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.
Firstly, Downtown DC has all three actually, there are wider boulevard type streets on major thoroughfares, there are medium width streets, and there are other streets downtown with only one or two lanes for traffic.
DC holds more people in it's downtown on a daily basis, and has a larger footprint than Seattle or Los Angeles downtown. So yes naturally there are some streets wider in DT DC than those, but Chicago and NYC have downtown streets that are wider as well, so what are you really saying?
I've posted the actual widths of streets in DC and LA multiple times, but people keep responding that LA's streets are too wide for pedestrians. I posted to show that even in downtown DC, the streets can be wider than LA. I'm not saying that DC doesn't need wide streets, just pointing out that pedestrians to both LA and DC will experience similar street crossings. Are wide streets ok as long as they're needed for more cars?
Quote:
Secondly, what about the rest of these cities? You guys move the goal post to only Downtown when you think it's suits your argument best. But we have entire cities to compare here. As an overall city neither of those cities match the urban structure of Washington, the mere fact this is still being debated by you guys is amazing to me. Neither Seattle or Los Angeles (for sure) have neighborhood streets that match the structural density of this:
I posted about "downtowns" because if you read back through the posts, the original comment was about DTLA having wide streets and narrow sidewalks, so I compared DTLA to downtown DC. DC streets can be narrower than LA in selected areas, but overall they are very similar.
Quote:
Thirdly, as I mentioned if you visited DC you might have a clearer understanding of traffic circles in an urban city work. Dupont Circle, Logan Circle, Thomas Circle, Stanton Park NE, etc. etc. Are all walkable mini parks inside of the traffic circle. People walk directly through the traffic circles either straight, horizontal or diagonal through the traffic circle immediately onto the adjacent continuing street:
I'm sure that I'd have a clearer understanding if I visited and explored DC's traffic circles, but until that happens I was asking for the opinions of people that might already know. Thank you for your response. As a pedestrian, do you find walking through and/or around traffic circles preferable to crossing streets at normal crossings? If people are complaining that LA's streets are wider than DC's (and they aren't on average), then I was wondering about the rest of the DC pedestrian experience. My experience with traffic circles in London and in Southern California is that they are kind of a pain for pedestrians no matter how many benches they have in the middle.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Easy
I've posted the actual widths of streets in DC and LA multiple times, but people keep responding that LA's streets are too wide for pedestrians. I posted to show that even in downtown DC, the streets can be wider than LA. I'm not saying that DC doesn't need wide streets, just pointing out that pedestrians to both LA and DC will experience similar street crossings. Are wide streets ok as long as they're needed for more cars?
I posted about "downtowns" because if you read back through the posts, the original comment was about DTLA having wide streets and narrow sidewalks, so I compared DTLA to downtown DC. DC streets can be narrower than LA in selected areas, but overall they are very similar.
I'm sure that I'd have a clearer understanding if I visited and explored DC's traffic circles, but until that happens I was asking for the opinions of people that might already know. Thank you for your response. As a pedestrian, do you find walking through and/or around traffic circles preferable to crossing streets at normal crossings? If people are complaining that LA's streets are wider than DC's (and they aren't on average), then I was wondering about the rest of the DC pedestrian experience. My experience with traffic circles in London and in Southern California is that they are kind of a pain for pedestrians no matter how many benches they have in the middle.
The streets that are wider than others in DC are purposeful, not to say this can't be the case in LA or other cities, but DC is a master planned capital city. The major avenues with state names like NY, CT, PA Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Avenue's and streets like 16th street and K Street NW are purposely wider due to either having to be thoroughfare to major government institutions or buildings being located on them. This is all in the context of downtown I'm speaking on. Imagine if DTLA LA housed the FBI headquarters (and all of DOJ), the IMF, the World Bank, the State Department, US Treasury, Congress, and all 3 branches of the US gov't, etc. in a less than 2 mile radius. Do you think it could get by with tiny streets the width of Philly or Boston? That probably better explains the size of DC's DT without any visible skyscrapers or occupied buildings over 180' feet.
I've been to London, and it's a whole different animal than DC, but ironically as a "planned capital" city DC's actually significantly more organized, so the traffic circles and matching of the street grid with them actually work very well for pedestrians. And then there's the location of transit near or around them.
Last edited by the resident09; 01-04-2021 at 03:05 PM..
Firstly, Downtown DC has all three actually, there are wider boulevard type streets on major thoroughfares, there are medium width streets, and there are other streets downtown with only one or two lanes for traffic.
DC holds more people in it's downtown on a daily basis, and has a larger footprint than Seattle or Los Angeles downtown. So yes naturally there are some streets wider in DT DC than those, but Chicago and NYC have downtown streets that are wider as well, so what are you really saying?
Secondly, what about the rest of these cities? You guys move the goal post to only Downtown when you think it's suits your argument best. But we have entire cities to compare here. As an overall city neither of those cities match the urban structure of Washington, the mere fact this is still being debated by you guys is amazing to me. Neither Seattle or Los Angeles (for sure) have neighborhood streets that match the structural density of this:
Thirdly, as I mentioned if you visited DC you might have a clearer understanding of traffic circles in an urban city work. Dupont Circle, Logan Circle, Thomas Circle, Stanton Park NE, etc. etc. Are all walkable mini parks inside of the traffic circle. People walk directly through the traffic circles either straight, horizontal or diagonal through the traffic circle immediately onto the adjacent continuing street:
Right, but as mentioned by others, the argument against LA is that it has wider streets when it's certainly not necessarily the case as other places such as DC also has comparably wide streets in parts (and LA also has streets that aren't six lanes wide).
I agree that if this was a comparison based on an average of the entire city, LA would certainly sink well below some cities in urbanity but that's partially a function of LA city limits being so large. Where LA goes up is if you look at the actual large, connected and/or contiguous area of urbanity.
LA for sure has neighborhoods outside of downtown that have streets that are structurally as dense or denser than what you've posted for DC in the streetviews. Part of that is a function of LA having fairly tall structures that are built out to much of their lot in urban neighborhoods of LA.
Or in the enclave of Beverly Hills where a lot of people think of the large estates up on the hills, but there are actually large expanses of fairly dense neighborhoods in the flat portions:
LA's essentially kind of, uh, splotchy, on the block by block basis. The sum on a walkable neighborhood basis though is that it's still quite urban. It used to be a lot splotchier though with a lot of the main commercial streets being lots with large parking lots for a single story commercial building and quite large (or in the case of Koreatown, sometimes just a brownfield as leftovers from the 92 riots), but those have been steadily replaced with taller mixed-use structures here and there with the overall effect that there's a large mostly contiguous urban core of LA including neighborhoods that are quite urban today.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-05-2021 at 10:41 AM..
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,568,606 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Right, but as mentioned by others, the argument against LA is that it has wider streets when it's certainly not necessarily the case as other places such as DC also has comparably wide streets in parts (and LA also has streets that aren't six lanes wide).
I agree that if this was a comparison based on an average of the entire city, LA would certainly sink well below some cities in urbanity but that's partially a function of LA city limits being so large. Where LA goes up is if you look at the actual large, connected and/or contiguous area of urbanity.
LA for sure has neighborhoods outside of downtown that have streets that are structurally as dense or denser than what you've posted for DC in the streetviews. Part of that is a function of LA having fairly tall structures that are built out to much of their lot in urban neighborhoods of LA.
Or in the enclave of Beverly Hills where a lot of people think of the large estates up on the hills, but there are actually large expanses of fairly dense neighborhoods in the flat portions:
LA's essentially kind of, uh, splotchy, on the block by block basis. The sum on a walkable neighborhood basis though is that it's still quite urban. It used to be a lot splotchier though with a lot of the main commercial streets being lots with large parking lots for a single story commercial building and quite large (or in the case of Koreatown, sometimes just a brownfield as leftovers from the 92 riots), but those have been steadily replaced with taller mixed-use structures here and there with the overall effect that there's a large mostly contiguous urban core of LA including neighborhoods that are quite urban today.
Those places look more like suburbs of Washington, which many are urban, or like the outer ring of neighborhoods in Miami. Neither any would say are “more urban” than Washington DC. The “urban format” is completely different in the two places IMO making it almost impossible to compare them.
In some ways, parts of Arlington or Bathesda remind me of parts of LAs west side, in that they are denser built and more vibrant than much of DC proper (Capitol Hill, Petworth), but lack historic architecture and feel more like an "urban pocket" than a traditional urban neighborhood.
Those places look more like suburbs of Washington, which many are urban, or like the outer ring of neighborhoods in Miami. Neither any would say are “more urban” than Washington DC. The “urban format” is completely different in the two places IMO making it almost impossible to compare them.
I know that it's hard to judge based on one street, but most of the neighborhoods in the links are over 20,000 people per square mile for many miles, with some much more than that. What is the population density of the suburban areas that you're comparing them to?
Those places look more like suburbs of Washington, which many are urban, or like the outer ring of neighborhoods in Miami. Neither any would say are “more urban” than Washington DC. The “urban format” is completely different in the two places IMO making it almost impossible to compare them.
I haven't spent much time in the suburbs of Washington, but I have spent time in DC itself and will say that the parts of LA with Koreatown and Hollywood feel as or more urban than most of DC I've seen. If DC's suburbs are like that, then great.
I do agree it looks different, but to me they're close in terms of how urban they are and function. Take the addresses of the streetviews posted up between the both of us and then try putting in the respective addresses for a number of things like
- in walkscore to see which one rates higher
- in yelp with the 4 blocks or 1 mile walking distance boxes checked in and see which one yields more restaurants
- in zipcode and census tract to see which one is denser or a neat half mile radius tool
I think the Hollywood and Koreatown addresses will likely yield higher marks overall than the DC places and the Beverly Hills one will still come out pretty urban but a couple of pegs down.
Those places look more like suburbs of Washington, which many are urban, or like the outer ring of neighborhoods in Miami. Neither any would say are “more urban” than Washington DC. The “urban format” is completely different in the two places IMO making it almost impossible to compare them.
o
I would say they are. The Mariposa view is pretty dense with apartments. Tons of apartments and just steps away from tons of restaurants, 24 hr supermarket, 24 hr CVS, late night coffee shops, a subway station, 24 hr bus service to downtown or the beach, houses of worship, a library. I'm very familiar with the area and folks walk. And it's nearly 7 miles from downtown.
It is hard to compare a city so large like LA to a compact city like DC.
I thought that this post of the densest 4 mile radius (50.3 sq miles) would be relevant. It's shows that Los Angeles' densest 50 square miles have a whopping 420,000 more people than the equivalent in DC and more than doubles Seattle. There are some mitigating reasons for this, especially water for Seattle, but it is what it is. This is based on a circle, but I don't think that either city could gerrymander a contiguous area of any form and come anywhere close to LA.
Again that is in your cherry picked 50 sq mi portion of LA, that I just displayed in the street view is NOT in anyway shape or form more "urban" than the most "urban" parts of DC. You guys have to run to density numbers in a sq mi area because there's no rebuttal. City wide DC is more dense than Los Angeles, this is fact. Again even Central LA does an amazing job of packing density in with 3/4 story apartments on a street grid, on wider streets, and even some streets that share with SFH, but are on very thin lots and closely packed in together. It does this for a large large area, wider than some cities entire land area. However it is NOT more urban than the top 5 cities nor DC in urbanity, especially in their most urban parts.
Washington D.C is 68.34 sq mi with a Population of 705,749.
Central Los Angeles is 836,638 with only 57.87 sq miles.
Overall Los Angeles is 10x bigger than D.C, so of course it'll be less urban due to the geographic location. It's not cherry picking, it's just a fact.
L.A urban core is Central LA and it's more urban and more populated than the entire city of D.C .
With that being said, you could still throw D.C in that #6 spot but it's only due to the Monster that Los Angeles is.
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.
