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 agree with that, I was just pointing out that Los Angeles is so big that you won't see it. But if we took Central LA by itself, we're talking about an area of physical urbanization with 873k in under 57 sq miles.If I cut off 10 sq miles of the surrounding mountains,than it'll be higher.
I think we even can argue Seattle as a top 6 urban structure. It's just a great debate that can go either way because D.C and Boston are kinda neck and neck.
I agree that LA goes about it's urbanity in a different way, but 20% of DC's 61 sq mi is dedicated park space... any way you slice is, DC is going to beat LA at their most intense day time population densities.
Regarding Seattle being #6 there immediate retort is that it comes into contention with Baltimore. While Seattle has undoubtedly exploded in population/infill, it lacks the urban bones and continues urbanity that B-more caries through the entirety of its cityscape (Seattle being 84 sq mi vs. Baltimore's 81 sq mi)
LA/DC/Seattle/Baltimore are the immediate go-to’s for slots 6-9
I disagree. Philly's inner 47 square miles are more dense than San Francisco. San Francisco reaches higher peak density (impressively the 2nd highest peaks after after NYC). However, when you look expand the comparison by adding San Fran's sounding areas like Oakland, Berkeley etc in order to make a equitable San Francisco to Philly land size comparison, the large bay between that disjoints the continuous one city feel, and pound for pound less urban form of housing, inferior transportation puts San Francisco slightly behind Philly in my opinion.
Central LA has 873k in 57sqmiles.
The entirety of Cambridge, Somerville, Boston (58sqmile) have close to 1.5 million (1.15 Million Boston, 210k in Cambridge, 108k in Soerville) people by daytime population.
Im sure DC+Arlington is in that ballpark, ableit, a much bigger space.
I forgot about Seattle though, a lot more urban han it is given credit for:
NYC
CHICAGO SF
PHILLY BOS
SEATTLE DC LA MIAMI
ATLANTA BALTIMORE
The Wilshire/Santa Monica Corridor is 66 sq miles with a population of one million and a density of 15,100 ppsm.
If I take away the 10sq surrounding areas that make up the mountains,than that's 56 sq miles with a daytime Population of 1 million.
Central LA has 873k in 57sqmiles.
The entirety of Cambridge, Somerville, Boston (58sqmile) have close to 1.5 million (1.15 Million Boston, 210k in Cambridge, 108k in Soerville) people by daytime population.
Im sure DC+Arlington is in that ballpark, ableit, a much bigger space.
I forgot about Seattle though, a lot more urban han it is given credit for:
NYC
CHICAGO SF
PHILLY BOS
SEATTLE DC LA MIAMI
ATLANTA BALTIMORE
Sorry but Miami is not in the same tier as DC and Atlanta is not in the same tier as Baltimore. Miami is dense but on the street, it is nowhere near DC for urbanity. Atlanta’s core is definitely improving. But nearly the entire city of Baltimore is far more structurally dense.
To me.... from a "feel" perspective of walking around the city outside of just a few blocks of tourism hotspots, especially since some cities have a huge drop off of "urban" look/feel within just a few blocks away.....
NYC
Chicago/SF
Philly, Boston, DC
Seattle, LA
Miami, Baltimore, New Orleans
Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Portland, San Diego, Pittsburgh, Denver, Charlotte
Seattle's urban structure is certainly more walkable than LA's. Not discounting LA's density but it needs to work on pedestrian activity and its car culture.
Please explain why you think this. I get its 469 square miles is not gonna be a walking urban utopia but its central core areas are quite urban, walkable and served with easy access to public transit and a plethora of stores and businesses. Since moving from Seattle I've been back a few times to see the changes but I definately would not place it at 6th 7th. Maybe 8th.
Please explain why you think this. I get its 469 square miles is not gonna be a walking urban utopia but its central core areas are quite urban, walkable and served with easy access to public transit and a plethora of stores and businesses. Since moving from Seattle I've been back a few times to see the changes but I definately would not place it at 6th 7th. Maybe 8th.
It's all about expectations and I guess that I was prepared to be blown away by Seattle and I wasn't. It's a nice city and they do a lot of urban things right, but it's way overhyped on these forums imo. Its not just a bigger Portland, but it's not just a smaller SF either. It's in between, but probably closer to Portland.
Please explain why you think this. I get its 469 square miles is not gonna be a walking urban utopia but its central core areas are quite urban, walkable and served with easy access to public transit and a plethora of stores and businesses. Since moving from Seattle I've been back a few times to see the changes but I definately would not place it at 6th 7th. Maybe 8th.
Let me preface this by saying that my issue isn't with DTLA itself, but rather most of what's surrounding it, and clearly, LA and Seattle have a large population gap so the scales are simply different. I just personally think Seattle's walkability and pedestrian friendliness (sidewalk, bike infrastructure, and simply how buildings interact with the street) is better than LA's for longer stretches. DTLA is certainly a beast that's becoming better but it doesn't spread beyond evenly DT like Seattle's walkable fabric does. There are great pockets of great development that cater to pedestrians surrounded by dense development that still cater to cars. I won't deny that LA isn't dense but the way that density manifests doesn't cater to me specifically.
Let me preface this by saying that my issue isn't with DTLA itself, but rather most of what's surrounding it, and clearly, LA and Seattle have a large population gap so the scales are simply different. I just personally think Seattle's walkability and pedestrian friendliness (sidewalk, bike infrastructure, and simply how buildings interact with the street) is better than LA's for longer stretches. DTLA is certainly a beast that's becoming better but it doesn't spread beyond evenly DT like Seattle's walkable fabric does. There are great pockets of great development that cater to pedestrians surrounded by dense development that still cater to cars. I won't deny that LA isn't dense but the way that density manifests doesn't cater to me specifically.
No disrespect, but have you been to LA and Seattle or is this your impression? I was just in Seattle last year and live in Los Angeles. I walked a lot in Seattle, but missed some key places. I took lots of public transportation there and take it here in LA. I just don't see what you mean.
Demonta4 I wasn't just speaking of DTLA. I was speaking of it and beyond. And to me Seattle has no answer.
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.
