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.
Again I know LA pretty well. You can make statements like that if you want to, but then we all have to face the reality. In that 50 sq mi area, there's obvious density, a lot of it hidden, yet this is too prevalent in the urban format throughout. When I think of LA's residential streets across that "dense" area you're referring to, I'm often reminded of this:
You think you know. Come on resident. Bronson and Wilshire is almost 7 miles from DTLA. There should be houses around there. Yet even the nice homes along 16th St in nw DC are 2 miles from the White House. The thing about living in DC imo was you can be in a urban environment, then 5 minutes later you're in a sprawly leafy area of single family homes.
Yeah, they also have upzoned their city. I was speaking about the notion that height limits downtown will decrease the DC development capacity. I think height limits in Philadelphia, Boston, and San Fran are actually more restrictive outside of their downtowns. Looking at an aerial of these cities proves that. Believe it or not, DC is built taller across the city.
Naw Boston height limit is FAA imposed. And it impacts downtown more than residential areas.
Boston is noticeably taller than Philly and SF outside of the core. Throughout Boston it’s 2-4 stories but much of it is 4-8. The one floor retail was actually zoned down back in the day but they’re still urban shops nearby housing and thus walkable. Even in the relatively remote areas of Boston..
In speaking for experience. The blocks are too long in LA and individual restaurant are too wide. You don’t get to as many places as quickly in foot and there’s not really short cut or diagonal bisecting minor roads. And yes, major lack of shade.
That street is about 78-82 feet across and is literally the widest street downtown while DC has many streets such as Rhode Island, Constitution, Vermont, Pennsylvania, and others that are the same or wider.
It's part of what makes DC so special and extremely underrated by some IMO. Because you get such variance as a city rather than the uniformity you find in some others. Especially within 61 sq mi. You can find many places that give you a whole different feel across the city.
I agree. The diversity of housing arrangements and leafiness in the urban core is actually a perk. Seattle is similar and gets similar tsk tsk’s from the urbanists even though it’s still very urban in functionality.
I realize most rather bicker with short post and I am not seen as a worthy commenter. Still street-views say a lot.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays25
I've taken some long walks in LA. Compared to Boston or Philly, it's certainly not as easy or pleasant. Too many wide streets (even the small residential streets can be massive), too many curb cuts. Personally I'd add a lack of shade, but that's not what I'm talking about here.
What I noticed on LA streets is so called too-wide-of-streets ..... still have narrow sidewalks.... sometimes too narrow. Car culture gave maybe some priority to street width over sidewalks.
For a modern city that still has to keep in mind a car culture. Most of LA in and near core are fine. I just find sidewalks a bit narrow. If one adds bike paths .... drawn on the streets as some cities and areas even in LA. The streets appear narrower anyway.
I just moved your street-view provided to the intersection. What I see is VERY NARROW SIDEWALKS that favored the streets and therefore width the sidewalks I would have preferred the actually had.
I turned the intersection to the other street on that same corner.... and continued NARROW SIDEWALKS. Too narrow to me. If these sidewalks were a couple feet more each side as they probably could-have/should-have had..... they would clearly not be as you see- too wide. IMO
I do not see most streets too wide. I get some main streets of low-rising one story built definitely leaves the street look too wide. Add hideous power-line poles that I hate and that is not aesthetically pleasing.
I just keep noting as LA does densify and heights of buildings still go up. The streets ARE NOT TOO WIDE for most of the core and neighborhoods. It will still have a car-culture that narrowish streets will not aid the higher density and hurt it if too narrow. Mass transit getting better ... does not transfer to access to every inch of the city or core, but for buses.
I actually PREFER WIDER TURNING CORNERS. I also HATE sharp corners that even old small cities throughout the East have. I will never forget after living in a Midwestern city of wider-turn cornered streets. I had to relearn you get ALL THE WAY to the right to turn or you WILL RISK someone squeezing in to your right if you leave them room.
Then when I moved back East to a small city old street grid of sharp turns. I found myself taking the curb with me.... meaning tires going over the curbs till I relearned how to go back to wide turns starting further out into the street.
In Atlanta I can see here how wider sidewalks even if for a sliver of green and more trees, but ALSO THE ADDED MEDIAN IN THE MIDDLE of the street. Is what could IMPROVE the so called WIDE LA STREETS. It adds green aesthetics and of course gives the street a narrower perspective that all can work.
I see this in Chicago whether downtown or West Loop areas of former warehousing and not residential streets. The city added more of these GREEN corridors and trees... Plus GREEN MEDIANS. That then gave a more pleasant aesthetic to work off of and the streets no longer have a too-wide perspective and some shade comes in even along the sidewalks.
WHAT I AM NOT CRAZY ABOUT IS these 6-story ALL WOOD-FRAME CONSTRUCTION multi-residential housing. To me.... THESE SHOULD BE CONCRETE and/or CINDERBLOCK construction to last....
Here is a example IN ATLANTA - BEING BUILT in 2016.
I'd say low end around 1-1.2 million, although it may want to do a slight raise to the height limits, only about 60 feet or so just pack in that much more, but nothing drastic. The District doesn't need skyscrapers, it has the surrounding suburbs for that.
The surrounding DC suburbs don’t have real “skyscrapers.” The buildings in the surrounding suburbs wouldn’t even be noticed in most city skylines. Tysons may have one pretty tall building, but Tyson’s is so far from DC that it can’t claim that.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1
You think you know. Come on resident. Bronson and Wilshire is almost 7 miles from DTLA. There should be houses around there. Yet even the nice homes along 16th St in nw DC are 2 miles from the White House. The thing about living in DC imo was you can be in a urban environment, then 5 minutes later you're in a sprawly leafy area of single family homes.
Well first of all, by total and by percentage LA has more SFH in Los Angeles in it's housing stock than DC. 2nd much of the LA basin is the same level of uniform SFH for many miles that becomes more monotonous due to the size of the city. DC's variety of housing is actually a positive IMO. I can be standing on an urban block that resembles the most urban of an East Coast cities, and then as someone else mentioned turn around be in a neighborhood resembling Montclair, NJ. But again if a city does thousands of close together SFH's on a street grid, in the middle of an urban center, mixed in with apartments housing, and keeps up good density best it's LA.
Thank you Nohyping for the post and links. Those sidewalks are 10-22 feet wide depending on which side of each street that you're on. You can measure on Google maps. I don't consider that to be narrow, and especially not "very narrow". Like Atlanta, sidewalks in LA are being widened with new development, typically to 20 feet. Just an FYI, your links are at the start of the fashion district, which has mostly 10 ft wide sidewalks and is one of the busiest locations in LA for pedestrian activity.
Also, for reference, the large majority of sidewalks in downtown Atlanta are 6.5 feet. Here's an example, but you could look almost anywhere that isn't new. https://goo.gl/maps/U3oP53xc9cYnL4di7
Naw Boston height limit is FAA imposed. And it impacts downtown more than residential areas.
Boston is noticeably taller than Philly and SF outside of the core. Throughout Boston it’s 2-4 stories but much of it is 4-8. The one floor retail was actually zoned down back in the day but they’re still urban shops nearby housing and thus walkable. Even in the relatively remote areas of Boston..
It's not a height restriction, it's the practice of not building uniformly tall like D.C. You know D.C. is going to make the whole block 9-15 stories which isn't the case in other cities.
It's not a height restriction, it's the practice of not building uniformly tall like D.C. You know D.C. is going to make the whole block 9-15 stories which isn't the case in other cities.
In the case of LA, it's due to building codes, which are at least partly due to earthquakes. LA allows concrete/wood frame up to 7 stories and after that it's steel with all the other requirements. Because of the additional cost, we rarely see buildings between 8-20 stories.
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.
I realize most rather bicker with short post and I am not seen as a worthy commenter. Still street-views say a lot.....
