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 by "very walkable" you mean "quite autocentric and unwalkable compared to older East Coast neighborhoods", I'll agree. Otherwise, no.
Koreatown is an auto-dominated neighborhood. The vast majority of households own vehicles, despite the neighborhood being quite poor. There's little pedestrian traffic, and little transit ridership. It's just fairly dense for U.S. standards.
Long Beach and Santa Monica are similarly dense, urban and walkable. I see zero reason to argue otherwise. There is no objective criteria to the contrary, and no one has offered a counterargument.
What are you trying to argue here? Are you saying 2006 data is too old?
The most current Census data still shows Koreatown to be 1. Poor, 2. Hispanic and 3. Large family sizes. Nothing has changed. If anything, the neighborhood has gotten slightly poorer and more Hispanic over time.
Sure LB and SM are the same. It's why nobody else has agreed to this.
But seeing how other respond to your opinions, it's pretty common.
No, you're making up stuff again. Your links show the Kanto region vs. Manhattan. If anything, your link shows that NYC has far more restaurants per capita.
The Kanto region is bigger than even Metropolitan Tokyo. Manhattan is just the city center of NYC. You are comparing 33 million people in Kanto to 1.6 million in Manhattan. So basically your own source shows that NYC has 3x the restaurants of Tokyo per capita.
Yes, it was. And there's nothing in Midtown remotely as non-dense as that area.
Exactly. That was my point. Midtown has no such arterials. None. In Tokyo they're the norm.
Except that both numbers are made-up. The official Tokyo population is 8.9 million per the most recent Census data (2015).
No it's not the Kanto region at all (according to Trip Advisor Kanto has 210,000K restaurants and I guarantee you many hole in the walls are missed in that count).- 88,000 is for Tokyo proper. Shinjuku alone has 8,000 restaurants! (See link below). That's nearly the total of Manhattan in one Tokyo neighborhood a fraction of the size of Manhattan. https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaura...ure_Kanto.html
And here's an article from CNN talking about how Tokyo has the most Michelin starred restaurants in the world by a long shot. 226. Paris is number two with 94. NYC is nowhere close. Do you know why Tokyo has so many Michelin-started restaurants? Because of the sheer quantity of restaurants. Chefs in the article note that: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/12/foodan...est-food-city/
You really have no idea what you're talking about. You've clearly never been to Tokyo. There are literally sometimes 100 commercial businesses in one 8 story building. Tokyo also has the largest red light district in Asia, which is saying a lot. And Tokyo is made up of mostly small narrow streets jam packed with restaurants, shops, izakayas, bars, etc. The arterials are wide, but so are NYCs. Again - you held up Barcelona as an example of a more urban city. Tokyo has the same density level as Barcelona with nearly 9 times the population. You gotta stop commenting on places you've never been to and have no clue about.
If by "very walkable" you mean "quite autocentric and unwalkable compared to older East Coast neighborhoods", I'll agree. Otherwise, no.
Koreatown is an auto-dominated neighborhood. The vast majority of households own vehicles, despite the neighborhood being quite poor. There's little pedestrian traffic, and little transit ridership. It's just fairly dense for U.S. standards.
Long Beach and Santa Monica are similarly dense, urban and walkable. I see zero reason to argue otherwise. There is no objective criteria to the contrary, and no one has offered a counterargument.
What are you trying to argue here? Are you saying 2006 data is too old?
The most current Census data still shows Koreatown to be 1. Poor, 2. Hispanic and 3. Large family sizes. Nothing has changed. If anything, the neighborhood has gotten slightly poorer and more Hispanic over time.
Auto-centric, sure. And yet still walkable. Yet still a great neighborhood to live in and using walking for all your daily activities. What part of this is unclear? There are certainly issues with Koreatown, but the largest in regards to car ownership stems from a larger LA issue of mant job centers spread in a way that is extremely difficult or inefficient to get to by mass transit which accounts to a large degree for the car ownership and transit usage stats. As a neighborhood to live and walk in though? It's great.
Did you try looking for the depth, breadth, and variety of amenities? I'm going to guess no. Why does this matter? Because what would be the point of a walkable neighborhood with a surfeit of great urban design features if there isn't actually a large and varied number of things to walk to in the first place? Are you saying that no one has offered a counterargument or more that you figure simply not addressing other people's counterarguments is easier?
Did you take into account daytime populations? Weekday and weekend populations? Who is filling those undoubtedly many and numerous hotels in Long Beach, NY? Who is going to the restaurants and cafes and random other stores during the weekday work hours? How is Long Beach, NY capable of supporting a large variety of amenities that people who live there or visit can make use of to anything near the extent that Santa Monica does? I think it's immediately apparent that it doesn't when you have been to both.
If you're coming to a conclusion that downtown Santa Monica and Long Beach, NY are about equivalent in regards to your own personal criteria, then it makes more sense that there is something evidently odd about how you are judging whether or not a place is walkable. I'm having a hard time understanding where your Long Beach argument is coming from. I've only gone there via rail or bike (and the bike just once) and I really don't see the pedestrian activity or amenities that would be in any way comparable. Granted, I've been pretty much solely within a half mile to a mile from the LIRR station, and of course, am usually spending the time at the actual beach, so maybe there's something there that I'm not seeing that you can point to.
You're confused that using the 2000 census as the baseine in that study seems problematic? Maybe you should take that year's census and compare it to 2010 or the acs for 2015. Or are you confused that a place that has such a large population holds many different socioeconomic and ethnic populations?
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 07-30-2016 at 01:48 AM..
No it's not the Kanto region at all (according to Trip Advisor Kanto has 210,000K restaurants and I guarantee you many hole in the walls are missed in that count).- 88,000 is for Tokyo proper. Shinjuku alone has 8,000 restaurants! (See link below). That's nearly the total of Manhattan in one Tokyo neighborhood a fraction of the size of Manhattan. https://www.tripadvisor.com/Restaura...ure_Kanto.html
And here's an article from CNN talking about how Tokyo has the most Michelin starred restaurants in the world by a long shot. 226. Paris is number two with 94. NYC is nowhere close. Do you know why Tokyo has so many Michelin-started restaurants? Because of the sheer quantity of restaurants. Chefs in the article note that: What makes Tokyo the world's greatest food city? - CNN.com
You really have no idea what you're talking about. You've clearly never been to Tokyo. There are literally sometimes 100 commercial businesses in one 8 story building. Tokyo also has the largest red light district in Asia, which is saying a lot. And Tokyo is made up of mostly small narrow streets jam packed with restaurants, shops, izakayas, bars, etc. The arterials are wide, but so are NYCs. Again - you held up Barcelona as an example of a more urban city. Tokyo has the same density level as Barcelona with nearly 9 times the population. You gotta stop commenting on places you've never been to and have no clue about.
Auto-centric, sure. And yet still walkable. Yet still a great neighborhood to live in and using walking for all your daily activities. What part of this is unclear? There are certainly issues with Koreatown, but the largest in regards to car ownership stems from a larger LA issue of mant job centers spread in a way that is extremely difficult or inefficient to get to by mass transit which accounts to a large degree for the car ownership and transit usage stats. As a neighborhood to live and walk in though? It's great.
Did you try looking for the depth, breadth, and variety of amenities? I'm going to guess no. Why does this matter? Because what would be the point of a walkable neighborhood with a surfeit of great urban design features if there isn't actually a large and varied number of things to walk to in the first place? Are you saying that no one has offered a counterargument or more that you figure simply not addressing other people's counterarguments is easier?
Did you take into account daytime populations? Weekday and weekend populations? Who is filling those undoubtedly many and numerous hotels in Long Beach, NY? Who is going to the restaurants and cafes and random other stores during the weekday work hours? How is Long Beach, NY capable of supporting a large variety of amenities that people who live there or visit can make use of to anything near the extent that Santa Monica does? I think it's immediately apparent that it doesn't when you have been to both.
If you're coming to a conclusion that downtown Santa Monica and Long Beach, NY are about equivalent in regards to your own personal criteria, then it makes more sense that there is something evidently odd about how you are judging whether or not a place is walkable. I'm having a hard time understanding where your Long Beach argument is coming from. I've only gone there via rail or bike (and the bike just once) and I really don't see the pedestrian activity or amenities that would be in any way comparable. Granted, I've been pretty much solely within a half mile to a mile from the LIRR station, and of course, am usually spending the time at the actual beach, so maybe there's something there that I'm not seeing that you can point to.
You're confused that using the 2000 census as the baseine in that study seems problematic? Maybe you should take that year's census and compare it to 2010 or the acs for 2015. Or are you confused that a place that has such a large population holds many different socioeconomic and ethnic populations?
Away from the train station, LB looks deader than a cemetery. But, it has those amazing midrises.
Ya hoo.
I bold'd the pretty good counterpoint you set up for yourself. That stat you're using for density just doesn't really make that much sense in the context of this discussion.
That stat was not used to make an argument, it was used to point out a flawed argument that I have often seen people from the LA side make.
If you really are making LA is urban arguments because of the "human, walking scale" like you have been claiming, and not population density, then I suppose you're not one of them and don't have to worry about it.
LA has much higher population density than DC in it's 66 core sq miles.
If you actually want to make things fair. I know that's a concept that doesn't happen often on this forum though.
If you want to extend DC's boundaries to 465 sq miles like LA, it will be far less dense than LA's 465.
Sorry, doesn't work ike that.
You would have to compare 60 sq miles to LA's 60 sq miles. I'm guessing LA is close to 20,000 Psm (or higher) in it's core 60 sq miles.
DC thins out, not gets more dense as you get to the outskirts and into the suburbs.
It's not close at all.
That's exactly the kind of flawed logic I keep trying to address. Why does it matter if DC doesn't have "dense" suburbia exactly? There is nothing that's urban about most of what's in a CSA's outskirts and suburbs. I have seen too many LA posters point this density in suburbia bit out like its some sort of a positive thing or something, and its really weird.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreddyK1
Uh, LA's 18 million is alot bigger/urban than DC's CSA. Have you actually drove around in large sections of DC burbs?
Please, dont bring up puny TOD developments either. That is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of what that area truely is.
I lived there, I know how it is.
I recently went down to inglewood, which would be pretty built up for the dc burbs. Not highrises, but just a conisstent level of commercial streets (not just strip malls) and apartment buildings all over the place. I believe that's a good 15 miles from downtown LA
There's alot of LA burbs like that. Hell, Long beach alone is more walkable than all of Fairfax/Loudon/Prince William/Prince Georges county combined and it's 20 miles from downtown LA.
What is 20 miles from downtown DC in any direction? LOL
As I've said before, you brought up the un urban thing. No examples.
DC is really just urban from downtown to columbia hts. Nothing else honestly stands out whatsoever, yet you act most of the city is like that.
Good god, I seriously don't get how a person that claims himself to be an adult is this indifferent about making his posts legible.
Since this whole post is filled with silliness, I'll just address the most obvious one. Your just dissed pretty much everything outside of core DC over density in your two posts combined. And yet, you just boasted about Long Beach, CA...a place with lower density than that of Alexandria, VA. I mean what in the...
If that doesn't say how goofy your arguments really are, then I don't know what will.
Didnt I just tell you LA's core 66 sq miles is denser, or is that something you want to keep ignoring?
You've done it a few times now.
How else would you compare a city of 465 to 66?
It's stupid to make a real comparison with that.
Again, what are your examples that non urban DC is urban for LA? You can't answer a very simple question.
You brought it up.
Last edited by FreddyK1; 07-30-2016 at 11:39 PM..
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.
