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.
How much of that difference is due to Central LA's relative lack of rail transit, and how much will the current expansion projects boost its ridership share?
More rail transit would certainly improve transit share. But I don't see how it would have any impact on walking/cycling share. SF and Central LA have almost exactly the same population, but the former has more than twice as many walking and bike commuters. I would attribute that to (1) a larger CBD and more centralized employment in general and (2) a more walkable infrastructure. While one can say that Point #2 is completely subjective, I think that it has enough a subjective impact on enough people to make a difference.
Paris is probably my favorite city on earth, not to be cliche, and so I mean it no harm when I come to refute your statement. Maybe Paris has less surface area per capita taken up by streets since Manhattan's can be quite wide, however, I'd argue that it's difficult to accept your statement plain and simply.
Let's take Manhattan alone. Manhattan alone is 72K ppsm, which is a density noticeably higher than Paris' on residential terms alone. Let's not forget that Paris actually has a gazillion high rises and most people in Manhattan don't live in a skyscraper, but rather a mid-rise. So both cities are actually a solid mixture. Adding in Brooklyn and Bronx you get 5.7 million people at 42K ppsm (just adding in Brooklyn you get 4.3 million people at 45K ppsm).
Paris fits 2.2 million people in 41 sq mi (less area than SF or Boston, so speaking for SF alone it's not excused for its anti-growth sentimentality when it claims to be the Paris of the West and is less than half the density) or 10.5 million people in 1,100 sq mi. Not sure what the in betweens are, but NYC fits 5.7 million people in 136 sq mi and 8.5 million people in 305 sq mi. No other city in the developed world does that. The only other cities that do are majority slum/third world and are really not nearly as grand considering sheer wealth gives way to grand structural infrastructure that uber dense third world cities simply don't have.
In office space alone, 22 sq mi Manhattan by itself has 400 million sf privately owned office space while the entire Paris Region has 560 million sf.
Central Paris has 79,000 hotel rooms and the Paris Region has 110,000. Manhattan alone has 113,000 rooms with another 13,000 under construction and 14,000 in planning.
Manhattan is really an urban spectacle in the world. It's so urban that people from around the world come to visit just to "see the city". People don't go to Paris for an urban thrill, but moreso for culture/architecture/food (of course you get all that in NYC, too, but there's definitely an "urban thrill" when visiting Manhattan that you don't get elsewhere).
I digress, part of the reason why the top 5 is the top 5 isn't all necessarily human residential density on paper. The top 5 also have the largest and most concentrated CBDs, and the highest concentration of hotel rooms and sightseeing spots, with transit that connects all of this. This combination of forces is what creates the urban atmosphere, and a contiguous walkable format served by efficient transit is what ties it all together and amplifies the effect.
Factoring in all of that I'd say DC is a clear #6, not LA.
For residential density, it's NYC, SF, Chicago, Boston, Philly. Then DC. One could argue LA is top 5/6 ousting DC for its "core", but it's certainly not built the same way nor does it function/feel the same way as the others.
For office space/CBDs, it's NYC, Chicago, DC, SF, Boston. All of LAC (9-10 million people) has about 200 million sf of inventory, Midtown Manhattan alone has 240 million sf. Central Chicago has around 136 million sf. DC is well above 100 million sf. San Francisco has about 85 million sf, most of that in the financial district. Boston is right up there as well. DTLA, DT Seattle, and CC Philly all have 42-48 million sf and are pretty close in size, filling in that next tier.
For hotel rooms, factoring in # and concentration, which is always a great indicator of how urban a place is, it's NYC (113K rooms, see above), Chicago (42K rooms in core/downtown area), SF (35K rooms, 20K rooms within walking distance of Moscone), DC (29K rooms), Boston (23K rooms). Philadelphia doesn't perform well here with ~12K rooms downtown and ~40K rooms in the entire metro. Seattle is similar with >12K rooms downtown and only 35K in all of King County (which includes SeaTac airport and Bellevue). Contrast with LA, according to the LAT, LAC has 97K hotel rooms (among tops in the country) and only <5K are within a mile of convention center.
Taken all together, factoring in residential density, office density, hotel/tourism density, and retail/shopping density in the top 5 (for which the clear top 3 are NYC, Chicago, and SF, with Boston probably at #4 and Philly at #5), wrapping it all up with their effective and widely used public transit systems and walkable character, it really does become clear that the top 5 is the top 5. And I could see DC easily taking a fairly close #6, perhaps followed by Seattle. LA's size and aggregate amount of "little walkable nodes" doesn't excuse the fact that there really isn't a contiguous area that feels as traditionally urban as such areas found in DC or Seattle, or the top 5, and it doesn't help that getting around LA is quite difficult, which is what creates these little "nodes" in the first place. LA is massive, dense, congested, and feels like a very big, hectic world city. But it doesn't have that sheer "urban" feel that one can get even from smaller cities on occasion (New Orleans being an example, or many many European cities).
You're going off on a lot of tangents here, but it doesn't change the fact that Paris is more structurally dense than Manhattan. We're not talking about building height, street crowds, etc. - we're talking about structural density.
You're going off on a lot of tangents here, but it doesn't change the fact that Paris is more structurally dense than Manhattan. We're not talking about building height, street crowds, etc. - we're talking about structural density.
And does that mean tighter streets and higher streetwalls? It's not clear what you mean.
When some people say "structural density," they are talking about a more objective standard, which is simply dividing the number of units by the amount of land area. Then there are others who are talking about the compactness and intensity of the built environment, which is a lot harder to express in quantifiable and objective terms.
And does that mean tighter streets and higher streetwalls? It's not clear what you mean.
When some people say "structural density," they are talking about a more objective standard, which is simply dividing the number of units by the amount of land area. Then there are others who are talking about the compactness and intensity of the built environment, which is a lot harder to express in quantifiable and objective terms.
Question for those familiar with LA, as well as more conventionally/traditionally urban cities….
Does LA's "dense sprawl" seem at all urban to you?
Or to put it another way, is "dense sprawl" an alternative way to achieve urbanity, at least to some degree?
It really depends on the neighborhood. I don't totally understand the question, because LA definitely does have some areas with fairly traditional (for the US) urban qualities - DTLA, Santa Monica, Pasadena, Westwood, downtown Hollywood, etc.
Many parts of the Los Angeles area feel urban, others feel quasi or half urban, and others are pretty suburban.
If you are asking if suburban/urban hybrid places like East LA feel urban, I would say not particularly - though it does not function in the same way that a traditional suburb does either. Even parts of the SFV and SGV do not resemble any other suburbs I have experienced, besides maybe the more urban parts of the Santa Clara Valley or less urban parts of the East Bay.
I think that what these areas most resemble is other city's outer ring within-the-city neighborhoods, or first-ring outside-the-city suburbs. The idea that LA was a "big suburb" developed in the early-to-mid 20th century, when the idea of what was "suburban" was much different than what it is today.
It really depends on the neighborhood. I don't totally understand the question, because LA definitely does have some areas with fairly traditional (for the US) urban qualities - DTLA, Santa Monica, Pasadena, Westwood, downtown Hollywood, etc.
Many parts of the Los Angeles area feel urban, others feel quasi or half urban, and others are pretty suburban.
If you are asking if suburban/urban hybrid places like East LA feel urban, I would say not particularly - though it does not function in the same way that a traditional suburb does either.
Perhaps semi-urban would be a useful term?
Perhaps there is a general, in between, category of development that doesn't quite function like either urban or suburban?
Or perhaps there is simply a continuum between suburban and urban, with different examples being either weakly or strongly one way or or the other?
Sorry if my question seemed incoherent. I'm sort of groping, trying to figure LA out.
Last edited by Tim Randal Walker; 06-17-2015 at 03:13 PM..
Population density from having a flat out larger city and building structure urbanity are two completely different things. Wilshire does not have the urban physique of Back Bay, South Street, or 14th Street NW. It just simply is built with less intense "urbanity" traditional by American standards.
Its actually the most suburban part of Wilshire. Hancock Park on one side and the street and the golf course on the other. Looking at Wilshire in DTLA, Santa Monica, Westwood, Beverly Hills, Miracle Mile or Koreatown tells an entirely different story.
Christopher Hawthorne's LATimes feature on Wilshire Blvd gives a pretty good sense of what the street is like, for any out-of-towners that are interested:
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.
