Most urban city outside the top 5 (living, cost, state, better)

[Deluusions]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Addams

Mumbai and Delhi just flicked a booger at you.

Are you trolling?

[Tim Randal Walker]

Of course, a Tier 6 city might start building TODs. That would give it a configuration somewhat similar to Seattle-an urban core, with urban pockets scattered among the SFHs.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

What can I say, Los Angeles is the exception. it really is.

If LA were truly unwalkable, the walkscore numbers in the core would resemble Miami's. Instead they're in the high 80s and low 90s.

Just to hammer this point home:

+90 neighborhoods
Central Los Angeles/WeHo: 226,142
Washington DC/Alexandria: 139,323
Seattle/Bellevue: 110,514
Miami/South Beach: 15,473

+85
Central Los Angeles: 434,540
Washington DC/Alexandria: 208,226
Seattle/Bellevue: 140,398
Miami/South Beach: 140,242

+80
Central Los Angeles/WeHo: 552,453
Washington/Alexandria:* 267,355
Seattle/Bellevue: 218,650
Miami/South Beach: 140,242

Central LA is the exception to the normally reliable rule that high car ownership = awful walkability. LA obviously isn't a stroll through Paris, but it's not that bad, certainly above Miami.

[NOLA101]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

Central LA is the exception to the normally reliable rule that high car ownership = awful walkability. LA obviously isn't a stroll through Paris, but it's not that bad, certainly above Miami.

Walkscore doesn't measure the relative quality of walkability. So not really relevant.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

Walkscore doesn't measure the relative quality of walkability. So not really relevant.

Walkscore is supposed to measure subjective experiences now? That's a joke, right?

[Kobe25]

More Delusional & Idiotic talk from the L.A haters !

[DistrictDirt]

Originally Posted by anonelitist

Well so this indicates a few things. And I really think we can have constructive dialogue here, but just to highlight where LA is quite different from the Top 5 and perhaps DC and Seattle.

1) I follow your blog (now) because it's one of the best out there, and I pay attention to the stats of the buildings going up...many exceed the mandatory 1.3 parking spots per unit, and end up providing quite a bit of parking. So even with that there is still a good bit of overflow to the existing surface lots? And so with all of these cars and a 1.3 ratio minimum, there likely won't be enough parking provided once these lots go and more residents crowd into the area, driving up prices?

That's A LOT of cars for a downtown area, just so it's on the record. Office buildings in SF, Chicago, and Boston all provide extremely minimal parking underground - so office parking is really a super high premium ($600+/mo).

Transit becomes imperative, which is why I think people have knocked SF's transit. For such a large downtown with no parking and a super high density population, the transit should be wayyyy better than it is.

Thank you for the positive feedback, and I'm glad you're enjoying our blog! Actually just posted a story on the upcoming LA Convention Center expansion.

I think we're on the same page with parking. I agree that developers are building far too much and should not be exceeding the minimums. The amount of parking podiums is disheartening, even if they are getting a bit better at disguising them with ground floor retail.

There's a bill currently being reviewed in the CA state senate - AB 744 that would abolish parking minimums for any project within 1/2 mile of a transit station as well as any project with an affordable housing component. Given that LA's growing transit system already hits many of the neighborhoods and satellite cities where new development is taking place, this bill will apply to the majority of new residential projects. I'm hoping developers act accordingly and cut back on the parking. We shall see.

Originally Posted by anonelitist

2) One of the LA posters estimated car ownership downtown to be 80-85%, which sparked the conversation. Your estimate sounds like it would be lower.

Definitely lower than 80-85%. I see "Motor Vehicle Equity" is included in the Wealth and Asset Ownership census data. Maybe when I have more time I'll try to parse out the car ownership rate for DTLA from that.

I see that Curbed posted an article today on how the per capita VMT for Angelenos keeps dropping, so at least we're heading in the right direction.

Originally Posted by anonelitist

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.

The pattern is actually the reverse in the top 5 + DC (excluding Philly which has a super mixed-use CBD and lots of not so nice neighborhoods outside of it). Most people don't want to live downtown and can actually find a more vibrant neighborhood elsewhere in the city and take the train or bus in for work, happy hour, etc and then leave, because there are unlimited cool options elsewhere.

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.

The desire for an urban, walkable lifestyle is definitely the reason for DTLA's growth and renaissance. But regardless of that, the commute pattern in LA is always going to be different than in the other cities you mentioned, by virtue of LA's polycentricity. DTLA is growing but there will always be other CBDs in LA like Santa Monica and Hollywood where jobs are located. I certainly don't think its a strike against the city or makes it any less urban. Plenty of highly urban polycentric cities: London, Paris and Tokyo for example. As LA matures and continues to move towards transit, these are the cities it should be aspiring to emulate, as opposed to a place like NYC which is fundamentally different to what LA is and therefore not all that relevant when making comparisons.

[pwright1]

Originally Posted by nei

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 large single family homes of 16th St nw in DC are pretty close. In fact they're only 3 miles from the White House and even closer to Columbia Heights and Adams Morgan. Why even bring up Hancock Park when we know, at least Angelenos know Hancock Park was built during the 1910's - 1920 when LA was a young and much different city. And being 6 miles from DTLA probably felt like some far off place back then.

[Deluusions]

Originally Posted by Kobe25

More Delusional & Idiotic talk from the L.A haters !

I actually plan on moving to Newport Beach in the future. I love LA and the LA area a lot.... one of my favorite cities but you're wrong and you think way to highly of it. Very delusional LA booster that lacks common sense.

[Tim Randal Walker]

Good point, DistricDirt.

Perhaps we need an LA vs Tokyo thread.