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.
Well every city population goes up during the work week and I guess the main difference is Los Angeles has multiple city centers. Some don't even view DTLA as the city core for tourism.
Most might say the Hollywood area or Century City to the Westside. But for what it's worth, D.C is most definitely an urban powerhouse for it's size.
The red part being very important. Really, agree totally with this post.
I always think in terms adjusted to scale.
For example. Is Charlotte more urban than New Orleans? Charlotte is more dense by PPSM. And I don’t know the figures, but i am going to guess office space in CLT blows NoLa out of the water by a huge margin, etc. I think downtown Charlotte is also a lot more dense ppsm than NoLa’s.
I, personally, would consider NoLa by far the more urban one. But based on how a lot of people argue on here, Charlotte would The the more urban city. I chose those two cities because I feel like near everyone could agree NoLa is far more urban despite some numbers on a paper...
My point being, DC in my opinion seems like a far denser area than LA when adjusted to scale. But if you were to pinpoint certain areas of LA, of course it would rival DC. LA is yuge. But that’s just not how the LA region is. I personally don’t think of LA without thinking of all the different parts and cities and towns of the metro. DC and it’s direct Contiguous neighbors of Alexandria and Arlington doesn’t have a Santa Monica, West Hollywood, etc. (and please. No one is flocking to Tyson’s like the various places in the LA region).
And also. Downtown DC.... I hate that there is an area called downtown and people who aren’t familiar with DC go by those strict limits and make assertions about the urban core of DC. Go on Google maps and type “downtown DC” and it’s very obvious and clear that downtown DC - in reality - is much bigger than the area called downtown.
The red part being very important. Really, agree totally with this post.
I always think in terms adjusted to scale.
For example. Is Charlotte more urban than New Orleans? Charlotte is more dense by PPSM. And I don’t know the figures, but i am going to guess office space in CLT blows NoLa out of the water by a huge margin, etc. I think downtown Charlotte is also a lot more dense ppsm than NoLa’s.
I, personally, would consider NoLa by far the more urban one. But based on how a lot of people argue on here, Charlotte would The the more urban city. I chose those two cities because I feel like near everyone could agree NoLa is far more urban despite some numbers on a paper...
My point being, DC in my opinion seems like a far denser area than LA when adjusted to scale. But if you were to pinpoint certain areas of LA, of course it would rival DC. LA is yuge. But that’s just not how the LA region is. I personally don’t think of LA without thinking of all the different parts and cities and towns of the metro. DC and it’s direct Contiguous neighbors of Alexandria and Arlington doesn’t have a Santa Monica, West Hollywood, etc. (and please. No one is flocking to Tyson’s like the various places in the LA region).
And also. Downtown DC.... I hate that there is an area called downtown and people who aren’t familiar with DC go by those strict limits and make assertions about the urban core of DC. Go on Google maps and type “downtown DC” and it’s very obvious and clear that downtown DC - in reality - is much bigger than the area called downtown.
Exactly. So many posters here are stuck on population and density numbers but can’t stand up when I bring up build form. DC is clearly more urban than LA and the only way they can stay in the same conversation is to bring up density numbers as if DC isn’t a shorter and more spread out urbanity that wouldn’t show in density numbers.
And also. Downtown DC.... I hate that there is an area called downtown and people who aren’t familiar with DC go by those strict limits and make assertions about the urban core of DC. Go on Google maps and type “downtown DC” and it’s very obvious and clear that downtown DC - in reality - is much bigger than the area called downtown.
Yup. The height limit forced development (and gentrification) to really spread out of the "downtown"
The red part being very important. Really, agree totally with this post.
I always think in terms adjusted to scale.
For example. Is Charlotte more urban than New Orleans? Charlotte is more dense by PPSM. And I don’t know the figures, but i am going to guess office space in CLT blows NoLa out of the water by a huge margin, etc. I think downtown Charlotte is also a lot more dense ppsm than NoLa’s.
I, personally, would consider NoLa by far the more urban one. But based on how a lot of people argue on here, Charlotte would The the more urban city. I chose those two cities because I feel like near everyone could agree NoLa is far more urban despite some numbers on a paper...
My point being, DC in my opinion seems like a far denser area than LA when adjusted to scale. But if you were to pinpoint certain areas of LA, of course it would rival DC. LA is yuge. But that’s just not how the LA region is. I personally don’t think of LA without thinking of all the different parts and cities and towns of the metro. DC and it’s direct Contiguous neighbors of Alexandria and Arlington doesn’t have a Santa Monica, West Hollywood, etc. (and please. No one is flocking to Tyson’s like the various places in the LA region).
And also. Downtown DC.... I hate that there is an area called downtown and people who aren’t familiar with DC go by those strict limits and make assertions about the urban core of DC. Go on Google maps and type “downtown DC” and it’s very obvious and clear that downtown DC - in reality - is much bigger than the area called downtown.
I think the key point is adjusted for scale. Obviously if you're taking an average of the entire legal physical boundaries of LA versus DC, then DC comes ahead as LA's expansive borders includes plenty of neighborhoods that are suburban in build and layout. However, if you take almost any arbitrary peak urban area size beyond a few square miles, LA comes out ahead. LA's certainly very urban if you're taking a DC-sized area to compare it to DC.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I think the key point is adjusted for scale. Obviously if you're taking an average of the entire legal physical boundaries of LA versus DC, then DC comes ahead as LA's expansive borders includes plenty of neighborhoods that are suburban in build and layout. However, if you take almost any arbitrary peak urban area size beyond a few square miles, LA comes out ahead. LA's certainly very urban if you're taking a DC-sized area to compare it to DC.
This is only on density numbers though. Which is the point being made, all Los Angeles backers can do is run to density numbers because from the street level it's not the same level of urbanity. None of Central LA, is "more urban" structurally than any parts of core DC. Which has been displayed over and over throughout this thread. LA, even at its most "dense" core on paper by population, does not match DC in building structure or density format. It's a larger city with more people inside of it, but on a street by street, block by block measure of "urbanity" DC's core is far more structured in original urban form. The same applies when comparing it to Boston, Philly, SF etc.
Last edited by the resident09; 01-22-2021 at 08:15 AM..
This is only on density numbers though. Which is the point being made, all Los Angeles backers can do is run to density numbers because from the street level it's not the same level of urbanity. None of Central LA, is "more urban" structurally than any parts of core DC. Which has been displayed over and over throughout this thread. LA, even at its most "dense" core on paper by population, does not match DC in building structure or density format. It's a larger city with more people inside of it, but on a street by street, block by block measure of "urbanity" DC's core is far more structured in original urban form. The same applies when comparing it to Boston, Philly, SF etc.
I don't mean just density in terms of population density. I mean that in terms of how walkable it is to amenities like the number of stores, restaurants, bars, etc. within walking distance. For a DC-sized area, the average for LA is simply going to be higher than it would be for DC due to the many linear corridors and walkable nodes in an area of that size. LA also likely has greater structural density overall for a DC-sized area compared to DC proper. You have to remember, the very dense part of DC is a fraction of the city. You can also see that in the streetviews which we've been through before. You posted a streetview of a historically landmarked block of SFH homes, but it was also clear that you go a block in either direction and you start seeing denser mid-rise and even high-rises and that was miles out from the center of downtown (Pershing Square).
You can see it on walkscore if you put the heatmaps to the same scale how much more obviously greater what's available within walking distance is in LA for the same area the size of DC and you can also do it by tabulating the population numbers of the neighborhoods. You can also try doing a stay in those central parts of LA without renting a car.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-22-2021 at 08:29 AM..
Something like 20 years ago and more, DTLA was pretty much had a scattered population of 15,000 people over a large area. DTLA is a loose term for the mostly non residential areas , districts in the area.
DTLA was primarily a commerce region and government. Whether it was white collar office Jobs or blue collar manufacturing or wholesale. It also had civic jobs and culture.
The neighborhoods around DTLA of smaller area size like Boyle heights, LINCOLN heights, eco Park, Westlake, Pico union, and South had population numbers 30000 to 50000 people. Areas where immigrants and low inc pack many in small homes and apartments.
DTLA lacked the schools, churches, supermarkets othe r than ethnic markets in little Tokyo and Chinatown, parks with playgrounds. DTLA was a place of work.
Today, DTLA added more residential. Has multiple large grocery stores like whole foods. Dozen playground parks. A large high school, though Chinatown Cathedral high was there but smaller.
While per square mile DTLA population is less than the surrounding neighborhoods, each new high and mid rise residential adds more population. In 10 years DTLA will surpass every neighborhoods other than west lake and Koreatown as most densely populated. And also most urban with its mixed use versus other a re as s where commerce is on main streets and residential on side streets.
DC is probably more dense than all the choices. It was built that way and stayed that way.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I don't mean just density in terms of population density. I mean that in terms of how walkable it is to amenities like the number of stores, restaurants, bars, etc. within walking distance. For a DC-sized area, the average for LA is simply going to be higher than it would be for DC due to the many linear corridors and walkable nodes in an area of that size. LA also likely has greater structural density overall for a DC-sized area compared to DC proper. You have to remember, the very dense part of DC is a fraction of the city. You can also see that in the streetviews which we've been through before. You posted a streetview of a historically landmarked block of SFH homes, but it was also clear that you go a block in either direction and you start seeing denser mid-rise and even high-rises and that was miles out from the center of downtown (Pershing Square).
You can see it on walkscore if you put the heatmaps to the same scale how much more obviously greater what's available within walking distance is in LA for the same area the size of DC and you can also do it by tabulating the population numbers of the neighborhoods. You can also try doing a stay in those central parts of LA without renting a car.
Again, as someone who's walked Central LA and almost all of DC's core there's less consistent urban street wall in Central LA. Los Angeles is much larger and thus more spread out overall with an ability to fill in amenities over a longer stretch, therefore walkscore takes in a circumference of a larger area overall and includes those amenities you can "walk to". It doesn't make Central LA more walkable than core DC, nor more urban.
A block off Wilshire there's suburban style SFH with front/back yards and driveways. This does not match core DC in urbanity, I'm sorry.
Again, as someone who's walked Central LA and most of DC's core there's less consistent urban street wall in Central LA. Los Angeles is much larger and thus more spread out overall with an ability to fill in amenities over a longer stretch, therefore walkscore takes in a circumference of a larger area overall and includes those amenities you can "walk to". It doesn't make Central LA more walkable than core DC, nor more urban.
A block off Wilshire there's suburban style SFH with front/back yards and driveways. This does not match core DC in urbanity, I'm sorry.
You're talking about a consistency that amounts to a lot or a block or two though because you certainly for a fairly healthy person's walking ability are going to have plenty available which is to me what ultimately matters. The circumference for walkscore isn't miles out--it's blocks that people walk to and on that scale, even if you live in a SFH in LA, what you ultimately have are many more neighbors and businesses within a 10 minute (or 5 or 15 minute) in Koreatown than you would in the vast majority of LA. Once can argue that's a density of amenities which a shopping mall would have as well, but the difference is that this a shopping mall that's dense with shops for a very large area and it's coming hand in hand with a large population and structural density. Conversely, one can argue that a large population density doesn't mean much by itself as you can pack people in with endless housing projects with nothing else, but that's not what's happening either because of the aforementioned large number of shops (retail or commercial density) and other things to walk to that goes along with that population density.
That streetview is of a pretty suburban tract in Central LA (arguably just outside of Central LA by some definitions) and those do exist. The biggest span of them is Hancock Park which has a goddamn country club in it. However, that address within a 10 minute walk has multiple stores, commercial offices, and dense apartment buildings all while being over 5 miles out from Pershing Square in downtown LA. 5 miles out from the center of downtown DC can put you in Southeast DC or the Chevy Chase neighborhood which honestly have parts that aren't all that urban either and which some might not consider DC's core.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 01-22-2021 at 09:43 AM..
This is only on density numbers though. Which is the point being made, all Los Angeles backers can do is run to density numbers because from the street level it's not the same level of urbanity. None of Central LA, is "more urban" structurally than any parts of core DC. Which has been displayed over and over throughout this thread. LA, even at its most "dense" core on paper by population, does not match DC in building structure or density format. It's a larger city with more people inside of it, but on a street by street, block by block measure of "urbanity" DC's core is far more structured in original urban form. The same applies when comparing it to Boston, Philly, SF etc.
EXACTLY! I think a lot of posters really confuse density with urbanity. They're related but very different concepts. Urbanity is an adjective and describes a place that is set up in an urban and walkable format, usually geared around mass transportation. Yes, urban places tend to be denser ones, on average, but density alone does not a city make.
Like, a garden style apartment complex might be very dense on paper, but that doesn't make it urban. A shopping mall has an extremely high density of amenities, but that does not make it urban. You can have density in a suburban format. Tysons Corner has plenty of job density on paper, but it's far from urban (at least for now).
I think this is the fundamental point that many people from Los Angeles just fundamentally do not get, perhaps a symptom of the city's car-centric format.
Yes, DC is more urban than Los Angeles. Forget the numbers, just use common sense and your eyes. Yes, perceptions are subjective, but the sum of subjectivities starts to look a bit more objective over time. Just because it's not easy to "prove" with numbers doesn't mean perceptions aren't real. Urbanity can speak for itself if it's actually there.
The broader urban core of DC has far more jobs and office space than DTLA, and is almost entirely built in an urban format (very few surface parking lots, much wider sidewalks, slower traffic speeds, more mass transit use, more streetscaping, fewer curb cuts, buildings almost entirely oriented to the public realm (opposite of Bunker Hill where it looks like the buildings are literally afraid of the street), almost entirely mixed use buildings with ground floor retail (Broadway, Spring, and 7th Street in DTLA seem to be the exception for LA though), and just overall an environment far more oriented towards urban life and walking.
Yes, I realize the Colliers stats include office space outside the main urban core, but I have a hunch the vast majority of that number is still in DC's urban core (and I think those numbers don't even include government owned office space or leased space under a certain size, likely meaning DC's urban core is even further away from LA's than the stats show).
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.
