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.
If Atlanta is a contender, than certainly St. Louis is. Pics don't lie, and clearly its evident that St. Louis was built to be a big, dense old city. (photos courtesy of skylinescenes.com):
If Atlanta is a contender, than certainly St. Louis is. Pics don't lie, and clearly its evident that St. Louis was built to be a big, dense old city. (photos courtesy of skylinescenes.com):
According to city-data, only 25% of the housing stock in Los Feliz is SFHs, most which are located in the hillside portion of the neighborhood surrounding Griffith Park. It's those hillside communities that drag the density down for Los Feliz, as they do in Silverlake and Echo Park.
The non hillside sections of these of these neighborhoods (like Los Feliz) are easily 90% apartment buildings. This is the predominant housing stock in Central Los Angeles, NOT the single family homes that get posted every time someone wants to knock the urbanity of LA.
I'm convinced that the main issue with the urban form of L.A. is the style of buildings and the width of major streets. The streets are way too wide for the intensity of development. If the wide streets were lined with maybe 6-8 story buildings, I think it would work. But the streets are wide for no reason with the development only 2-3 stories tall.
I'm convinced that the main issue with the urban form of L.A. is the style of buildings and the width of major streets. The streets are way too wide for the intensity of development. If the wide streets were lined with maybe 6-8 story buildings, I think it would work. But the streets are wide for no reason with the development only 2-3 stories tall.
That's pretty much what you say in every thread in regards to this issue. The arguments are the same either way, it's just that while you've been saying it, each year's seen LA's population and retail density increase in the central core and more new construction or adaptive reuses and more and more people walking about on the streets (besides the homeless).
Wow St Louis has a small skyline I looked it up it only has 10 skyscrapers.
Yeah, St. Louis doesn't have a lot of skyscrapers compared to most older US cities, because there was an ordinance at one time that limited the height of buildings to no more than 2 1/2 times the width of the street on which they stand. The Arch remains the tallest structure in the city at 630 feet. That said, St. Louis does have an impressive collection of 10-20 story pre-war residential buildings spanning the entire central corridor, from downtown to Clayton.
That's pretty much what you say in every thread in regards to this issue. The arguments are the same either way, it's just that while you've been saying it, each year's seen LA's population and retail density increase in the central core and more new construction or adaptive reuses and more and more people walking about on the streets (besides the homeless).
That's a good thing. Eventually, all these 2-3 story buildings will be turned into 6-8 story buildings and it won't feel that way anymore. Wide streets are fine as long as the development along it rises high enough that a strong edge is created along it. LA is getting better everyday with all the development so it's only a matter of time.
The only place that could be argued as "Central LA" that is experiencing much construction outside those boundaries is the USC area, which is right between Exposition Park and Historic South Central on that map.
To me this says alot about how densely packed Los Angeles is and I knew it all along. And this is the 2000 census. It's probably closer to a million today. 200,000 more people packed in a smaller area than both the entire city of DC and Seattle. And this is including Griffith and Elysian Parks. No it doesn't have old row houses. It's not suppose to. But what it does have is mostly tightly packed apt bldgs. And for anyone to say its not walkable is just ridiculous.
To me this says alot about how densely packed Los Angeles is and I knew it all along. And this is the 2000 census. It's probably closer to a million today. 200,000 more people packed in a smaller area than both the entire city of DC and Seattle. And this is including Griffith and Elysian Parks. No it doesn't have old row houses. It's not suppose to. But what it does have is mostly tightly packed apt bldgs. And for anyone to say its not walkable is just ridiculous.
You know what's crazy? South LA is actually more dense:
Just barely, though the densest neighborhood is Adams-Normandy which is only 21k ppsm - in Central LA the densest neighborhood is Koreatown at 42k ppsm. There is almost zero parkland in South LA.
Also, if you combine the Eastside with Northeast LA (which is essentially what everyone considers the true "Eastside") there would be a third region of Los Angeles (one with 835k residents, one with 750k residents, one with 450k residents) with a population density well over 10k ppsm. From a sheer density standpoint, that is pretty impressive.
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.
