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.
As I recall, there was a thread about polycentric cities located in different parts of the world. LA's configuration may be unusual for the USA, but not globally.
Yes, but most of those cities outside the US (e.g. Tokyo, London) have a much more urban landscape than LA. And that's the key thing that LA is currently missing to rise to that level.
and also the possibility of capping I-5 and building a huge park on top of it, but I don't know if it will actually ever be done. LID I-5
I visited the really interesting Freeway Park last time I was there and thought it was fantastic. I wonder if they're going to piecemeal build over it until the whole thing is capped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward234
Yes, but most of those cities outside the US (e.g. Tokyo, London) have a much more urban landscape than LA. And that's the key thing that LA is currently missing to rise to that level.
To Tokyo or London levels? Yea, definitely. SF/Chicago/Philly/Boston/DC are much more within grasp. I don't think we'll see a US city reach current Tokyo/London levels in the next couple decades if ever.
I did vote for Seattle out of the options on this pole, not to be a homer because there are a few cities listed that I think are great contenders, but I do really think it's coming into its prime.
I find LA to already be quite iconic - cannot deny that. And it's definitely BIG. It's already there and has been for quite some time. NYC, Chicago, and LA will always be the big 3 in my mind at least.
I think Miami, and to a lesser extent Atlanta, are there as well. More recent arrivals to the scene than LA, but Miami is most definitely iconic and internationally recognized. It and Atlanta are both quite large and boast strong name recognition.
Others on the list (St. Louis, Baltimore, Pitt come to mind) are great cities in their own rights by all means, but I think they may have seen their prime and not sure they'll get back to that 'iconic' status they enjoyed years ago, not to say it couldn't happen!. Denver and Minneapolis are probably the most similar cities in the country to Seattle in size/stature, but I think at this moment Seattle is gaining momentum moreso.
I do think that Seattle is on its way to joining SF and LA as a premier West Coast city. This may be a homer bias, but I think it is iconic in some ways already, if only on this coast or in the US. I think most would see a Sbux logo or image of the Space Needle (for better or worse) and think 'Seattle'. Even if they're not sure where it is exactly or much about it. As some have noted as well, when people hear 'Seattle' they think rain - and that's name association and recognition in and of itself.
As this decade goes forward, Seattle's urban core is developing faster than almost any other major city in the country. Thousands of apartment units, millions of SF of office space, the largest deep bore tunnel project in the country and associated demo of a waterfront viaduct and rebirth of said waterfront, and ambitious mass transit expansion are all moving the city and region in the right direction.
I also think - and this is beating a dead horse - that the sheer corporate presence in this city is impressive for its size. Almost everyone uses or knows of Amazon, Microsoft, Starbucks, Costco, Nordstrom, T-Mobile USA, Nintendo USA, and the majority of Boeing's manufacturing and engineering operations - just to name a few. They're all here. The large Bay Area corporate titans are expanding operations in Seattle at a huge rate.
Even our landscape is iconic (to me anyway). Not many cities with a backdrop like this:
(image free to use/share from Wikipedia Commons)
This.
And I agree with Bluefox, fantastic pic from a fresh angle.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,177,862 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edward234
Yes, but most of those cities outside the US (e.g. Tokyo, London) have a much more urban landscape than LA. And that's the key thing that LA is currently missing to rise to that level.
While London is unarguably way more urban than LA due to its pre-automobile layout, old age, robust public transportation and massive population, it isn't a very dense city, especially for its size. Its population density is higher than Boston's, but lower than San Francisco's. So population density isn't the only factor in determining urbanity, as London clearly shows. Having a uniform, walkable urban form that is at human scale is the biggest factor. And of that list, I'd say Seattle, LA and Miami have the best chances of reaching the next tier.
While London is unarguably way more urban than LA due to its pre-automobile layout, old age, robust public transportation and massive population, it isn't a very dense city, especially for its size. Its population density is higher than Boston's, but lower than San Francisco's. So population density isn't the only factor in determining urbanity, as London clearly shows. Having a uniform, walkable urban form that is at human scale is the biggest factor. And of that list, I'd say Seattle, LA and Miami have the best chances of reaching the next tier.
London's population density is for municipal borders that are 607 square miles versus 47 square miles and with something like double the percentage of greenspace within that boundary. If you use Inner London's 123 square miles, which is still much larger than SF, then the density goes up to something like 27,000 ppsqm to SF's 19,000 sqm though at one point, Inner London's density was actually much higher than that at around 40,000 ppsqm. The two are not very comparable in urbanity or density, though it's certainly less packed than NYC.
I agree Seattle, LA, and Miami have the best chances and I think LA is actually sort of in the middle of that right now being in the lower end of one and higher end of the other.
London's population density is for municipal borders that are 607 square miles versus 47 square miles and with something like double the percentage of greenspace within that boundary. If you use Inner London's 123 square miles, which is still much larger than SF, then the density goes up to something like 27,000 ppsqm to SF's 19,000 sqm though at one point, Inner London's density was actually much higher than that at around 40,000 ppsqm. The two are not very comparable in urbanity or density, though it's certainly less packed than NYC.
I agree Seattle, LA, and Miami have the best chances and I think LA is actually sort of in the middle of that right now being in the lower end of one and higher end of the other.
Very true, London is definitely denser than any US city not named NYC.
While London is unarguably way more urban than LA due to its pre-automobile layout, old age, robust public transportation and massive population, it isn't a very dense city, especially for its size. Its population density is higher than Boston's, but lower than San Francisco's. So population density isn't the only factor in determining urbanity, as London clearly shows. Having a uniform, walkable urban form that is at human scale is the biggest factor. And of that list, I'd say Seattle, LA and Miami have the best chances of reaching the next tier.
McDonalds is also more expensive than Eleven Madison Park; my wife and I went to EMP and our total bill was $600; while I treated 700 people to McDonalds, and my bill was $8,000, therefore McDonalds must be more expensive.
**Not a true story (at least the McDonalds part), but you get why saying SF is denser than London is silly?
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,177,862 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by FAReastcoast
McDonalds is also more expensive than Eleven Madison Park; my wife and I went to EMP and our total bill was $600; while I treated 700 people to McDonalds, and my bill was $8,000, therefore McDonalds must be more expensive.
**Not a true story (at least the McDonalds part), but you get why saying SF is denser than London is silly?
Yes, OyCrumbler nicely explained the issues on why London's (city proper) overall density is relatively low, at least on paper. Boston and SF are far smaller than even Inner London, so I understand scale. That said, on a global scale with its developed peers (NYC, Tokyo, Paris), London (city proper) is relatively not that dense. Again, this has to do with the scale of the area defined as "London" (along with urban planning), as things even out at the metropolitan level (and dwarf our metros in terms of density).
So from a metropolitan perspective, LA is already the densest metro we have. Even accounting for weighted density, metro LA is at least comfortably in the 3 spot (way behind NYC, on par with the Bay Area). Which brings me back to my point about urban form and walkability, which is really the only thing holding LA back (and Miami/Seattle, to lesser extents) from being traditionally urban, by American standards. If contemporary LA had the urban form of London or Tokyo, both polycentric metros, we wouldn't be arguing about its urbanity. We'd be arguing about how many more people it could add to up its low population density. It's kind of a chicken and the egg question, though. Does urban form create density, or vice versa?
Last edited by qworldorder; 05-18-2017 at 12:05 PM..
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.
