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.
See, I know I have East Coast eyes here, but even the walkable commercial block looks kinda pathetic compared to similar areas in Pittsburgh. It most strongly reminds me locally of this streetcar suburb business district, but even in that case the business district is longer, and at least some of the buildings on the street are 2-3 stories. The low-slung nature of LA's shops is quite jarring, but I guess it makes sense given LA is essentially a giant streetcar suburb which had later residential infill densifying it.
Maybe you didn't look around much but there are several 2-3 story buildings on that stretch of Vermont. Also keep in mind I was just providing a random example, certainly not one of the boulevards that I think "shows off" for Los Angeles.
But I understand your overall comment, much of LA's commercial corridors are 1 or 2 stories.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton
The think I don't understand, however, is why densifying the commercial corridors is so hard? I mean, typically speaking my understanding is with zoning commercial areas have much looser zoning. Here in Pittsburgh there are still height requirements and parking minimums, but you can easily plunk down an apartment building in the commercial district of an otherwise single-family zoned neighborhood, without NIMBYs doing much of anything about it. Similarly, a lot of infill is happening in former industrial/service zones because no one is around to complain. It seems like the inverse has happened with LA - the infill has made the residential zones in the core denser over time, but the low-slung, pedestrian unfriendly commercial structure is harder to change. Why?
I wouldn't say it is that hard, because most of the new construction in Los Angeles is either in Downtown LA or along these commercial corridors; along those corridors 5-7 stories with retail on the ground floor is pretty much the standard with very few outliers.
As far as why they face opposition when it was so easy to infill apartments on those residential streets, I would say the biggest reason is that people from outside the neighborhood feel a bit of an "ownership" to the commercial streets, as they are often along their commute. In their minds, more density = more cars, and more cars = more traffic and slower commutes along Olympic or Western or what have you.
Huh, I would have assumed residential infill would get more NIMBY opposition. I think it does in the Northeast, but the West generally seems to have more of a pro-growth attitude.
I can't remember the incident, but I think New York City had some local opposition to development with too much parking.
Huh, I would have assumed residential infill would get more NIMBY opposition. I think it does in the Northeast, but the West generally seems to have more of a pro-growth attitude.
I can't remember the incident, but I think New York City had some local opposition to development with too much parking.
See I am way too young to even know. But huge swaths of the LA basin are infilled, so it happened one way or another. I remember reading a quote from Beck about it:
Quote:
Beck began life in a rooming house near downtown Los Angeles. As a child, he lived in a declining neighborhood just off Hollywood Boulevard.[10] "By the time we left there, they were ripping out miles of houses en masse and building low-rent, giant apartment blocks," he later recalled.
Because Los Angeles has more than double the population of Florence in the same land area. I don't have stats for Florence but I would suspect that LA has higher peak densities as well. Los Angeles also has much higher peak densities than DC.
Judging by streetview, I suspect Florence has much higher peak densities than Los Angeles (excluding a few census tracts) or higher residential densities in general. Don't know how to find out, though
See I am way too young to even know. But huge swaths of the LA basin are infilled, so it happened one way or another. I remember reading a quote from Beck about it:
I think at the time the area was downscale enough that wasn't anyone who wanted to preserve the character of the neighborhood, and the poor besides having less clout, don't mind densification as much. I know under Bloomberg, poorer neighborhoods didn't get anti-density zoning. Asian immigrant and Hasidic Jewish neighborhoods were one of the few groups that actually wanted infill.
Huh, I would have assumed residential infill would get more NIMBY opposition. I think it does in the Northeast, but the West generally seems to have more of a pro-growth attitude.
I can't remember the incident, but I think New York City had some local opposition to development with too much parking.
SF is the worst major city for NIMBYism, and it is widely discussed and documented these days even on a national scale with policy makers and the Supreme Courts even getting involved in several high profile cases. The Entire Bay Area is really bad, and it is well documented. Probably followed by NYC and Boston. Widely circulated reports actually conclude that housing regulations in the Bay Area and NYC account for hundreds of billions of dollars of untapped national economic output as the innovation of companies is stifled as the number of productive employees able to move to these areas is stifled. Other smaller CA locales like Berkeley, Santa Monica, and Malibu are notoriously awful, though understandable with Malibu considering its scenic and rural location.
SF is the worst major city for NIMBYism, and it is widely discussed and documented these days even on a national scale with policy makers and the Supreme Courts even getting involved in several high profile cases. The Entire Bay Area is really bad, and it is well documented. Probably followed by NYC and Boston. Widely circulated reports actually conclude that housing regulations in the Bay Area and NYC account for hundreds of billions of dollars of untapped national economic output as the innovation of companies is stifled as the number of productive employees able to move to these areas is stifled. Other smaller CA locales like Berkeley, Santa Monica, and Malibu are notoriously awful, though understandable with Malibu considering its scenic and rural location.
Yeah no harm in lots of NIMBYs in Malibu. There is absolutely no need for density there, and actually it is already quite dense with only one major road. I saw the aftermath of a fatal accident this weekend while I was out there - more density would only make PCH even more of a death trap.
Santa Monica on the other hand, is going to cede a lot of their economic momentum to places like Culver City and Los Angeles by being so anti-growth (they actually passed an ordinance banning 5+ story buildings in its core, right as it gets plugged into the Metro Rail network). And traffic will just keep getting worse as they make it more impossible for normal people to live in the area (SM rents are at least double what I pay on the Eastside).
I think people confuse "density" with "urban". Two separate concepts that often have correlation, but not always. A city like LA is one of the relatively few where density doesn't necessarily correspond with urbanity. Not to say it's not urban at all, but it's definitely not Top 5, and I wouldn't put it over DC, or Seattle, for #6. In terms of autocentric cities with high density, it's much more urban than Miami. I'll give it that.
At least you're honest with your blatant double standards.
So let me get this straight, density and urbanity are correlated only if the city looks a certain way and it's easy for tourists to navigate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fitzrovian
I don't think we are ever gonna agree on this. No, I disagree that you have to ignore city boundaries. But I do agree that you have to remove uninhabitable spaces from the equation, so I guess weighted density would be a better metric than average density. What's the weighted density of LA vs DC?
Would you agree that San Francisco is more dense than London? Based on city limits, it technically is.
You can have high density areas that have very different characteristics from other high density places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BajanYankee
So here's data for the nine densest Census tracts in Koreatown (they are mostly contiguous). I don't feel like listing them out individually so I'll just give the basic, aggregate stats. I might spell it out in more detail when I have more time.
I'll focus on density later though I'm sure Koreatown is denser than Columbia Heights. I just wanted to get mode share stuff down first.
Koreatown is denser but functions much differently from Columbia Heights. More than half of the residents in Koreatown's densest Census tracts drive to work, which is uncharacteristic of places with such high densities.
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.
