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.
There are more LA hoods that are technically walkable, because any hood with a sidewalk is walkable, and LA is bigger and CA tends to have sidewalks in all types of neighborhoods.
But LA doesn't really have high quality walkable neighborhoods.
What on earth are you talking about? You have no idea. Please explain.
Seriously????? You think these streets look and feel more walkable than the streets in DC?? The links that I put up aren't even the residential parts of each street (the majority of each street), which to be honest look like they could belong in just about any old suburb.
There are more LA hoods that are technically walkable, because any hood with a sidewalk is walkable, and LA is bigger and CA tends to have sidewalks in all types of neighborhoods.
But LA doesn't really have high quality walkable neighborhoods.
Forget about The Valley (well, most of it anyway).
But the rest of LA DOES have high quality walkable neighborhoods. Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Silver Lake, Echo Park, Downtown, Hollywood, East Hollywood, Los Feliz, Eagle Rock, Venice, Culver City. I mean, come on!
The problem with LA compared to cities like New York and Chicago is that most of the walkable neighborhoods aren't as well connected to each other as those cities are....creating the idea that many people live in a "bubble" in their neighborhoods. Yes, it's a super spread out city. But that's changing as a (slow but efficient) train now connects Downtown to many other hoods throughout the city.
I don't know what you mean by "high quality", because I disagree.
I agree that DT DT is pretty well integrated into the surrounding residential streets. It's more or less on par with Bos/SF/Philly in that regard and quite a bit better than Chicago
I would also say that it is a little hard to argue that there is a "big 5" that runs from NYC down to Bos. Although, I think Boston is more urban than DC on a number of measures (density, contiguous core vibrancy, architecture/built environment). It is a bit of a stretch to say the Bos is more like NYC than DC.
A more reasonable scheme might be:
tier 1: NYC tier 2: Chicago- huge and urban, but not as big or urban as NYC. tier 3: Bos, SF, Philly- more tightly built and cohesive than Chicago, but nowhere near the same size. tier 3a: DC- roughly similar scale to their 3. But, not as dense, contiguously vibrant, or architecturally urban. tier 4: Seattle, maybe Baltimore- two polar opposites (in pretty much everyway) that end up in a roughly similar places (for the time being). Below the big traditional urban cities in density,transit, etc, but above pretty much everywhere else. Seattle is racing ahead by the day, it's very possible Seattle may graduate to full 3a: territory. But for now, it's probably closer to Baltimore than Boston or even DC. tier 5: Portland, Pittsburgh, New Orleans - these are more honorable mentions. They all have great character and a few urban neighborhoods, but aren't really truly dense and urban like the others. Maybe a couple other cities could be included: SD, Denver, etc. tier 6: everywhere else- most cities are improving their downtowns and creating a walkable "yuppie" neighborhood or two. But for the most part, the action in most US cities remains in the suburbs and the car is king. Perhaps this could be split out between cities that are doing a particular good job and those that aren't. unrankable: LA and Miami- lots of density. But just too polycentric and qualitatively different from the other urban cities. The good news is they have the density, so they should be able to transition their cities in to more urban places easier than the other sunbelt towns.
Seriously????? You think these streets look and feel more walkable than the streets in DC?? The links that I put up aren't even the residential parts of each street (the majority of each street), which to be honest look like they could belong in just about any old suburb.
You sre clueless
Those are long blvds, and you picked stretches i didnt even talk about.
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 Freddy K
Lol. Sure.
And santa monica, bh, west hollywood are la as it gets.
Wh was apart la la until the early 80s.
In this part of la you hsve
Melrose
3rd
Brverly blvd
robertson
Santa monica blvd
sunset strip
golden triwngle
beverly drive
Parts of
Labrea
fairfax
That are loaded with restauranrs and shops (many upscale
that sre walkable.
Dude you must think I was born yesterday. I was just in LA/ West Hollywood last month in that same area "riding around" in a car with my friend and catching ubers. Those are just adjacent streets your naming that run east-west in a grid. They are not more walk-albe than 14th st/ Adams Morgan/ U st/ Shaw in DC, nor Columbia Heights nor upper Wisconsin Avenue nor anywhere like Chinatown, Georgetown, Penn Quarter etc. DC is more compact and it feels like that when walking through the city. Your not going to win this topic on walk ability plain and simple, no matter how much you try to make it seem you know more about LA than we do.
I did walk from the Grove up Fairfax some but that's about all I could take. There are storefronts on all the streets your talking about yes, but to get from point a to point b out there is extremely spread out and not easy on the legs.
Last edited by the resident09; 07-21-2016 at 06:30 PM..
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,550,614 times
Reputation: 5785
When I go to NYC, I take my Megabus ticket and a MetroCard, cause I know I'm going to be walking from the moment I leave Union Station. When I go to LA I take $225 with me for gas money and Ubers, because I already know what to expect. More walkable than DC??? You people have got to be kidding me!
Dude you must think I was born yesterday. I was just in LA/ West Hollywood last month in that same area "riding around" in a car with my friend and catching ubers. Those are just adjacent streets your naming that run east-west in a grid. They are not more walk-albe that 14th st/ Adams Morgan/ U st/ Shaw in DC, nor Columbia Heights nor upper Wisconsin Avenue nor anywhere like Chinatown, Georgetown, Penn Quarter etc. DC is more compact and it feels like that when walking through the city. Your not going to win this topic on walk ability plain and simple, no matter how much you try to make it seem you know more about LA than we do.
I did walk from the Grove up Fairfax some but that's about all I could take, there are storefronts on all the streets your talking about yes, but to get from point a to point b out there is extremely spread out and not easy on the legs.
When I go to NYC, I take my Megabus ticket and a MetroCard, cause I know I'm going to be walking from the moment I leave Union Station. When I go to LA I take $225 with me for gas money and Ubers, because I already know what to expect. More walkable than DC??? You people have got to be kidding me!
It has more walkablle commercial areas, which only dc people disagree with.
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.
