattle comparison is sort of Seattle peaks higher but with a smaller more intense urban footprint. When comparing the places if limited to DT then Seattle on the cities overall Baltimore is more urban albeit more blighted without as high of a central core apex (that sid Baltimore is not exactly bad in this sense especially compared to most other US cities. Cleveland to me is one that is quietly becoming intertesting in the core and vibrant and has little mention - if judeged on the Apex Cleveland is driving that way albeit probably not the next most.
To you. Because you're viewing it through the lens of Washington DC, which has completely different building typologies, different urban design, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Walking on those streets wouldn't feel anything like walking in Shaw or Ledroit Park. I guess the confusing part of this for me is what the population density stats from the census bureau have to do with how the neighborhood feels. If someone is walking through a neighborhood, they are going to get a vibe from that neighborhood. The vibe they get is not going to change based on the stats for the neighborhood off of factfinder.
And the vibe they get is going be determined from actually walking those streets, not via Google Streetview. Los Feliz for example, feels quite urban and cosmopolitan in person. There are lots of bars, cafes, theaters, and shops on Vermont, Hillhurst, and Sunset Blvds, not to mention LA's best bookstore and the gorgeous Egyptian revival Vista Theater. Many of the bars visited in the film Swingers are actually in Los Feliz. And if you live on one of those sidestreets from the streetviews you posted, you are a 5 minute walk from all that stuff. Sounds pretty urban to me.
These can't be considered core neighborhoods. When you say Central LA, are you talking about the urban core?
I would wager that 80-85% of the housing stock in Central LA is multi-unit structures. Amazing how posters manage to find them every time they post streetviews of LA.
"Central LA" isn't really a core either, it's a 47 sq mile equivalent to small cities like DC, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. Using this area makes comparisons easier. Of course it isn't 100% urban development, none of the above cities are 100% urban in their city limits either.
I would wager that 80-85% of the housing stock in Central LA is multi-unit structures. Amazing how posters manage to find them every time they post streetviews of LA.
"Central LA" isn't really a core either, it's a 47 sq mile equivalent to small cities like DC, San Francisco, Seattle, etc. Using this area makes comparisons easier. Of course it isn't 100% urban development, none of the above cities are 100% urban in their city limits either.
I wasn't trying to find a street that didn't look urban. That whole neighborhood looks like that for the most part. I was really trying to see what the boundaries for LA's urban core were. D.C.'s is about 25 sq. mile's before you get single family homes.
To you. Because you're viewing it through the lens of Washington DC, which has completely different building typologies, different urban design, etc.
And the vibe they get is going be determined from actually walking those streets, not via Google Streetview. Los Feliz for example, feels quite urban and cosmopolitan in person. There are lots of bars, cafes, theaters, and shops on Vermont, Hillhurst, and Sunset Blvds, not to mention LA's best bookstore and the gorgeous Egyptian revival Vista Theater. Many of the bars visited in the film Swingers are actually in Los Feliz. And if you live on one of those sidestreets from the streetviews you posted, you are a 5 minute walk from all that stuff. Sounds pretty urban to me.
Seems like way too much grass and setbacks to be urban though. These neighborhoods look like Takoma outside of the urban core in D.C. which isn't urban like Logan Circle etc.
Within the same tier as the cities I listed, yea. Seattle is not in the same tier as LA and DC. Not really much to argue here. Look up contiguous or accessible blobs of place with the retail, job, and residential density and Seattle is closer to the others.
Atlanta is closer to Seattle than Seattle is to LA. Atlanta's also a larger metro and it pulls something similar to what LA does in the tier above where there's proportionally much more sprawl, but the urban walkable parts sum up to something somewhat in the range of what the other cities listed have. Seattle is more urban/walkable than Atlanta is, but they overall aren't that far apart (unless we're talking as a proportion of their metros). It helps that Atlanta has sweet, sweet heavy rail. Seattle's nice though.
As for Portland, yea, it doesn't feel nearly as cosmopolitan as Seattle but it's got a better transit system and is wonderfully walkable.
Also, what is this high end luxury crap? Upscale malls in suburbia can have high end boutique stores. I don't see it's relevance when talking about urban/walkable.
Seattle has a far better mixed-use urban district than either LA or DC in that it combines one of the highest office worker densities with one of the highest residential densities. It has a fairly sizable collection of neighborhoods of high density/nightlife/walkability to a scale that really isn't all that less than DC. We're talking 8K ppsm vs 10.5K ppsm over a similar area. Both cities are pretty leafy green relative to San Francisco, which is now over 18K ppsm. I mean when people quote names of popular neighborhoods that come to define either city, the city's most desirable neighborhoods, both Seattle and DC each have a few that come to mind. Neither city has the sheer abundance of dense, highly popular neighborhoods that SF or Chicago have.
DC is just now getting there by building residential in the office areas and creating mixed-use districts, but Seattle's downtown is considerably further along than DC's in my opinion, while DC's outer neighborhoods aren't all that significantly further along than Seattle's. And both are building up in incredible amounts (and growing similarly rapidly, with Seattle growing slightly faster).
The point about high end retail is to point out that Seattle is urban/downtown-centric. The core of its shopping is arguably downtown! Sure there is Bellevue (probably the closest similarity Seattle has with Atlanta is how similar those two districts are to each other), but Seattle has one of the top downtown shopping experiences in North America. It's similar in scope if not a little larger than what Philadelphia has.
It takes a lot to get Americans to go downtown, let alone shop there. Seattle's downtown is the focal point of the region, not the suburbs.
The only place Seattle lacks in relative to DC or LA is having big city heavy rail. But when you look at modeshare, it beats out even LA's densest, most central spots. More people walk, bike, and take transit to work in Seattle despite not having a heavy rail or significant LRT/commuter rail system. That speaks volumes, to me.
I lived for years in Midtown Atlanta and was just there again. Sure there are some shiny new buildings atop some monstrous parking garages (an urban form you just won't find in Seattle except for maybe 2 older buildings out of dozens and dozens of residential high rises), but Midtown Atlanta is an absolute activity desert relative to Seattle. A few people here and there on the sidewalks. Some restaurants that do well. A few shops that are probably struggling (and no nationals). Sporadic office towers with 10+ level garages next to them.
I like Midtown better than I like Brickell in Miami. I think Midtown is great for the south. But Atlanta's busiest neighborhood and its shining star of big city urbanism is quieter than almost *any* neighborhood in Seattle at this point, let alone Seattle's inner core, which is just about as big city as it gets here in America.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
I'd also argue about Denver and Atlanta having the same urban set up. Seems to me Denver is much more in line with Western metros like Portland, Salt Lake City, Seattle, even San Diego. Atlanta is squarely a Southern city, though it probably has the most urban core of the "traditionally" Southern cities (Miami is almost more like a Western style).
The two cities are unbelievably similar. Even architecturally. You'd be surprised. Denver is far more progressive and whereas Atlanta is all talk with doing anything multi-modal, Denver already has Union Station/LoDo. But overall, the two cities are sooooo similar. The differences are nuances and subtleties. Denver somehow just does things better. A lot better. They do the same exact things, but it comes down to one just doing them better.
The whole Beltline thing in Atlanta - that's also basically been done in Denver, too, between DT and Cherry Creek. Cherry Creek is like the Buckhead of Denver, but a tad smaller and a lot more walkable with neighborhoods that are better integrated into it.
In terms of downtown, much like Atlanta's, Denver's downtown is tiered with an Uptown, Midtown, and LoDo...it's "elongated". Probably about equal in terms of downtown residential towers/residents, but Denver has done a MUCH better job making its downtown livable.
Not trying to poke at Atlanta - it's a shining beacon for the SE, but the western cities really do things so much better than their counterparts. Leagues better, in my opinion.
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.
