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.
Is there such a thing as an unwalkable downtown? If there is any part of a city that will almost always be walkable, it's Downtown.
I don't know if "walkable" is the right word here. That could simply mean you can walk out of your house and run an errand, which has value obviously, but it's not quite what some are getting at here. The point is more or less a lifestyle difference and the scale of that difference. It's not simply "Can I walk there?" or "Does my neighborhood have a walkscore of ____?"
You can clearly walk places in Los Angeles. It's no different from Brooklyn in that sense. But there are statistics that go beyond population density that suggests that life in these two places is probably very different.
The words most people aren't using here to describe walking that would describe what you mean are as follows:
comfortable
attractive
safe
enjoyably
easy
relaxing
interesting
pleasant
etc.
etc.
etc.
This isn't particularly relevant--there are neighborhoods in the South Bronx that are dirt poor yet many leagues more urban than the neighborhoods you just listed.
I think you're missing the point. The tides change when uber-rich people, you know, the kinds that live in Holmby Hills in LA, decide to live on top of each other in dense urban environments (and gated ulta-luxe condos in Century City or along Santa Monica Blvd are not what I'm thinking of here).
All that money these .0001%'s spend on a big house + yard + security through gate in the beautiful hills around LA get devoted to much smaller "units" in walk-ups (with doormen of course) in the top 5, right in the heart of the city. Whereas in Beverly or Holmby Hills you could be miles away from section 8 housing or "seedy/dangerous" areas, in the top 5 you could spend $30M on a 5,000 sf co-op or condo and be within a block or blocks of a subway stop and also section 8 housing. It's just a different "dynamic", as Bajanyankee is hinting at.
Of course some of the poorest parts of the Bronx will be super urban. But also there is a notable food dearth in the poor parts of the Bronx - a lack of grocers, restaurants, and even corner stores that is leading to serious, and well documented issues. I think that's when dense + super low HHI (i.e. poverty) becomes a problem and actually impedes "urbanity" when corner stores aren't even as willing to set up shop even though densities exceed 40K, 50K, or even 100K ppsm. So many variables to consider.
I think you're missing the point. The tides change when uber-rich people, you know, the kinds that live in Holmby Hills in LA, decide to live on top of each other in dense urban environments (and gated ulta-luxe condos in Century City or along Santa Monica Blvd are not what I'm thinking of here).
All that money these .0001%'s spend on a big house + yard + security through gate in the beautiful hills around LA get devoted to much smaller "units" in walk-ups (with doormen of course) in the top 5, right in the heart of the city. Whereas in Beverly or Holmby Hills you could be miles away from section 8 housing or "seedy/dangerous" areas, in the top 5 you could spend $30M on a 5,000 sf co-op or condo and be within a block or blocks of a subway stop and also section 8 housing. It's just a different "dynamic", as Bajanyankee is hinting at.
Of course some of the poorest parts of the Bronx will be super urban. But also there is a notable food dearth in the poor parts of the Bronx - a lack of grocers, restaurants, and even corner stores that is leading to serious, and well documented issues. I think that's when dense + super low HHI (i.e. poverty) becomes a problem and actually impedes "urbanity" when corner stores aren't even as willing to set up shop even though densities exceed 40K, 50K, or even 100K ppsm. So many variables to consider.
You realize that the reason the uber rich live in condos as opposed to mansions in Manhattan is because there's no other option, right? The place is geographically constrained by water which is the whole reason it developed so compactly and with so many highrises in the first place.
Mansions = more space, and a chance to enjoy the indoor/outdoor lifestyle that LA does best. No sane 0.0001 percenter purchasing a home in LA would opt for a downtown condo over a mansion in the hills. Its not a cultural thing as much as it is a sane and logical choice. The geography of Los Angeles makes different options available than in a city like New York.
Not really, there are more spacious neighborhoods outside of Manhattan if the wealthy preferred it. But it would not be Manhattan. A mansion in the hills is not really in the busier parts of Los Angeles.
Not really, there are more spacious neighborhoods outside of Manhattan if the wealthy preferred it. But it would not be Manhattan. A mansion in the hills is not really in the busier parts of Los Angeles.
No, but the filthy rich can easily purchsse a mansion within a few miles of the entertainment live/work/play districts IF they can find one. Vacancies are crazy low right now. That is one of the beauties of LA... if you can afford it.
It should also be noted that DTLA is not without luxury condos--in fact, the last available condo recently sold for $3.4 million. There won't be any more new units available until Metropolis opens in 2016, after which hundreds more will follow. These condos come with parking, do they still count as urban ?
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 06-18-2015 at 02:37 PM..
What explains the uber rich living in doorman buildings (co-ops, TICs, and condos) up the road in San Francisco? The "outdoor" lifestyle is a thing, there, too.
The point is, when a place reaches a tipping point of "urbanity", *everyone* is "forced" to live the urban lifestyle. The uber rich, the poor, the middle class, the yuppies with their amenitized apartments, etc etc.
In some cities, there is just one group of people willingly moving into a fairly limited supply of infill apartments that suit their needs/wants.
Not really, there are more spacious neighborhoods outside of Manhattan if the wealthy preferred it. But it would not be Manhattan. A mansion in the hills is not really in the busier parts of Los Angeles.
The Hollywood Hills are literally surrounded by Los Angeles, with the LA Basin to the south and the San Fernando Valley to the north.
Then you have mansion filled neighborhoods in the foothills like Bel Air that are on the doorstep of dense areas like Westwood, not to mention mansion filled neighborhoods that are dense and built up in their own right, like Beverly Hills.
Having a mansion in one of those areas is not analogous to having a mansion in a neighborhood outside of Manhattan. Completely different lifestyles: mansion in the city vs mansion outside the city.
No, but the filthy rich can easily purchsse a mansion within a few miles of the entertainment live/work/play districts IF they can find one. Vacancies are crazy low right now. That is one of the beauties of LA... if you can afford it.
It should also be noted that DTLA is not without luxury condos--in fact, the last available condo recently sold for $3.4 million. There weren't be any more new units available until Metropolis opens in 2016, and hundreds more will follow. These condos come with parking, do they still count as urban ?
Our income is over six figures and we have essentially been priced out of DTLA (not that we were looking to "up" the urban experience coming from Hollywood).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistrictDirt
The Hollywood Hills are literally surrounded by Los Angeles, with the LA Basin to the south and the San Fernando Valley to the north.
Then you have mansion filled neighborhoods in the foothills like Bel Air that are on the doorstep of dense areas like Westwood, not to mention mansion filled neighborhoods that are dense and built up in their own right, like Beverly Hills.
Having a mansion in one of those areas is not analogous to having a mansion in a neighborhood outside of Manhattan at all.
I read a commenter on Curbed talk about being right at the middle of the Hollywood Hills on Mulholland and being able to roll down the hill either way to Studio City or West Hollywood.
I think Uber makes those hillside neighborhoods that are essentially unwalkable a lot more enticing.
The Hollywood Hills are literally surrounded by Los Angeles, with the LA Basin to the south and the San Fernando Valley to the north.
Then you have mansion filled neighborhoods in the foothills like Bel Air that are on the doorstep of dense areas like Westwood, not to mention mansion filled neighborhoods that are dense and built up in their own right, like Beverly Hills.
Having a mansion in one of those areas is not analogous to having a mansion in a neighborhood outside of Manhattan at all.
^^^I think it is. Because the same affluence/income demographic choosing to live in the hills is not living in condos, townhomes, co-ops, or walk-ups in the city, even if they work right in the city.
Uber wealthy New Yorkers have *very* desirable exurban/suburban outlets such as Rye, Greenwich, parts of Jersey, Hyde Park, etc etc to live in with gorgeous scenery and access to beautiful outdoor amenities. Some choose that lifestyle. Others choose to live in Manhattan/Brooklyn. LA has only the former, not the latter. SF also has both the in-city option and the out-of-city option, with uber wealthy choosing both. Urban urban cities always have both options.
^^^I think it is. Because the same affluence/income demographic choosing to live in the hills is not living in condos, townhomes, co-ops, or walk-ups in the city, even if they work right in the city.
Uber wealthy New Yorkers have *very* desirable exurban/suburban outlets such as Rye, Greenwich, parts of Jersey, Hyde Park, etc etc to live in with gorgeous scenery and access to beautiful outdoor amenities. Some choose that lifestyle. Others choose to live in Manhattan/Brooklyn. LA has only the former, not the latter. SF also has both the in-city option and the out-of-city option, with uber wealthy choosing both. Urban urban cities always have both options.
You are missing the point that those hills are literally right in the middle of the city, not off in Marin County or miles from Midtown.
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.
?
