Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-18-2015, 05:47 PM
 
10,275 posts, read 10,340,269 times
Reputation: 10644

Advertisements

The "newer" cities were built later, once cars were the norm. And they were historically smaller cities. So LA has Hancock Park type areas closer to downtown because LA wasn't that big of a city when Hancock Park was built. It was basically the "suburbs".

Hancock Park was built around 1920. At the time, LA was just ahead of Minneapolis and Buffalo in population. So, in that context, Hancock Park makes sense. It wasn't an "in-town" neighborhood at the time. It was a few miles west of downtown, which, back then, was the outskirts. If you visit someplace like Minneapolis or Buffalo, you will see similar neighborhoods of similar vintage, in a similar distance from the city center.

Historical Metropolitan Populations of the United States - Peakbagger.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-18-2015, 05:51 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Western Massachusetts
45,983 posts, read 53,485,386 times
Reputation: 15184
I think that explanation is right. Similarly, you can find detached homes very close to the center of Vancouver, even though it's more centralized and is more transit use. Same could be found by Seattle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2015, 06:11 PM
 
2,639 posts, read 1,994,681 times
Reputation: 1988
Default Los Angeles and Transit Orientated Development

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist View Post

3) Perhaps most important, people crave the urban lifestyle and aren't getting it elsewhere, so even in congested LA they choose to live all the way in DTLA and commute elsewhere for work. I find this pattern to be consistent with patterns I have lived myself and observed in other cities.


That's not to say there aren't cool options elsewhere in LA, but if you really want the more "urban" feel with access to decent nightlife and potentially work, then it sounds like DTLA is it. I'd personally prefer WeHo and to work near there, but I can understand those moving to LA looking for a more traditional city experience relying on DTLA to provide what it can even if they work elsewhere.
On another thread someone commented that some people choose to move near TODs…not because they intend to use the transit, but because they want to live near a mini-downtown.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2015, 06:22 PM
 
1,564 posts, read 1,671,381 times
Reputation: 522
Crazy how the people who never been to L.A can tell us about our own city Lol . Its the L.A envy & on C-D it's an obsession to bash L.A on here Smh . People on here all day searching google for articles to hate on L.A about. We understand it's the Golden city in the Golden state but it's not that serious to prove L.A isn't a top 5 urban city Lmao.In the real world we have great urban areas & great non urban areas, D.c or none of those other cities except Manhattan is on L.A level so enough with the envy & move on people .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2015, 06:38 PM
 
Location: Westminster/Huntington Beach, CA
1,780 posts, read 1,761,762 times
Reputation: 1218
I'm with some of the other posters that transit share isn't a good measurement of walkability in LA's case or any other sunbelt city that booked around the same time. Just because people own cars and use them in walkable areas does not make them any less walkable.

We're arguing walkability here not walking "culture".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2015, 06:39 PM
 
1,833 posts, read 2,351,798 times
Reputation: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobe25 View Post
Crazy how the people who never been to L.A can tell us about our own city Lol . Its the L.A envy & on C-D it's an obsession to bash L.A on here Smh . People on here all day searching google for articles to hate on L.A about. We understand it's the Golden city in the Golden state but it's not that serious to prove L.A isn't a top 5 urban city Lmao.In the real world we have great urban areas & great non urban areas, D.c or none of those other cities except Manhattan is on L.A level so enough with the envy & move on people .
You're getting a bit cocky now..... LA isn't even on the same level as New York you foolish child. The only city that's on New York's level is London and that is even debatable. New York is a whole new monster..... What are you smoking?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2015, 06:51 PM
 
1,564 posts, read 1,671,381 times
Reputation: 522
Deluusions best fits your name my friend lol

But i won't turn this into L.A vs Ny cause i don't want to upset the mods again lol

Just remember what State has 3 world class cities & the 7th highest economy in the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2015, 06:53 PM
 
Location: Twin Cities (StP)
3,051 posts, read 2,598,798 times
Reputation: 2427
Quote:
Originally Posted by Deluusions View Post
You're getting a bit cocky now..... LA isn't even on the same level as New York you foolish child. The only city that's on New York's level is London and that is even debatable. New York is a whole new monster..... What are you smoking?
Mumbai and Delhi just flicked a booger at you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2015, 06:56 PM
 
10,275 posts, read 10,340,269 times
Reputation: 10644
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grizzly Addams View Post
Mumbai and Delhi just flicked a booger at you.
Mumbai and Delhi aren't on the level of any major American city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-18-2015, 07:08 PM
 
1,833 posts, read 2,351,798 times
Reputation: 963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobe25 View Post
Deluusions best fits your name my friend lol

But i won't turn this into L.A vs Ny cause i don't want to upset the mods again lol

Just remember what State has 3 world class cities & the 7th highest economy in the world.
Look at the world class rankings then back to me with that one. Delusional LA booster.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top