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.
It’s sandwiched between larger and more appealing metros. I think there is a hard ceiling on how far Baltimore can go for the foreseeable future.
In terms of sheer population and national economic pull I agree DC & Philly are it's bane.. But appeal is relative on who/what a organization/person is look for. All 3 cities have their pros and cons going for them and will always be in an economic 3 way tug-of-war for the mid-atlantic.
It arguably has the most strategically placed major port on the eastern seaboard, has immediate access to DC's government sector if need be, has the largest medical facility/campus on the planet (by staff) and its metro is already establishing itself as the hub for cyber security. Baltimore doesn't need to be the size of DC or Philly, it just needs to be a better Baltimore, get out of its own way.. and in turn it will boom.
All that being said, Baltimore needs to focus on stabilizing in the 2020's
LA in some ways will see some of the heaviest shifts in terms of becoming an urban, walkable city, but it's arguable that a city that large isn't really going to be an "it" city since it's essentially already made it.
I don't understand how Los Angeles is not walkable now. I just got back from the Clippers game-walked all over between Echo Park and DTLA, hardly even bothering with any kind of vehicle transit.
Are people encountering oil slicks or slipping on banana peels in L.A.? Is that how its not "walkable?"
I don't understand how Los Angeles is not walkable now. I just got back from the Clippers game-walked all over between Echo Park and DTLA, hardly even bothering with any kind of vehicle transit.
Are people encountering oil slicks or slipping on banana peels in L.A.? Is that how its not "walkable?"
L.A. is a polycentric city with a downtown that up until the last decade has resembled anything synonymous to a core. The cities major districts are simply too physically spread out and its transit systems isn't large enough atm to dissuade a car oriented life style.
While LA is making leaps and strides in become more walkable, its never going to be as walkable as hyper compact core-centric cities like NYC, SF, Boston, Philly, DC, Baltimore.
L.A. is a polycentric city with a downtown that up until the last decade has resembled anything synonymous to a core. The cities major districts are simply too physically spread out and its transit systems isn't large enough atm to dissuade a car oriented life style.
While LA is making leaps and strides in become more walkable, its never going to be as walkable as hyper compact core-centric cities like NYC, SF, Boston, Philly, DC, Baltimore.
So this is pretty much the officially sanctioned tourist/transplant "smart take" on the state of Los Angeles urban affairs.
It's completely inaccurate, of course, but is generally accepted as the gospel truth.
"Polycentric" in this context is often used to describe places that aren't part of Los Angeles city.
Do we use "polycentric" to describe metro San Francisco with places like Oakland and Berkeley? Of course we don't because we want to look at them as some sort of urban example-setter. It takes longer to get from Berkeley to San Francisco using public transit than it does to get from the San Fernando Valley to DTLA. Doesn't fit the narrative so we don't hear things like that too often.
Downtown Los Angeles was THE massively dominant force in southern California from the 1880's to around 1970. It didn't really falter much after that, and the other parts of the metro area that were able to rival it were often outside of the incorporated city.
Saying DTLA "only resembles a core until the last decade" is no less ridiculous than saying downtown Chicago is finally coming around as an urban center with their new skyscraper construction.
If a transplant from Michigan moves to L.A., drives everywhere, and stays in the orbit of the places they've been told are "cool", that doesn't take anything away from L.A.'s 140 year history of having one of the most dense and urban cores in the country.
Is Baltimore "walkable" on 17 degree day? NYC in a blizzard?
So this is pretty much the officially sanctioned tourist/transplant "smart take" on the state of Los Angeles urban affairs.
It's completely inaccurate, of course, but is generally accepted as the gospel truth.
I have immediate family in the city and stay in LA on multi-yearly basis... I lived in the DC-Baltimore area for 18 years. No one is going to LA to visit Compton or Los Angeles Port. Locals and tourist are 9/10 going to the "official" tourist spots which are a the cities draw points and economic centers. If those locations aren't readily accessible by anything but a car, then no, the city is not a walkable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
"Polycentric" in this context is often used to describe places that aren't part of Los Angeles city.
Do we use "polycentric" to describe metro San Francisco with places like Oakland and Berkeley? Of course we don't because we want to look at them as some sort of urban example-setter. It takes longer to get from Berkeley to San Francisco using public transit than it does to get from the San Fernando Valley to DTLA. Doesn't fit the narrative so we don't hear things like that too often.
Venice Beach, Hollywood, Century City all administratively part of LA and are all tourist spots and their own economic hubs. Sure, Beverly Hills & Santa Monica are administratively "separate," but they are surrounded by LA on all 4 sides and in real life are functionally part of LA.
Los Angeles is 468 sq/mi.....You could fit San Fran-Oakland, Boston, Baltimore, DC & Philly and still have room to spare, it's simply too large to be walkable regardless of how dense it is.
San Fernando Valley is not connected to DTLA by a single 7km double deck bridge with a massive bay in-between it. So yes, it's going to take longer when the metro can't go in a relatively straight line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
Downtown Los Angeles was THE massively dominant force in southern California from the 1880's to around 1970. It didn't really falter much after that, and the other parts of the metro area that were able to rival it were often outside of the incorporated city.
Saying DTLA "only resembles a core until the last decade" is no less ridiculous than saying downtown Chicago is finally coming around as an urban center with their new skyscraper construction.
Yeah for office... after 5 PM it was an urban ghost town the way Houston is currently. Downtown Chicago has always had a massive residential population that activated the downtown 24/7... LA was never that type of downtown up until the last decade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
If a transplant from Michigan moves to L.A., drives everywhere, and stays in the orbit of the places they've been told are "cool", that doesn't take anything away from L.A.'s 140 year history of having one of the most dense and urban cores in the country.
Is Baltimore "walkable" on 17 degree day? NYC in a blizzard?
No one is saying LA isn't dense, what I'm saying is the city as a whole is is not conducive for walking due to its size and type of density. NYC & Baltimore were settled in 17th century and were built before the age of the car hence their structural density. By the time LA's population reached 100k in ~1896, Baltimore was pushing 500k and NYC was already at 3.5 million, all before a single car was on the road. LA never started booming until after the car became mainstream and modern day DTLA didn't even exist before WWII.
In regards to cold weather or blizzards thats about as relevant as me saying is LA not walkable because it has massive forest fires every year. From a structural & ergonomic standpoint it's not as walkable
I have immediate family in the city and stay in LA on multi-yearly basis... I lived in the DC-Baltimore area for 18 years. It's that night and day.
Last time I checked San Fernando Valley is not connected to DTLA by a single 7km double deck bridge with a massive bay in-between it. Apple to oranges comparison.
Venice Beach, Hollywood, Century City all administratively part of LA and are all tourist spots. Sure Beverly Hills & Santa Monica are administratively "separate," but they are surrounded by LA on all 4 sides and in real life are functionally part of LA. When I'm in LA, i'm using my car 10/10 times
Los Angeles is 468 sq/mi.....You could fit San Fran, Boston, Oakland, Baltimore, DC, & Chicago and still have room to spare, it's simply to large to be walkable regardless of how dense it.
Yeah for office... after 5 PM it was an urban ghost town the way Houston is currently. Downtown Chicago has always had a massive residential population that activated the downtown 24/7... LA was never that type of downtown up until the last decade.
Thats fine.... and those old legacy cities are another 2-300 years old with even more rampant development than LA, so whats your point? No one is saying LA isn't dense, what we are saying is the city as a whole is is not conducive for walking due to its size and type of density.
In regards to cold weather or blizzards thats about as relevant as me saying is LA not walkable because it has massive forest fires every year.
NYC & Baltimore are substantially more hyper-centric cities because they were founded in the settled in 17th century, they were and are built differently because they organically grew from the core and radiated outwards. Modern day DTLA didn't even exist before WWII.
Looking up some figures, Baltimore looks to be about 620,000 people in 80 square miles. I would guesstimate that in that same 80 core miles, L.A. has about 1.2 million people. I don't know how to get figures for this, but its entirely possible that there were even more than that in the core when Bunker Hill was residential.
From the L.A. Times in 1911:
"The visitor to this city can at this moment observe skyscrapers in all stages of construction. It is a study which will provide the most comprehensible kind of answer to the query as to why Los Angeles is leading San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Detroit, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Boston, Buffalo and all other cities of anything near her in building activity as revealed by the monthly expenditures for construction work."
They, of course, are talking about Spring Street. Baltimore is of course older, but DTLA went from being literal frontier/tumbleweeds to being able to flex similar regional dominance as a dowtown as New York or Chicago in about 20 years. At any rate, it kind of undermines the argument that DTLA is something that just now coming into being.
If Venice is 18 miles from Downtown, that's what the distance is. I don't see how having a large area counts as a strike against walkability. People are using various means of transportation (to include walking) to get from point A to B, just like anywhere else. If Baltimore is nine miles across, most people aren't walking that, its still kind of a long distance.
It just seems to me that "walkable" is just a C/D buzzword that has pretty much lost all its meaning. It's starting to remind me of "foodie" or "hipster", just a general purpose nothing-word.
Looking up some figures, Baltimore looks to be about 620,000 people in 80 square miles. I would guesstimate that in that same 80 core miles, L.A. has about 1.2 million people. I don't know how to get figures for this, but its entirely possible that there were even more than that in the core when Bunker Hill was residential.
I don't doubt it, DTLA is rapidly gaining residence. Baltimore is shell of it's former self when the city resident population was 950k back in the 50-60s.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
From the L.A. Times in 1911:
"The visitor to this city can at this moment observe skyscrapers in all stages of construction. It is a study which will provide the most comprehensible kind of answer to the query as to why Los Angeles is leading San Francisco, Portland, Seattle, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Baltimore, Detroit, Minneapolis, New Orleans, Boston, Buffalo and all other cities of anything near her in building activity as revealed by the monthly expenditures for construction work."
They, of course, are talking about Spring Street. Baltimore is of course older, but DTLA went from being literal frontier/tumbleweeds to being able to flex similar regional dominance as a dowtown as New York or Chicago in about 20 years. At any rate, it kind of undermines the argument that DTLA is something that just now coming into being.
It's not so much undermining DTLA dominance (which it has been for decades), but it was never as 3-dimensional as other downtowns regarding amenities, let alone resident population. Imho DTLA started to change once Staples Center anchored the south end and everything was history after that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco
If Venice is 18 miles from Downtown, that's what the distance is. I don't see how having a large area counts as a strike against walkability. People are using various means of transportation (to include walking) to get from point A to B, just like anywhere else. If Baltimore is nine miles across, most people aren't walking that, its still kind of a long distance.
It just seems to me that "walkable" is just a C/D buzzword that has pretty much lost all its meaning. It's starting to remind me of "foodie" or "hipster", just a general purpose nothing-word.
It's not so much a "strike" but an inhibiter. Physically smaller cities are just easier for the average person to navigate whether it be transit times & tourism locations. The saying "Everywhere in L.A takes twenty minutes" still holds true today. When you hear something is 18 miles away (thats beltway to beltway distance from DC to Baltimore) 10/10 people are going drive and unlike LA, Baltimore's core is located in it's geographic center so most "trips" are <5 miles.
I don't even like comparing to LA to cities like Baltimore, DC, Boston & Philly because they are so vastly different. They are truly apples to oranges which isn't a bad thing in any way.
And speaking of Los Angeles, the 2028 Olympics of course will provide an additional incentive for development throughout much of the decade, much like it had for the previous two, with the first coming during the Hollywood/streetcar boom, and the second during the "suburban edge city" era. This is parallel to Atlanta's boom in the 1990s and Salt Lake City's in the 2000s, and both of those cities continue to thrive beyond.
LA is the second largest, richest city in the country, and has been for generations. I have no doubts it will continue to change with the times, but imagining it would be the most transformative city in the country over the next decade feels a bit much.
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.
