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.
On the other hand, Los Angeles destroyed Bunker Hill, which was LA's one true Victorian-era residential neighborhood. If it survived it could have been the premier residential neighborhood of LA today.
On the other, other hand, Los Angeles is often criticized for having detached homes in the city (even though San Francisco has houses complete with garages right in the middle of the city, you'll never hear a peep about that though).
I agree though, razing this neighborhood was a bad move. This area now somewhat has the feel of a sunbelt faux-downtown now.
IMO, if Historic DTLA regains its occupancy rate of the old days(which seems to be happening), then DTLA will be the premiere downtown in the country.
On the other, other hand, Los Angeles is often criticized for having detached homes in the city (even though San Francisco has houses complete with garages right in the middle of the city, you'll never hear a peep about that though).
This is one of those complaints I just don't understand. Reading some of the posts on the "Boston/Philly" thread gave me a headache. Posters downplaying "urbanity" because of "single-family detached homes..."
Using this argument, pretty much none of Queens, NY, is "urban."
This is one of those complaints I just don't understand. Reading some of the posts on the "Boston/Philly" thread gave me a headache. Posters downplaying "urbanity" because of "single-family detached homes..."
Using this argument, pretty much none of Queens, NY, is "urban."
The houses people are talking about, I assume, are the ones in the vast stretches of south/central L.A.-they are small houses (like the ones in SF).
On the other, other hand, Los Angeles is often criticized for having detached homes in the city (even though San Francisco has houses complete with garages right in the middle of the city, you'll never hear a peep about that though).
I agree though, razing this neighborhood was a bad move. This area now somewhat has the feel of a sunbelt faux-downtown now.
IMO, if Historic DTLA regains its occupancy rate of the old days(which seems to be happening), then DTLA will be the premiere downtown in the country.
The premiere downtown of the country?! Haha. Perhaps of California and the West coast. It still lags behind 5 other cities in that regard. I don’t see it surpassing NYC or Chicago’s downtowns in our lifetimes, especially when both of those keep growing too.
On the other, other hand, Los Angeles is often criticized for having detached homes in the city (even though San Francisco has houses complete with garages right in the middle of the city, you'll never hear a peep about that though).
I agree though, razing this neighborhood was a bad move. This area now somewhat has the feel of a sunbelt faux-downtown now.
IMO, if Historic DTLA regains its occupancy rate of the old days(which seems to be happening), then DTLA will be the premiere downtown in the country.
That always bothered me about SF. A lot of SF is just single family detached or attached homes with garages. Without doing the math, I'd say most of the geographic area of SF is either this style, or mixed with this style and apartments.
I basically just found SFH in almost every neighborhood of SF. I know every major city has neighborhoods with SFH, whether attached or detached, but I seriously think SF's urbanity is overrated when you see the vast area covered by SFH. Also, a lot of the ones in more urban parts of the city that look ambivalent have been bought by ultra wealthy people and converted into SFH even though they might look like or have previously been multi-family dwellings.
I also know this isn't the same as what Bunker Hill looked like, but still. These aren't all that different from the older SFH residential zones in LA. In LA, they have a slightly larger lot with grass in front and a little on the sides. But LA gets chastised for them and SF gets a pass on them just for being attached (sometimes).
[quote=Arcenal352;54732331]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
This is one of those complaints I just don't understand. Reading some of the posts on the "Boston/Philly" thread gave me a headache. Posters downplaying "urbanity" because of "single-family detached homes..."
Using this argument, pretty much none of Queens, NY, is "urban."
I mean yeah, a lot of Queens is NOT urban. The difference is that Queens is one borough. Some places in Manhattan are SFH bought by the wealthy (brownstones in the WV or UES for example), but the vast majority of people do not live like that in Manhattan. Then the Bronx only has a few areas like that in the northern sections. And Brooklyn's inner neighborhoods are very urban, but some of the outer neighborhoods have SFH. Queens still has places like Astoria, Long Island City, Sunnyside, Jackson Heights, Corona, Jamaica, etc. Even neighborhoods considered "residential" or "suburban" still have massive apartment blocks like parts of Ridgewood, Rego Park, and Forest Hills. Nobody moves to Queens seeking an urban lifestyle. People move to Queens to have a quieter, more suburban lifestyle, but still be in the city with peripheral urban access and amenities. Same with parts of BK like Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights, and Bensonhurst. It's where people wanting a bigger home and a car in Brooklyn move to.
Similarly, nobody moves to Northeast Philly seeking an urban lifestyle. South Philly may be majority single family rowhomes, but the narrow streets and lifestyle still have an urban flare to them, unlike detached SFH neighborhoods of BK and Queens. Same can be said for LA neighborhoods with SFH. Not all are traditionally suburban, even though they look it. However, many of them are. And compared to SF, the layout of a place like South Philly or parts of BK and Queens makes it still more urban on the ground. More things within walking distance, better public transit most of the time, etc.
I also know this isn't the same as what Bunker Hill looked like, but still. These aren't all that different from the older SFH residential zones in LA. In LA, they have a slightly larger lot with grass in front and a little on the sides. But LA gets chastised for them and SF gets a pass on them just for being attached (sometimes).
I think you point out the reason here. While San Francisco has a lot of single-family homes, and many have front-facing garages, there are other factors to consider. For example, many of the houses are attached to each other, they often have zero setback from the sidewalk, and they're typically two to three stories tall. Thus the "street feel" is semi-urban.
In contrast, LA's oldest residential neighborhoods are streetcar suburban. Houses are set back a little from the street, and are almost never attached. Most of the early homes are 1 to 1.5 stories as well, with the bungalow typology very common. This leads to streets which feel much less intensely urban. Indeed, there's not that much difference (where upzoning hasn't happened) between the streetscapes in the innermost LA residential neighborhoods and truly suburban ones, save for the housing typology. Admittedly this is in large part because SoCal lots didn't get much bigger even in the postwar period, with most homes still covering around 50% of the lot, but still.
This is one of those complaints I just don't understand. Reading some of the posts on the "Boston/Philly" thread gave me a headache. Posters downplaying "urbanity" because of "single-family detached homes..."
Using this argument, pretty much none of Queens, NY, is "urban."
Maybe half of Queens's residential neighborhoods wouldn't count as urban under that, though certainly more than half of Queens's population will live in the more urban parts and dwellings since they fit so many more people than neighborhoods that are mostly single-family detached homes which would be the point. Density, mixed-use, and transit access does correlate pretty well with walkability though urban can be a looser definition among different people. Single-family detached homes run a variation from small lot homes with multiple stories to massive sprawling mansions, of course, so it depends on where in the spectrum those houses generally fall and how it's mixed with other building types. Brooklyn has certain areas with single-family detached homes with the major avenues near them with massive apartment buildings. LA is sort of headed in that direction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by frimpter928
The premiere downtown of the country?! Haha. Perhaps of California and the West coast. It still lags behind 5 other cities in that regard. I don’t see it surpassing NYC or Chicago’s downtowns in our lifetimes, especially when both of those keep growing too.
Right, downtown LA as the premiere downtown of the US is a stretch, but I think what LA might end up having is several fairly sizable secondary downtowns that are urban, walkable and within good transit reach of each other. Century City might grow into that and Santa Monica, Hollywood, Culver City, Long Beach and Pasadena are already sort of that.
I think you point out the reason here. While San Francisco has a lot of single-family homes, and many have front-facing garages, there are other factors to consider. For example, many of the houses are attached to each other, they often have zero setback from the sidewalk, and they're typically two to three stories tall. Thus the "street feel" is semi-urban.
In contrast, LA's oldest residential neighborhoods are streetcar suburban. Houses are set back a little from the street, and are almost never attached. Most of the early homes are 1 to 1.5 stories as well, with the bungalow typology very common. This leads to streets which feel much less intensely urban. Indeed, there's not that much difference (where upzoning hasn't happened) between the streetscapes in the innermost LA residential neighborhoods and truly suburban ones, save for the housing typology. Admittedly this is in large part because SoCal lots didn't get much bigger even in the postwar period, with most homes still covering around 50% of the lot, but still.
The urban feel definitely isn't as strong in LA. I 100% agree with that. But on the ground, accessibility to public transit and the bodega culture isn't all that different between many neighborhoods in SF and LA. And I'm talking about urban core LA SFH neighborhoods, not the SFV. It's unfair to classify the SFV as part of urban LA, but leave out WeHo, Beverly Hills, Culver City and Santa Monica. It also would require the addition of similar neighborhoods in SF that are not part of the urban core.
If fully admit that LA's built environment does not inspire the same urban lifestyle as many other classically urban cities. But at the same time, I truly believe SF is overrated since not that many neighborhoods are actually truly urban. Really only parts like North Beach, Nob Hill, The Castro, The Mission, Hayes Valley, the Haight, and a few others are. The rest of the city is just a little bit more smushed together than LA, but not exactly urban. Comparable neighborhoods in NYC are still more urban. But the actual footprint of urban neighborhoods in SF is overstated and therefore the city is overrated.
FWIW, if SF is so urban and walkable, why do I keep seeing people I know there buying cars left and right? Nobody I know in Boston, NYC, Philly, DC or Chicago owns a car, but I know tons of people in SF that own cars. If it's so urban, shouldn't the car be a burden and shouldn't people not want to own one there, just like in the other urban cities?
I mean yeah, a lot of Queens is NOT urban. The difference is that Queens is one borough. Some places in Manhattan are SFH bought by the wealthy (brownstones in the WV or UES for example), but the vast majority of people do not live like that in Manhattan. Then the Bronx only has a few areas like that in the northern sections. And Brooklyn's inner neighborhoods are very urban, but some of the outer neighborhoods have SFH. Queens still has places like Astoria, Long Island City, Sunnyside, Jackson Heights, Corona, Jamaica, etc. Even neighborhoods considered "residential" or "suburban" still have massive apartment blocks like parts of Ridgewood, Rego Park, and Forest Hills. Nobody moves to Queens seeking an urban lifestyle. People move to Queens to have a quieter, more suburban lifestyle, but still be in the city with peripheral urban access and amenities. Same with parts of BK like Bay Ridge, Dyker Heights, and Bensonhurst. It's where people wanting a bigger home and a car in Brooklyn move to.
Similarly, nobody moves to Northeast Philly seeking an urban lifestyle. South Philly may be majority single family rowhomes, but the narrow streets and lifestyle still have an urban flare to them, unlike detached SFH neighborhoods of BK and Queens. Same can be said for LA neighborhoods with SFH. Not all are traditionally suburban, even though they look it. However, many of them are. And compared to SF, the layout of a place like South Philly or parts of BK and Queens makes it still more urban on the ground. More things within walking distance, better public transit most of the time, etc.
I'll just have to agree to disagree with you.
I find most of Queens to be vastly urban, regardless of SFH. I don't think SFH is a defining trait of what makes an area urban vs non-urban. What is non-urban, suburban?
This is CERTAINLY not "suburban:"
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.
