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.
So when I leave my house to walk to the subway, along with scores of other people in my borough, this "has absolutely nothing to do with what is actually going on at the street level"? And for the 100,000+ commuters who walk to work in Manhattan each day, does this also have "absolutely nothing to do with what is actually going on at the street level"? And the thousands and thousands of people who pour out of Penn Station each morning, does this have "absolutely nothing to do with what is actually going on at the street level"?
Did you even read my post? The reason you and everyone is doing that in NYC is because you have extremely high residential structural density. Why respond if you didn't read the post?
Did you even read my post? The reason you and everyone is doing that in NYC is because you have extremely high residential structural density. Why respond if you didn't read the post?
Damn, it's hard getting a straight answer in this forum. You would think you were deposing Bill Clinton (or talking to Pacquiao fans).
I just asked one question: what role, if any, do transit, car ownership rates, and urban design have in this discussion? Major role? Minor role? No role at all? Or is it density and density alone that contributes to the urban-ness of cities?
Damn, it's hard getting a straight answer in this forum. You would think you were deposing Bill Clinton (or talking to Pacquiao fans).
I just asked one question: what role, if any, do transit, car ownership rates, and urban design have in this discussion? Major role? Minor role? No role at all? Or is it density and density alone that contributes to the urban-ness of cities?
Damn, it's hard getting a straight answer in this forum. You would think you were deposing Bill Clinton (or talking to Pacquiao fans).
I just asked one question: what role, if any, do transit, car ownership rates, and urban design have in this discussion? Major role? Minor role? No role at all? Or is it density and density alone that contributes to the urban-ness of cities?
I answered you right here:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
Transit, walk, and bike counts by themselves have no barring on urbanity. They only provide proof that occupied high residential structural density has a direct correlation to high pedestrian counts, bike users, and transit users. L.A., for example, doesn't have high residential structural density so it has low counts for these variables. With tight streets, it would have amazingly high counts because the structural density would be so high. The gaps between both sides of the street across L.A. are too big for these variables to be high making car travel relatively easy.
I agree though that transit, walking, and built form play a roll. It's just hard to determine how to measure urbanity with all these different factors
I thank you for your response. This is the first time in City-Data history I've ever received an answer to it. Though it would be nice if someone said how important a role they play. I don't think a percentage is necessary; simply saying "an important role" would suffice.
you hit desire for "CA lifestyle", I doubt you'd choose LA over SF.
If weather, beach, and the overall world-famous SoCal lifestyle
It's easier to live that ubiquitous CA lifestyle
So gross. CA Transplants like you are always talking through your noses about "the liiiifestyle" like you live on future Mars. You hear it all the time. "Why don't you move out here? I just can't iMAgine anywhere else now that I'm used to the liiiifestyle." Ug.
MDAllstar, I think that's one of the more absurd things said in this thread. If only the streets were tighter, more people in LA would walk!
The only thing people seem so oddly fixated on outside of density is the width of a street, with whole threads dedicated to which city has the most narrow street!
Too many variables in isolation here, none meaning anything by themselves. My head is spinning! I'll take people's highly subjective "gut feels" based on travel/living experiences at this point before I read any more stats from anyone.
But Los Angeles does have high residential structural density.
Remember what I said before when KodeBlue raised this point. You need to specify what you mean by "structural density." Structural density could mean dividing the number of total units (numerator) by land mass (denominator). In that sense, Los Angeles is very structurally dense. I am assuming, however, that you're talking about street design (set backs, attached buildings, urban fabric, etc.). That is not as easily quantifiable. Nonetheless, I think you should make that clear if that is in fact what you're talking about.
MDAllstar, I think that's one of the more absurd things said in this thread. If only the streets were tighter, more people in LA would walk!
The only thing people seem so oddly fixated on outside of density is the width of a street, with whole threads dedicated to which city has the most narrow street!
Too many variables in isolation here, none meaning anything by themselves. My head is spinning! I'll take people's highly subjective "gut feels" based on travel/living experiences at this point before I read any more stats from anyone.
I will explain everything for you. Take this street:
-remove setbacks for all the buildings and bring the buildings right up to the street.
-cut the street in half providing only enough room for a one way street and one side of parking.
-do the exact same thing to almost all north-south streets in a 5 mile radius.
Now, let's see people try to get around with their cars in the core of L.A. Good luck!
People across L.A. are only able to live the way they do with their cars because the city was built to accommodate a ton of people along with their cars. It's pretty straightforward really.
Yes. Oakland to me feels more connected to SF than most of the entire west side of SF feels connected to the rest of the city. I guess I'm a transplant and I'm way wrong and that opinion doesn't count, but it's my opinion and my experience. It doesn't mean Oakland is contiguous or that it appears visually just as connected as a Cambridge, but functionally, it's a fairly solid extension of San Francisco overall.
As bad as MUNI is, it doesn't take 90 minutes (Acela 30th St in Philly to Penn in Manhattan) to get from DT SF to Park Merced in SW SF. It just doesn't. Light rail and/or express buses have you there in 30 minutes (rail without rush hour traffic) or 45 minutes by express bus.
And frankly, a lot of it does come down to "feel". Urbanity itself is a super subjective topic. I think Bajanyankee and I are about the only ones freely saying that. Distance can be super subjective. The two cities I spend the most time in are SF and NYC. DT SF and DT Oakland, to me, "feel" closer than many points A & B in NYC, frankly, because NYC is such a freakin beast of immense magnitudes that a separation of just 1-2 miles there can feel like worlds apart. What's a 2-4 stop subway ride on a *fast* subway that just happens to go underwater for 5 minutes?
Boston being a much smaller city (to me it feels quite small even compared to SF), Cambridge feels much closer to the Back Bay than Brooklyn feels to Manhattan. I'm sure in reality they are very much the same distance. That's my subjective, personal "feel".
And I can't argue with you on that! That's your feeling. University City feels much closer to CC than any of these other places feel to their respective main areas. UC and CC almost feel like one compared to Brooklyn vs Manhattan or Oakland vs SF.
If you worked for a firm with an office in both SF and LA that was transferring you to CA (either place), and urbanity was your absolute top prerequisite with a gap in priorities before you hit desire for "CA lifestyle", I doubt you'd choose LA over SF. If weather, beach, and the overall world-famous SoCal lifestyle were ranked well ahead of being in a more traditional urban city, then no question, LA would be it, and perhaps you want to move to one of the more urban options there, but it wouldn't be the same as living in the NE quadrant of SF, where you get one of the most undeniably urban living experiences this country has to offer (but no beach, bad weather, and lots of people wearing black all the time).
It's easier to live that ubiquitous CA lifestyle AND have some urbanity thrown in the mix in LA than it is in SF (which I would say is impossible since you *can't* get that CA lifestyle in the Bay Area), but you can't really get the same urban lifestyle in LA that you can in SF, Boston, DC, etc etc Maybe in a few years time, but the mentality and vibe is just not there...competes too much with a city revolved around the car and the beach, two ideas that don't go with that cold hard urban atmosphere these other cities provide.
actually its as fast as 62 minutes some at 70 minutes with an extra stop; though still are not connected in this sense and Acela is not cheap in the relative sense
on the feeling, Oakland is not cohesive yet does have decent transit time connections
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.
Though it would be nice if someone said how important a role they play. I don't think a percentage is necessary; simply saying "an important role" would suffice.
