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 like the fact that LA is filling in at a high rate. But it's very car-oriented infill...and therefore neither as beneficial or as dense as a more urban city would do it.
To my knowledge, no one has posted any actual data to support that SF has more of anything in that area, apart from perhaps population.
Again, the thread title is best downtowns in 2020-DTLA has received much hype and acclaim in the last five years....can we say the same about SF? I really don't think we can.
DTLA receiving much hype and acclaim is great. I’d gather that part of it comes from letting people know that there has been a substantial shift over the last couple of decades since these stories often come with detailing the dramatic change from yesteryears or yesterdecades. While the greater downtown SF area has also changed, they aren’t dramatic shifts in terms of how livable or walkable or bustling it is now compared to before, because the expectation set from previous decades was already that it is dense.
Aside from landmarks, you can also try as a proxy finding bars or restaurants within a certain distance from an area on yelp or google maps. You can also try compiling walkscore comparisons or the heatmaps for approximately the same areas.
A lot of sunbelt-style infill is car-oriented...huge parking garages, a car (or two!) for every housing unit, etc.
Right, that's the parking podiums and basement levels. On the ground level though, they look mostly the same as other infill since they are often mixed-use. It's mostly regrettable because the cost of building out for those parking requirements need to be factored into the cost of building regardless of whether or not the tenants have the need for that many or any parking spaces. There's a side argument that it incentives car usage simply by having those parking spaces, but it's still infill and far better than a surface parking lot where the street level activity or resident population to parking space ratio is zero.
A significant part of what made DTLA's revitalization possible was an adaptive reuse ordinance for the large historic buildings there which allowed for those spaces to become used and inhabited without meeting minimum parking requirements. In general, the minimum parking requirements of the city and county should be removed
Right, that's the parking podiums and basement levels. On the ground level though, they look mostly the same as other infill since they are often mixed-use. It's mostly regrettable because the cost of building out for those parking requirements need to be factored into the cost of building regardless of whether or not the tenants have the need for that many or any parking spaces. There's a side argument that it incentives car usage simply by having those parking spaces, but it's still infill and far better than a surface parking lot where the street level activity or resident population to parking space ratio is zero.
A significant part of what made DTLA's revitalization possible was an adaptive reuse ordinance for the large historic buildings there which allowed for those spaces to become used and inhabited without meeting minimum parking requirements. In general, the minimum parking requirements of the city and county should be removed
Agreed on a lot of points.
DTLA is getting good in those areas, especially in the more prosperous parts, which seem to coincide with the southern areas where old buildings mix with new ones.
Some of my point is about the buildings...exposed garages, etc. But some is the simple fact that there are huge parking ratios and a lot of drivers.
From a development standpoint, any parking beyond what the developer wants is certainly a big issue. Sometimes the geometries of the parking limit the number of spaces, which then limits the number of housing units or amount of office. A city without parking minimums will allow a lot more space that wouldn't otherwise be possible. That includes projects where curb cuts aren't possible, as well as small-site projects where a ramp would be prohibitive or impossible but one level of parking is easy. In the latter example, the single level might fit 15 spaces which could translate to 15 units in some cities...or 100 units in others.
My favorite part of downtown LA's renaissance is the Adaptable Reuse Ordinance which allows for the conversion of old commercial buildings to new uses including apartments, condos, live/work lofts, retail and hotels. So many empty and abandoned buildings are being renovated beautifully and really changing eyesores and dead zones to some of the best downtown streetlife.
I think the top tier is pretty spot on with that group, although I might move Seattle to #4.
It gets a little messy as you get into the next tiers.
I agree, I would move Seattle down to Tier 2. It should be Tier 1 in the next decade with everything going on.
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.
