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.
Absolutely! As such, despite not entirely meeting the specific "walkability" criteria that the op laid out, it is an inescapable fact that LA meets & surpasses the standard in terms of so many of the criteria that are critical in judging an urban center as being a "...great iconic, urban big city."
My myriad range of variety of experiences in LA have been done both on foot & via the auto. On the basis of that, to omit LA from the list is a mistake imho.
Absolutely! As such, despite not entirely meeting the specific "walkability" criteria that the op laid out, it is an inescapable fact that LA meets & surpasses the standard in terms of so many of the criteria that are critical in judging an urban center as being a "...great iconic, urban big city."
My myriad range of variety of experiences in LA have been done both on foot & via the auto. On the basis of that, to omit LA from the list is a mistake imho.
I have to disagree. I understand urban is a loaded term, but to me it requires vibrancy, density, walkability, and perhaps most importantly, good public transit. LA has areas of all this but it's certainly not cohesive like NY or Chicago or SF in this regard. The vast majority of its residents still have to drive. Crowded, traffic-choked freeways and lack of parking reflect density and vibrancy, but not in a very desirable way. Is it iconic? Absolutely. But until viable, practical transit alternatives are developed that can connect far flung nodes of vibrancy and walkability and can be widely used by residents and visitors, calling LA an urban city misses the mark.
Yes. LA does not need to be on this poll. It is unique and powerful in its own way (easily #2 in the country).
Anyways, I obviously went with Seattle on this one. I mean come on....
Few indeed would disagree that LA is powerful and unique. But the OP is asking which is "iconic" and "urban". Not including LA in the poll would imply the OP thought LA was already urban to the same or a similar degree as the other cities not included in the poll. This is a notion many including myself take issue with (as explained above).
That's not to say LA isn't great and iconic, or isn't a "megacity". It certainly offers a lot and brings a lot to the table. It's just not quite there yet in terms of urbanity.
Few indeed would disagree that LA is powerful and unique. But the OP is asking which is "iconic" and "urban". Not including LA in the poll would imply the OP thought LA was already urban to the same or a similar degree as the other cities not included in the poll. This is a notion many including myself take issue with (as explained above).
That's not to say LA isn't great and iconic, or isn't a "megacity". It certainly offers a lot and brings a lot to the table. It's just not quite there yet in terms of urbanity.
Valid point.
LA is the first or second city that comes to mind when thinking of iconic. Yet, it's quite the opposite when it comes to traditional urbanity. And those are the two main criteria of the OP. Very hard to vote on this poll with LA as an option.
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.
