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.
You do realize Brooklyn is the second poorest borough after The Bronx, yes? How many urbanity points shall we deduct from those two boroughs for their overall lack of Starbucks/American Apparel density?
The difference, both affluent and poverty Brooklyn is roughly as non-car oriented as the other. The wealthier parts do own more cars, though still at a relatively low level. But most local trips are done on foot.
No, it doesn't mean the neighborhood is unwalkable, but relative walkability is almost always correlated with relative level of car ownership.
I think this is an accurate way to put it. High car ownership does not mean a neighborhood is per se unwalkable. However, extremely low car ownership almost always means a neighborhood is extremely walkable. I think most reasonable people would interpret NoLita's extremely low car ownership (~10%) as evidence of it being highly walkable. Such a low level of car ownership suggests that a car is far from being a necessity.
I think you completely missed his argument. How does it not prove it? Of course it doesn't show the valley is richer than the hills, but he was responding to this:
He found several examples of big money living around Hancock Park, so he did prove it.
No, he didn't prove it.
Anyone can find an example of a wealthy person or persons living in a given location. That doesn't prove that the location is a significant wealth center.
The wealthiest man on earth lives in a poor country; that doesn't mean the country is now rich. In LA, essentially every non-poor neighborhood will have household names as residents. Just because Miley Cyrus lives in Studio City doesn't mean that Studio City is now richer than Holmby Hills.
What does it matter if Hancock Park is not the "richest" area of LA? It's still very wealthy and full of very expensive mansions either way.
True, but I thought the argument was that LA was an outlier in that the wealth was in the hills, surrounded by urbanity on all sides.
That's why I didn't get the reference to Hancock Park, which isn't the major wealth center, and not in the hills. Hancock Park-type neighborhoods exist in almost all U.S. cities. But I don't think all U.S. cities have their wealthiest areas in an LA-type setup.
Anyone can find an example of a wealthy person or persons living in a given location. That doesn't prove that the location is a significant wealth center.
You're still not following. You claimed that wealth completely avoided Hancock Park. His counter-examples disproved that. And for some strange reason he seemed to think he made claims that were never made. You created a straw man.
Quote:
If you actually knew LA, you would know there are celebrities all over the place, from Calabassas to Newport Beach to San Marino to Studio City to Manhattan Beach. The fact that you can find celebrities in diverse locations does not automatically mean that all these areas are equally affluent.
But it means wealthy people don't avoid them... A skim at a map suggest Hancock Park is rather affluent, but didn't go through that carefully.
True, but I thought the argument was that LA was an outlier in that the wealth was in the hills, surrounded by urbanity on all sides.
That's why I didn't get the reference to Hancock Park, which isn't the major wealth center, and not in the hills. Hancock Park-type neighborhoods exist in almost all U.S. cities. But I don't think all U.S. cities have their wealthiest areas in an LA-type setup.
I didn't think he was arguing on major wealth centers. I thought it was brought up to show if you're wealthy you can live in a big detached home nearby a busy urban area. That's harder to do in "traditional" US urban cities.
But the diff is that Central LA is poor and central DC is rich. Central DC is more like a "mini Brooklyn" in that you have choice riders using transit. No, it isn't as transit-oriented as Brooklyn, but it's different than central LA, where car ownership is relatively high, and those that don't own cars tend to be poor immigrants.
Even then, car ownership is higher than you would expect. In Koreatown, the number of households that own 3 or more vehicles is surprisingly high given its density.
Ok, but it seems you an anonelitist are using the manner in which people in Los Angeles "live" as a telltale sign of how walkable the city's neighborhoods are. "More people drive = neighborhood not walkable" seems to be what you're implying. Or, in anontolist's case, not that urban. That's a the leap in logic, and that's why I specifically brought up DTLA to disprove that theory.
DTLA = 55k residents, 80-85% own automobiles. Maybe more. It doesn't change the fact that it's a highly walkable urban environment.
In contrast, the transit share in Daly City is higher. It's scarcely urban or walkable at all.
I always found Daly City to be decently urban. Maybe to the level of Mid-City or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
Camino Real and the CBDs along it (all served by transit I might add) are quite walkable, have decent shopping, tons of restaurants, and not WeHo density but high density (~10K ppsm) nonetheless. The feel to me is not too far off. Sure, quieter in the Peninsula. A lot quieter. But same dynamic to a different scale.
Cal Train is not exactly the same as the LRT-served urban nodes of LA County (though slightly better than LA's commuter rail, Cal Train has headways comparable to Metrolink) - It's like saying Burbank is transit-connected.
And while those areas along the Peninsula are nice and quaint, are not even close to the same scale as LA's satellite CBDs. There might be one or two 10k density tracts around each node, and then miles of 5-7.5k density. The only real secondary CBDs in the Bay Area are Oakland and Berkeley, which are comparable to Long Beach and Pasadena's, respectively.
a) can clearly afford to park a car right downtown (would cost $300-600++/mo due to scarcity and difficulty/expense providing parking for 4 of the top 5 and DC and way more for NYC)
DTLA resident here.
We're not at $300/mo for parking yet but I'm guessing we will be in 2-3 years. Right now the average going rate is around $150/mo, but a lot of the lots being used for monthly parking are slated for highrise construction so they won't be around much longer. Case in point: I was just speaking to the owner of Joe's Parking this week (the company that owns the majority of the pay lots in DTLA) and learned that he's recently sold off 3 of his lots. Real estate values have increased enough here that it makes more sense to sell than to rent out monthly spaces. As the supply of spaces shrinks, the prices will continue to rise. As the owner of a deeded parking space that I'm not using, I can't wait. Sure I'll defray some of my mortgage payment and HOA dues to rent out something I'm not using.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
b) feel they must have a car for something
Not everyone here has a car. I'm having trouble finding vehicle registration numbers per census tract or zip code (but would love to see them if anyone can dig them up), but anecdotally it I'd say about half my neighbors own a car. Maybe a little less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
Is that reason to have a car to be able to get groceries? Is it because they spend most of their time elsewhere and transit is unreliable?
So of that (approximate) half of DTLA residents that do own cars, I'd guess the majority of them have a vehicle because they need it to commute. According to the most recent DCBID survey, 56% of resident respondents work downtown, leaving 44% commuters to other neighborhoods. I'd also assume that there are a fair number of car owners here that bought their car before moving to downtown when they lived in less walkable neighborhoods, and simply haven't pulled the trigger on selling it yet. As parking rates continue to rise, I'm sure that will make the decision to go car free more compelling.
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.
You created a straw man. 
A skim at a map suggest Hancock Park is rather affluent, but didn't go through that carefully.
