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.
Central LA is the Wilshire District area from Downtown LA to Hollywood. That area is probably the most urbanized core outside of Midtown Manhattan. It's to big for D.C to rumble with so of course I broke it down to 50 miles to make it a fair comparison.
Now if i cut off the mountains surrounding LA ,it'll be less sq miles there. No argument here. I proved my point.
And Even if you put D.C at 61 sq miles with 700k, it's still under Central LA with 57 sq miles and 830k.
It's simple math.
Central LA is almost the same size as the entire D.C , and yet it's more populated and urbanized.
Even if we compare what city has more tall buildings,I'm sure LA beats D.C in that category as well.
With all that being said, I agree D.C could take the #6 spot.California is the most urbanized state in the country anyway so either way it goes, Frisco and L.A are both at the top on a pound for pound level.
Where LA is extremely urban it becomes balanced out disproportionately by having more single family homes as a percentage, rural and industrial areas inside of the city limits, more areas with wider streets, strip malls that run for miles upon miles and surface parking lots. DC counters this with a much bigger downtown featuring urban canyons in all directions albeit 12-13 stories, tighter side streets, tight rowhouse neighborhoods that LA cannot match and a higher percentage of multi-unit apartments that make up the landscape.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,132 posts, read 7,575,946 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyborg77
Central LA is the Wilshire District area from Downtown LA to Hollywood. That area is probably the most urbanized core outside of Midtown Manhattan. It's to big for D.C to rumble with so of course I broke it down to 50 miles to make it a fair comparison.
Now if i cut off the mountains surrounding LA ,it'll be less sq miles there. No argument here. I proved my point.
And Even if you put D.C at 61 sq miles with 700k, it's still under Central LA with 57 sq miles and 830k.
It's simple math.
Central LA is almost the same size as the entire D.C , and yet it's more populated and urbanized.
Even if we compare what city has more tall buildings,I'm sure LA beats D.C in that category as well.
With all that being said, I agree D.C could take the #6 spot.California is the most urbanized state in the country anyway so either way it goes, Frisco and L.A are both at the top on a pound for pound level.
Again, you would have to shrink DC to 45 sq miles and 712k (present day) to accurately reflect "habitable land" area of Washington DC. The National Mall, NPS parkland area, Military bases etc. don't have residents. So the "city" where residences are, would be a density of 15,822 ppsm. And that's not even the District's historic peak population.
I spend plenty of time in LA, Central LA/Hollywood is where I stay at when I'm out there. It's overall more broad scale urbanity in a text book sense than not only DC, but Boston, SF etc., if you were to only bring up "size". But that's where it ends.
Again Central LA 90006 zip code one of the three most dense in the nation on paper, has this inside of it:
People can bring up all the density numbers they want, until those images above get corrected, Central LA, is not more urban than the most urban parts of DC period.
Regarding "tall buildings", of course LA "beats" DC there. It's multiple times larger with no height limits. However, for some context DC actually has more high rise structures (above 110 feet) pound for pound than most major urban cities.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,132 posts, read 7,575,946 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1
As a black person living in LA, it doesn't feel small at all. Whatever percentage of black people there are it's still a lot of black folks. And black people here do venture outside of their communities. I live downtown and there's quite a few young blacks living in these condos and apts. So many things to see and do around the region you can't help but to venture out.
Very little about LA feels small to me, including the Black population. I have numerous friends scattered across the LA area, it's not like the average person will go there and walk around not seeing a Black person or anything.
I think his points were more about the overall Black influence of local culture, doesn't seem as broad as points East, or even Oakland. But LA definitely has Black people, whether it's locals I see there, or people visiting.
Once you get out of the core area most of DC is residential areas with singe family homes, rowhouses with yards and setback low rise apartments. Yes, it's more dense/urban than your typical US city. But, most of DC doesn't exactly scream "big urban city." I don't know that the images below are really more urban than most of LA?
Ward 7 and Ward 8 in D.C. are mainly residential without retail in major contrast to neighborhoods on the opposite side of the Anacostia River so that is true; however, Downtown Ward 7 has over 1 million sq. feet of office, over 3,500 housing units, and 364,000 sq. feet of new retail moving through development.
There are additional developments to this scale moving all over Ward 7 and Ward 8. The same development that changed DC over the last 15 years is now happening in the outer neighborhoods. DC is changing more than any city in America.
Again, you would have to shrink DC to 45 sq miles and 712k (present day) to accurately reflect "habitable land" area of Washington DC. The National Mall, NPS parkland area, Military bases etc. don't have residents. So the "city" where residences are, would be a density of 15,822 ppsm. And that's not even the District's historic peak population.
I spend plenty of time in LA, Central LA/Hollywood is where I stay at when I'm out there. It's overall more broad scale urbanity in a text book sense than not only DC, but Boston, SF etc., if you were to only bring up "size". But that's where it ends.
Again Central LA 90006 zip code one of the three most dense in the nation on paper, has this inside of it:
People can bring up all the density numbers they want, until those images above get corrected, Central LA, is not more urban than the most urban parts of DC period.
Regarding "tall buildings", of course LA "beats" DC there. It's multiple times larger with no height limits. However, for some context DC actually has more high rise structures (above 110 feet) pound for pound than most major urban cities.
Koreatown (the first LA one you posted with 90020 zip) and Pico-Union (second one you posted with a 90006 zip) have their centers a few miles out from downtown/City Hall. I agree that the 20005 zip code is more urban than 90020 and 90006, but the LA zip codes are very urban ones even if they have some detached SFHs interspersed as the vast majority of both zip codes live in structures with multiple units with those units within a block of both streetviews you posted. Moreover, both have short walks to numerous large and bustling commercial corridors which are able to be sustained because there are so many dense multi-unit dwellings throughout the neighborhood/zip code and that's something that LA has quite a bit of even as you go far out from downtown.
As for high-rises, then why not just talk about what area you want to include as part of DC and draw the same area for LA? The vast majority of LA proper's high-rises are going to be in downtown, Hollywood, Wilshire Center, Westwood and Century City anyhow which is a contiguous urban core that 61 square miles can easily fit without an odd gerrymandered shape that completely ignores topography. Also, a good chunk of those LA high-rises are also quite a bit taller and structurally denser than their DC counterparts.
LA can play the pound for pound game--just set the physical area you're using for the other location and then apply it to LA. I think it's actually to LA's detriment in discussions about urbanity because LA's large physical boundaries encompass a lot of places that would be separate suburban municipalities in much of the east coast or compared to SF. There's an easy though somewhat annoying (in terms of looking up stats) remedy for that though which is to just say what area we're drawing for comparison and making a comparable area of that for LA. 61 square miles, right?
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-14-2021 at 12:13 PM..
just say what area we're drawing for comparison and making a comparable area of that for LA. 61 square miles, right?
It is easy but doesn't support the slant DC-backers are pushing. Central LA has a 2019 population of ~915,000 in ~58 mi², and South LA has a 2019 population of ~820,000 in 51 mi². Both by themselves are nearly DC's land area with larger populations and a varying list of amenities. By themselves. If the standard someone wanted to start with was 61 mi² from the center of both downtowns, you'd still end up encompassing large swaths of both Central and South LA; ditto for if the standard was 100 mi² radius that would include the Nova quadrant of the original District, you'd still have a more populous and built up 100 mi² Los Angeles...
If you go any smaller, as you proposed earlier, to parallel 10 mi², 15 mi², etc, you're going to get variance with LA leading as the same result. LA maintains an ~8500 ppsm out to 469 mi², which we know is not the case in Greater Washington; as you said earlier this is not difficult to make an apples to apples comparison, particularly as the city of Los Angeles is so vast it essentially contains suburbs within...
The problem here is people are married to the train of thought that since LA isn't built like an East Coast city, it is lacking in amenities that otherwise contribute to urbanity. Which is laughable, and some of the things intimated within this thread are just strange in how easily they can be disproved (like the strong suggestion that DC has no SFH neighborhoods, or that density for LA is disqualified from discussion)...
Again, personally I'm of the opinion that both are along the same tier of urbanity but I have no real reason to rank the significantly smaller, less developed city as more urban. I've been to and around San Francisco, it basically is Central Los Angeles, and while an unpopular opinion I'm not of the thought SF is more urban than LA, though its case would be stronger than Washington's because its a more developed city than Washington. I've been to Boston, I feel similarly. Haven't been to Philly but I know it has a smaller population that Central + South LA on about 25% more land without a greater array of amenities than Central + South LA (which, just for those who don't realize it, Central and South LA are adjacent to each other so it isnt like combining them in comparison to Philly isn't qualifiable because of some gap in land between the two)...
Haven't been to Chicago so its the only one I asterisk as a possible, other than that, NY is the only city that is clear cit more urban than LA. This is hard for CD community to get behind and we know why, but it doesn't change the actual realities outside...
This DC/LA thing has been had many, many times over the years. I'm not sure why the conversation has been restarted this year because any longtimer of this forum realizes it what the slant on here is and why. I love both cities, they are my two favorite major cities in a landslide, but DC is not more urban than LA...
Very little about LA feels small to me, including the Black population. I have numerous friends scattered across the LA area, it's not like the average person will go there and walk around not seeing a Black person or anything.
I think his points were more about the overall Black influence of local culture, doesn't seem as broad as points East, or even Oakland. But LA definitely has Black people, whether it's locals I see there, or people visiting.
Just in that there’s not much land area that “black majority or even plurality” in relation to the urbanized area. As the other poster said, the way black people move around LA, and the spread of them makes it more or els incomparable to DC. Where l, not only is DC 5x blacker as a percentage within the city, there’s generally a more exclusively black black culture. The land area that is black- like that-in LA is small in comparison to say-LA county...but there still a large area that has black faces and are comfortable.
So depending on how you want to tackle it LA could change your perception.
It is easy but doesn't support the slant DC-backers are pushing. Central LA has a 2019 population of ~915,000 in ~58 mi², and South LA has a 2019 population of ~820,000 in 51 mi². Both by themselves are nearly DC's land area with larger populations and a varying list of amenities. By themselves. If the standard someone wanted to start with was 61 mi² from the center of both downtowns, you'd still end up encompassing large swaths of both Central and South LA; ditto for if the standard was 100 mi² radius that would include the Nova quadrant of the original District, you'd still have a more populous and built up 100 mi² Los Angeles...
If you go any smaller, as you proposed earlier, to parallel 10 mi², 15 mi², etc, you're going to get variance with LA leading as the same result. LA maintains an ~8500 ppsm out to 469 mi², which we know is not the case in Greater Washington; as you said earlier this is not difficult to make an apples to apples comparison, particularly as the city of Los Angeles is so vast it essentially contains suburbs within...
The problem here is people are married to the train of thought that since LA isn't built like an East Coast city, it is lacking in amenities that otherwise contribute to urbanity. Which is laughable, and some of the things intimated within this thread are just strange in how easily they can be disproved (like the strong suggestion that DC has no SFH neighborhoods, or that density for LA is disqualified from discussion)...
Again, personally I'm of the opinion that both are along the same tier of urbanity but I have no real reason to rank the significantly smaller, less developed city as more urban. I've been to and around San Francisco, it basically is Central Los Angeles, and while an unpopular opinion I'm not of the thought SF is more urban than LA, though its case would be stronger than Washington's because its a more developed city than Washington. I've been to Boston, I feel similarly. Haven't been to Philly but I know it has a smaller population that Central + South LA on about 25% more land without a greater array of amenities than Central + South LA (which, just for those who don't realize it, Central and South LA are adjacent to each other so it isnt like combining them in comparison to Philly isn't qualifiable because of some gap in land between the two)...
Haven't been to Chicago so its the only one I asterisk as a possible, other than that, NY is the only city that is clear cit more urban than LA. This is hard for CD community to get behind and we know why, but it doesn't change the actual realities outside...
This DC/LA thing has been had many, many times over the years. I'm not sure why the conversation has been restarted this year because any longtimer of this forum realizes it what the slant on here is and why. I love both cities, they are my two favorite major cities in a landslide, but DC is not more urban than LA...
I was actually thinking about this a bit, and on the 1 square mile comparison as in the most urban contiguous 1 square mile of LA versus DC, it probably does go to DC. That most urban 1 square mile of LA is probably a chunk of downtown LA, but without some serious gerrymandering, there's going to be some pretty meh parts to it even now due to Skid Row forming a bit of a donut hole of sorts around the nicer and more functional parts of downtown as well as a few still existent parking lots or parking garages without street level anything nice or are under construction. Yea, there are a ton of skyscrapers that DC doesn't have, but still the streets are either not as lively or they're, uh, too lively with people camped out on it in a way that kind of doesn't function very well.
However, from a few square miles on out, then it's going to LA over DC for quite a while, perhaps until after hitting other metropolitan areas. On that large macro scale though, urban kind of doesn't mean the same thing because such large areas don't really function as a city on any real basis.
For SF versus LA, I think it actually to SF for 1 square mile and for 10 square miles and then some more after that, but at and probably before 100 square miles shifts in favor of LA though part of that is due to how geographically broken up SF is though that is also why that tip of the Peninsula (SF proper) is so considerably built up. In short, I'd give it to SF over LA for a SF or a DC-sized area though.
I think resident's point about area reserved for certain uses is good and fair, but even taking in about comparable areas for LA (take Elysian Park and some of Griffith Park), LA's still going to be denser because it's just much denser. I also think that resident's built environment point to some degree in part make sense, but just not on the level he's saying where somehow a block of SFH here and there is meaningful when there are densely built structures in the adjoining blocks and dense commercial corridors close to each other. I think one thing resident should mention in favor of DC is that the massive throngs of commuters do count for something even if they don't count as part of the population as some portion of those commuters are what are able to drive those amenities. However, someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but it does seem to me that a fairly large proportion of people that work at DC have access to things like cafeterias / mess halls sort of things which would mean not supporting local restaurant/dining corridors and adding to the street life.
There's also something to be said about the sheer spread of areas in LA that are of fairly high density. Like you said, both Central LA and South LA very dense--they're also contiguous with each other and surely that must count for something in the urban experience. If you live at the edge of DC (or SF), you generally drop into suburbia (or the ocean for SF) in some of the directions instead of more shops and neighbors, but in Central LA, you're just getting into more urbanity for quite a bit.
Anyhow, I'm voting Other in the poll. I think I put LA overall to be about Boston level or slightly higher and that then puts Boston at 6th and DC at 7th. It feels good to be the first one to vote Other, to boot.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-14-2021 at 04:05 PM..
Just in that there’s not much land area that “black majority or even plurality” in relation to the urbanized area. As the other poster said, the way black people move around LA, and the spread of them makes it more or els incomparable to DC. Where l, not only is DC 5x blacker as a percentage within the city, there’s generally a more exclusively black black culture. The land area that is black- like that-in LA is small in comparison to say-LA county...but there still a large area that has black faces and are comfortable.
So depending on how you want to tackle it LA could change your perception.
Still there is a contiguous area of south LA, Inglewood, north Gardena, west Compton, and north Carson that maintains between 60-95% black. It's probably about 700,000 people in 50 square miles.
Still there is a contiguous area of south LA, Inglewood, north Gardena, west Compton, and north Carson that maintains between 60-95% black. It's probably about 700,000 people in 50 square miles.
Considering the entire LA metro area only has around 1 million black people out of 18+ million people, I strongly doubt around 70% of the black people in the entire LA metro area live in only 50 sq. miles. That would be insane segregation.
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.
