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.
I prefer going somewhere where there are actual jobs. 500k jobs in Brooklyn, a borough of 2.5 million people, is absolutely laughable.
? The main CBDs where there are more jobs than you can shake a stick at are very, very accessible by transit or biking from Brooklyn. I don't see how that's laughable. Were you not aware of the difference in unemployment rates between LA and NYC (admittedly much closer now than they were a couple years ago, but still a noticeable difference).
I'm just kinda going back and forth here. It is true that L.A. smashes DC into the ground in terms of residential density. But it is equally true that DC smashes L.A. into the ground in terms of CBD size and transit-orientation, and total walking commuters. On a pound for pound basis, DC even beats Chicago here with greater volume coming out of its busiest metro stations in its downtown core. The question is whether LA's greater residential density trumps that. Some might say yes, but others might say that DC offers a lifestyle and core rush hour pedestrian crush that's more similar to NYC, which they view as a standard for "urban."
Yea, I agree that a more kitchen sink (and real world) approach is that weighing everything, DC and LA are pretty much in the same category in terms of being "urban" which is a much more ambiguous term. DC and LA are both odd ducks in terms of being placed in the same tier as Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, and SF. It's a kind of overall accounting that puts DC and LA in roughly the same tier despite very strong differences from those other cities in one way or another.
However, the more similar to NYC part is blown way out of proportion. The kind of transit ridership and sheer population, commercial and job density of neighborhoods of NYC and the sheer amount of these neighborhoods blows everything out of the water by such an extent that it comes down to more of a logarithmic scale which simply classes it outside of any of the other cities--because without placing NYC in a separate tier, even the stereotypically sprawl-y major sunbelt metropolises come closer to that next tier up than NYC does to the next tier down overall.
Yea, I agree that a more kitchen sink (and real world) approach is that weighing everything, DC and LA are pretty much in the same category in terms of being "urban" which is a much more ambiguous term. DC and LA are both odd ducks in terms of being placed in the same tier as Boston, Chicago, Philadelphia, and SF. It's a kind of overall accounting that puts DC and LA in roughly the same tier despite very strong differences from those other cities in one way or another.
However, the more similar to NYC part is blown way out of proportion. The kind of transit ridership and sheer population, commercial and job density of neighborhoods of NYC and the sheer amount of these neighborhoods blows everything out of the water by such an extent that it comes down to more of a logarithmic scale which simply classes it outside of any of the other cities--because without placing NYC in a separate tier, even the stereotypically sprawl-y major sunbelt metropolises come closer to that next tier up than NYC does to the next tier down overall.
I don't know, I do think that Chicago and Philadelphia are closer to New York City than Phoenix and Houston. But maybe just barely closer. At least those former cities offer several places to get a NYC-esque experience while there is almost none of that in the latter two cities.
But I generally agree with the sentiment. It was like that "Is SF more like LA or NYC" thread - NYC is so uniquely urban, walkable and dense over a large area that while SF has NYC-esque elements it is still closer to LA.
But Walkscore doesn't actually gauge behavior. It formulaically tells us how many things are how close. And there's value in that, no doubt. But it's not the same thing as a person who doesn't own a car who we can be virtually certain is a pedestrian in nearly all cases. So those stats do tell us quite a bit about how the neighborhood functions.
I don't know if these stats answer the "more urban" question, but they certainly reveal a difference in lifestyle.
Isn't boosting a Walkscore, at least in these cities, a bit of an easy fix? I noticed that the Walkscore in my old neighborhood increased by 8 points. I don't think it's any more walkable than it was before; it's just gentrifying.
Fair point, and DC does get points for being more classically urban, I just don't feel it's enough to put it over LA.
Walkscore isn't perfect, but it singles out the most walkable cores pretty easily.
(excluding LA)
NYC
San Francisco
Chicago
Boston
Philly
DC
Seattle
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
? The main CBDs where there are more jobs than you can shake a stick at are very, very accessible by transit or biking from Brooklyn. I don't see how that's laughable. Were you not aware of the difference in unemployment rates between LA and NYC (admittedly much closer now than they were a couple years ago, but still a noticeable difference).
That was a cheapshot, but there is something to be said about job density in this discussion. Or better yet, the ratio of jobs to people in a given area. On either metric, Brooklyn scores below average given its population density. That isn't fair though, Brooklyn isn't supposed to be the major employment center in its region, Manhattan is. Central LA (along with the Westside) IS supposed to be a major employment center, and it has a job density comparable to San Francisco and DC. It essential functions like the like a self-contained city. I find that interesting given LA's reputation.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 06-26-2015 at 08:05 PM..
That was a cheapshot, but there is something to be said about job density in this discussion. Or better yet, the ratio of jobs to people in a given area. On either metric, Brooklyn scores below average given its population density. That isn't fair though, Brooklyn isn't supposed to be a major employment center in its region, Manhattan is. Central LA (along with the Westside) IS supposed to be a major employment center, and it has a job density comparable to San Francisco and DC. It functions like the core of its region. I find that interesting given its reputation.
I don't see how that was a cheapshot at all. Like, if there aren't major employment numbers for SFV or South Los Angeles, what does it matter when people can easily get to the other employment centers? I don't understand if you actually have a point. Brooklyn abuts Manhattan's two CBDs and both of those are among the largest in the US and by a massive margin. I think either Chicago or DC's might be among them, but that's a singular number.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 06-26-2015 at 08:07 PM..
I don't see how that was a cheapshot at all. Like, if there aren't major employment number for SFV or South Los Angeles, what does it matter when people can easily get to the other employment centers? I don't understand if you actually have a point.
Dude, he was taking cheapshots at LA, so I gave one back. I wasn't trying to make a point. Sorry if I offended your beloved adopted city.
Dude, he was taking cheapshots at LA, so I gave one back. I wasn't trying to make a point. Sorry if I offended your beloved adopted city.
There are probably much better points to make such as the number of employment centers that are just outside of reach of central LA itself where the people living on the peripheries of Central LA can easily have the option of going to those jobs as well.
I don't know what a "decent amount of people" is but I'm guessing about two. These areas are relatively auto-centric and downtrodden. Though the intersection of Benning and Minnesota does see *some* traffic since it is close to a metro station.
But hey, maybe this guy just caught the bridge on a bad day.
Why are you showing the highway? This isn't even in Anacostia or Congress Heights. What was the point of posting this video? If you go down on MLK blvd. or Malcolm X blvd. and in downtown Anacostia, there are people on the street walking all day long. I don't know what your agenda is, but you need to stop making things up. I mean, you just posted a video of a bridge on a road that acts like a highway in Capitol Hill passing that off for Anacostia and Congress Heights to all these people from other places that don't know the area.
Last edited by MDAllstar; 06-27-2015 at 11:42 AM..
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.
