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 didn't say we didn't walk anywhere. I said that we were not willing to walk as far as we did in SF because it is not as pedestrian-friendly across as wide an area.
It's not simply that San Francisco is smaller. It has a completely different urban fabric. I'm not sure why L.A. posters always seem mystified whenever people point this out.
For most, I would venture say it's an ego thing.
For some reason, it seems unfathomable to them that the 2nd most populated city really isn't being given a ranking of that nature for urbanity.
Because that is a huge factor. SF is basically the size DTLA+Koreatown. Plus, the tourist districts are much further apart in LA than SF. I don't think anybody would deny SF is more walkable than LA so I don't see how I'm mystified being that we have already established that LA is more spread out of various nodes of different sizes.
I think your assumption is that all combined 7 sq. miles of DTLA/Koreatown is a walkable paradise. Walking within any given 7 sq. miles of Los Angeles is not the same as walking within any given 7 sq. miles of San Francisco.
I think your assumption is that all combined 7 sq. miles of DTLA/Koreatown is a walkable paradise. Walking within any given 7 sq. miles of Los Angeles is not the same as walking within any given 7 sq. miles of San Francisco.
It's not a walkable paradise cause there are hills and a lot of it is rundown. SF I agree is much nicer to walk around if we compared the same sqft. but again we already established that we are comparing cities outside the top 5 which SF is part of that 5.
I mean it's random that I picked a random corner of DT Santa Monica. Yes, there are parts of Santa Monica that are not in Downtown that don't look like this but I was just pointing to Downtown Santa Monica because he was asking about an area that's walkable within 1 sq mile.
Santa Monica isn't particularly urban or walkable. The downtown pedestrian mall and beach areas are highly walkable, but that's a few blocks. And even those areas are dominated by a car-oriented mall with a giant parking garage with free parking.
The rest of the city isn't notably urban or walker friendly.
I will say however, that that is the main difference between an east coast city and Los Angeles as there are hubs all througout the county that are accessible depning on where you live.
But that isn't a difference, as the East Coast has urban, walkable suburban activity nodes too, just like LA. Heck, likely proportionally more than LA.
There are far more urban, walkable suburbs in the NYC area than in LA. Westchester County, with just 1/3 the population of Orange County, probably has 10 times as many old school urban, transit oriented nodes.
Santa Monica, if a NYC suburb, wouldn't be considered particularly urban or walkable. It isn't more urban/walkable than suburbs like Long Beach or New Rochelle or Stamford or White Plains.
No. Relative size has nothing to do with relative urbanity/walkability.
Venice is one of the most urban/walkable places on the planet (arguably THE most walkable place on the planet), and would basically be a small neighborhood in LA.
But that isn't a difference, as the East Coast has urban, walkable suburban activity nodes too, just like LA. Heck, likely proportionally more than LA.
There are far more urban, walkable suburbs in the NYC area than in LA. Westchester County, with just 1/3 the population of Orange County, probably has 10 times as many old school urban, transit oriented nodes.
Santa Monica, if a NYC suburb, wouldn't be considered particularly urban or walkable. It isn't more urban/walkable than suburbs like Long Beach or New Rochelle or Stamford or White Plains.
There are thousands of areas I would consider urban, even well within the top 5, but comparing them to NYC makes them seem much less so. That does not mean they are not urban.
IMO, Santa Monica, while not having an EC built form, is definitely more urban and vibrant than an area like DuPont Circle. Walkable? Maybe not in the sense that we keep discussing here, but it's definitely a very urban area.
But that isn't a difference, as the East Coast has urban, walkable suburban activity nodes too, just like LA. Heck, likely proportionally more than LA.
There are far more urban, walkable suburbs in the NYC area than in LA. Westchester County, with just 1/3 the population of Orange County, probably has 10 times as many old school urban, transit oriented nodes.
Santa Monica, if a NYC suburb, wouldn't be considered particularly urban or walkable. It isn't more urban/walkable than suburbs like Long Beach or New Rochelle or Stamford or White Plains.
LA isn't going to compare so favorably with NYC--nor would any of the other four cities in the top five. Long Beach is walkable, but not more so or equal to Santa Monica especially given that Santa Monica's most walkable parts are contiguous with the most walkable parts of Venice Beach and they form a pretty good node.
LA isn't going to compare so favorably with NYC--nor would any of the other four cities in the top five. Long Beach is walkable, but not more so or equal to Santa Monica especially given that Santa Monica's most walkable parts are contiguous with the most walkable parts of Venice Beach and they form a pretty good node.
I don't see how SM is more walkable than LB. LB is 100% walkable, parts of SM are not that walkable. The beach areas of both are similarly walkable, but there's no highway in LB like in SM, and there isn't a giant car-oriented shopping mall in LB like in SM. LB is certainly more rail-oriented than SM.
Both cities have plenty of midrise condos, street-facing retail and mid-level density.
SM is reasonably walkable and has a nice pedestrian mall, but honestly, the fact that we're talking about SM in terms of urbanity/walkability just shows how poorly LA fares on both counts, at least on a relative basis.
IMO, Santa Monica, while not having an EC built form, is definitely more urban and vibrant than an area like DuPont Circle.
How is this even possible? The centerpiece of SM is a giant suburban shopping mall, with a giant attached free parking garage. There are no real urban parts of SM except right along the Third Street Promenade.
In contrast, DuPont Circle is about as dense/urban as almost any neighborhood in the U.S. outside of NYC.
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.
