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.
Wasn't it established that LA's peak housing density is on par with Boston and Philadelphia, and higher than DC's? Why is the "15 immigrants crammed into a house" card still being played?!
Even if Westlake/Koreatown lost population due to gentrification, the new developments that would spur would very quickly fill the void. Hell, Westlake has 1000/uc right now, and it hasn't even gentrified yet.
Philadelphia's peak is not as high, but Philly's peak is also in its most affluent area - Center City. The very wealthy in Philly either live along the Main Line in the western burbs, or they live in CC. The young professional set almost all lives in and around CC. For LA, is its peak density in its affluent/most affluent areas, or areas that are poor to middle class? It goes to others' (and my) point that in cities like Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, etc etc the wealthy have historically chosen and are continuing to choose to live in centralized hyper dense areas, often without a car or at least multiple cars as is common with owners of detached housing, whereas in LA, the very affluent live away from the dense, urban areas. LA definitely has that young professional set coming in droves, but it doesn't appear to have attracted the entrenched upper 1% yet.
San Francisco - the same. Exclusive doorman buildings and walk-ups on Nob Hill in 80K-120K ppsm density (higher than anywhere in LA). All those fancy fancy condos like Four Seasons and St. Regis or the Millennium that would normally be in Beverly Hills/Century City/Westwood or somewhere on the westside, set back and gated in LA, are right downtown in San Francisco. The other condo areas are Pac Heights and Russian Hill, each with a more traditional/old school urban setup, akin to what you might find in Koreatown, but instead of yuppies and immigrants, you're talking billionaires and multimillionaires also mixed in, choosing to live in that environment instead of a sprawling estate outside of the hustle and bustle.
Boston has Back Bay and Beacon Hill, two of the city's densest and most central neighborhoods, as its most affluent. It, too, has super super high end condos for the very affluent right downtown, and more on the way.
I think tides are changing - the sheer amount of serious proposals and under construction projects in DTLA will definitely elevate it. Add in the transit improvements and the constant growth of the inner core. It will change, but for now, it doesn't have that dynamic that other cities in the top 5 plus DC have.
Wasn't it established that LA's peak housing density is on par with Boston and Philadelphia, and higher than DC's? Why is the "15 immigrants crammed into a house" card still being played?!
Even if Westlake/Koreatown lost population due to gentrification, the new developments that would spur would very quickly fill the void. Hell, Westlake has 1000/uc right now, and it hasn't even gentrified yet.
You must be confused. Who is talking about density? We're talking about why low income communities with high immigrant populations have retail while other lower income communities without immigrants lack retail.
Most of the businesses open in LA's lower income communities are ran by immigrants. You have to have that lower tier immigrant population to foster economic development at that price point. Many times, these businesses are ran by entire families. New York and San Francisco also have these populations. DC, on the other hand, doesn't have it. The samething is true for Baltimore.
Food deserts and a lack of basic amenities is an issue in most black non-immigrant neighborhoods across the nation. American lower income residents don't have the foreign entrepreneur spirit that it takes to open these low budget businesses. It's an even deeper discussion when we began to discuss the jobs lower income Americans will take versus lower income foreign born residents.
Philadelphia's peak is not as high, but Philly's peak is also in its most affluent area - Center City. The very wealthy in Philly either live along the Main Line in the western burbs, or they live in CC. The young professional set almost all lives in and around CC. For LA, is its peak density in its affluent/most affluent areas, or areas that are poor to middle class? It goes to others' (and my) point that in cities like Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, etc etc the wealthy have historically chosen and are continuing to choose to live in centralized hyper dense areas, often without a car or at least multiple cars as is common with owners of detached housing, whereas in LA, the very affluent live away from the dense, urban areas. LA definitely has that young professional set coming in droves, but it doesn't appear to have attracted the entrenched upper 1% yet.
I just want to point out that while this is mostly true, Northwest Philadelphia has always had a good bit of wealth/gentrification as well, between Chestnut Hill, Roxborough, Manayunk, East Falls, the nice parts of Mt. Airy, etc. Much of this area is dense by national standards, but not by Philadelphia standards.
^^True. But by Philly standards, not so dense - more leafy green.
CC still houses most of the absolute powerbrokers of the city who choose not to live and commute in from Bryn Mawr or Villanova.
My mother has a cousin who is an elected judge (her husband is also an elected judge) who live in a beautiful historic house in Chestnut Hill. I think neighborhoods such as that are pretty popular with people who would like to live in the Main Line, but have to stay in the city for political reasons.
You must be confused. Who is talking about density? We're talking about why low income communities with high immigrant populations have retail while other lower income communities without immigrants lack retail.
Most of the businesses open in LA's lower income communities are ran by immigrants. You have to have that lower tier immigrant population to foster economic development at that price point. Many times, these businesses are ran by entire families. New York and San Francisco also have these populations. DC, on the other hand, doesn't have it. The samething is true for Baltimore.
Food deserts and a lack of basic amenities is an issue in most black non-immigrant neighborhoods across the nation. American lower income residents don't have the foreign entrepreneur spirit that it takes to open these low budget businesses. It's an even deeper discussion when we began to discuss the jobs lower income Americans will take versus lower income foreign born residents.
Baltimore has plenty of business owned by immigrants. There are ethnic enclaves in Baltimore that DC lacks.
Wasn't it established that LA's peak housing density is on par with Boston and Philadelphia, and higher than DC's? Why is the "15 immigrants crammed into a house" card still being played?!
Even if Westlake/Koreatown lost population due to gentrification, the new developments that would spur would very quickly fill the void. Hell, Westlake has 1000/uc right now, and it hasn't even gentrified yet.
Compared to Green Pointe or whatever fancy Brooklyn neighborhood that was being used as an example, I wouldn't be surprised if K-Town's higher household size makes them look closer in density.
However, you are right that this "LA is dense because of huge household sizes" has been gone over so many times it is not funny. It is simply not accurate to say that LA's density is explained by large household sizes. It's a negligible difference.
What is funny is how people are so willing to ignore similar overcrowding in parts of San Francisco.
And yes, there is no Beacon Hill / Pacific Heights / Center City in Los Angeles that has traditionally been upscale as well as being highly urban. That being said there are several middle-density (for LA, high density for the US) neighborhoods that are considered very upscale and have desirable urban characteristics.
Compared to Green Pointe or whatever fancy Brooklyn neighborhood that was being used as an example, I wouldn't be surprised if K-Town's higher household size makes them look closer in density.
However, you are right that this "LA is dense because of huge household sizes" has been gone over so many times it is not funny. It is simply not accurate to say that LA's density is explained by large household sizes. It's a negligible difference.
Via CityData, average household size:
Fort Greene: 2.0 people / household
Koreatown: 2.7 people / household
No, it doesn't explain LA's density, but it may affect the highest densities. But in most other urban cities, low household size tend to associated with the densest center city neighborhoods, less so in LA. Koreatown's household size is typical of many immigrant outer borough neighborhoods of NYC, but ones in or near the city center:
You must be confused. Who is talking about density? We're talking about why low income communities with high immigrant populations have retail while other lower income communities without immigrants lack retail.
Most of the businesses open in LA's lower income communities are ran by immigrants. You have to have that lower tier immigrant population to foster economic development at that price point. Many times, these businesses are ran by entire families. New York and San Francisco also have these populations. DC, on the other hand, doesn't have it. The samething is true for Baltimore.
Food deserts and a lack of basic amenities is an issue in most black non-immigrant neighborhoods across the nation. American lower income residents don't have the foreign entrepreneur spirit that it takes to open these low budget businesses. It's an even deeper discussion when we began to discuss the jobs lower income Americans will take versus lower income foreign born residents.
Sorry, that post wasn't directed at you, I pretty much agree with you for the most part.
If the neighborhoods you speak of are structurally dense, adding amenities should boost them into the 90s. If they're not, no amount of amenities will push the score to those levels. An example would be Boyle Heights, which also borders DTLA, and has a large immigrant population with few vacant storefronts, but only scores a 77. It lacks the sheer amount of commercial corridors found in Westlake, Koreatown, and East Hollywood.
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.
