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.
Seattle does have substantial areas that were built before they were annexed or incorporated and still lack sidewalks. Also there are some exceptions to the norm inside older parts of town. Link through the Rainier Valley includes some of both.
Seattle is much newer than LA so I wouldn’t make a complete comparison of the two. Like I’d say Savannah is a ton more walkable and urban friendly than Atlanta for example, but Savannah is still much smaller. All I’m saying is that I prefer a city like SF’s urban form over LA’s even in areas where LA is denser. Density doesn’t mean much to me as a whole if other accommodations aren’t made (LA’s making great strides btw and it’s urban future is very bright.) Hopefully we’ll see a lot more redeveloping in its more undeveloped areas to the south.
You may need a picture of Central LA, that area is built very urban structure wise.
No need, I live an hour and a half south in San Diego and have been to all of them multiple times.
I never said Central LA is not urbanely built, it’s just not as urbanely built as SF/Chicago/Philly/Boston which it factually isn’t from a structural perspective
LA (like DC) shows off its urbanism by being multi-nodal, not by extreme structural density.
No need, I live an hour and a half south in San Diego and have been to all of them multiple times.
I never said Central LA is not urbanely built, it’s just not as urbanely built as SF/Chicago/Philly/Boston which it factually isn’t from a structural perspective
LA (like DC) is simply to multi-nodal for it reach the peak urbanism of the other cites.
Is there a factual definition of what constitutes urban structure? I assumed that such discussions were all opinion.
Road width, building count/density, zoning etc.. are all measurable
The term urban however is more open ended which is why specified structural urbanity, because that is actually measurable.
So to say that LA is not as "urbanely built" is a fact or opinion?
There definitely isn't agreement here on what's "urban". There are threads all the time with different street views and there isn't universal agreement, although there is often consensus.
Even from a comparative standpoint, there is sometimes consensus on which form is more urban, but the fact that it's debated tells me that it's not a factual discussion or there would be specific measurables to guide the discussion.
To me the concept of "urbanity" is just that. It's not completely definable, but we know it when we see it. It does have certain characteristics in infrastructure, but no associated formula to calculate the level of urbanity based on measureables.
I've said all this to say that LA may be just as urban as the cities perceived as more urban even if it does look and operate differently. Many of the characteristics that we associate with being "urban" may just really be more associated with cities being old.
Road width is measurable. But if it's about 20 townhouses vs. 10 bungalow and 10 apartments, it's a question of what each person values.
Agreed and that's what I mean. And you can even take that farther. Like that Houston Skyline apartment street view that we both commented on the other day. That block has more people living on it than most so-called urban blocks even though half the block is a parking structure. The people living there almost certainly drive more than the people on the so-called urban blocks and don't live the same lifestyle, so is that what makes it less urban?
It all seems so elitist to me. To me just having lots of people in the same place makes it urban. How it functions is the result of many factors, often related to when the streets were built. Maybe I've just been in too many of these discussions.
Density is probably the #1 factor, but mode share matters, both directly and indirectly.
For examples of how an apartment building can have an indirect effect, can you walk to a lot of businesses, and are those businesses on a walkable urban street or behind a parking moat? In a more urban place, that corner store doesn't have parking and doesn't care.
So to say that LA is not as "urbanely built" is a fact or opinion?
There definitely isn't agreement here on what's "urban". There are threads all the time with different street views and there isn't universal agreement, although there is often consensus.
Even from a comparative standpoint, there is sometimes consensus on which form is more urban, but the fact that it's debated tells me that it's not a factual discussion or there would be specific measurables to guide the discussion.
To me the concept of "urbanity" is just that. It's not completely definable, but we know it when we see it. It does have certain characteristics in infrastructure, but no associated formula to calculate the level of urbanity based on measureables.
I've said all this to say that LA may be just as urban as the cities perceived as more urban even if it does look and operate differently. Many of the characteristics that we associate with being "urban" may just really be more associated with cities being old.
In the context of how people are debating in this thread, yes its an opinion unless we are comparing quantifiable/measurable metrics (street widths, buildings count, transit share, density, etc..)
But to your point there is not a universal agreement to what is considered exactly urban as everyone’s version of urban is different.
In the context of how people are debating in this thread, yes its an opinion unless we are comparing quantifiable/measurable metrics (street widths, buildings count, transit share, density, etc..)
But to your point there is not a universal agreement to what is considered exactly urban as everyone’s version of urban is different.
I think it's likely that Central LA on those quantifiable/measurable metrics are overall on roughly the same tier as Boston and the like as for where LA has sometimes wider streets, it makes up for that in having more expanses of mid and high-rise buildings and/or building to the full expanse of lots in more areas of Central LA.
Remember, Central LA is roughly in the Boston/San Francisco/DC range when it comes to physical area and encompasses at least three very densely built-up areas of downtown LA, Hollywood, and Koreatown which all have substantial amounts of mid-rises and high-rises. This partly accounts for why Central LA likely has a higher population / population density for a SF-sized area compared to those three, though part of that is also from overcrowding in parts. Also, both SF and DC have a lot of wide streets.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 12-30-2020 at 08:15 AM..
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.
