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.
Meant to say enclaves. Either way, highly segregated ethnic communities. Not my style. I'm glad Seattle doesn't have it to the same degree as LA, Chicago or Boston. The small Chinatown in Seattle is offset by the large number of Asians living throughout the city and suburbs. They and their businesses are intermingled and mainstreamed. This isn't a bad thing.
But thats not unique to Seattle. Asians are integrated all over the LA area along with other minorities. I think it's so cool to go to a place like Koreatown where you have hundreds if not thousands of choices of some of the best Korean food in North America. It has its own lively nightlife vibe. I've read articles about LA's Koreatown food in GQ, Conde Nast, the NY Times and others. Even Anthony Bourdain came and checked it out. I think it's kind of special and the only thing that comes close is the International District and that's not saying much. DC destroyed its little Chinatown. I don't know what's left.
Most of Baltimore and Washington don't go back that far though.
A case can be made fo DC, but I don’t think you realize how far back Baltimore goes.
Baltimore will be 300 yrs old in 9 years. It had population north of 400k when the automobile was invented in 1886. By the time the Ford Model T entered production, Baltimore’s population was touching 550k.
Apart form downtown (which was rebuilt due to The Great Fire of 1904) the vast majority of its remain historic form goes way further back than the car lol.
I see what you are saying. But it's still a highly urban setup, just with bungalows and triplexes in the side residential streets, instead of rowhouses. It's actually ideal. You get the urban amenities (a couple of blocks of walking to these main nodes as well as public transit access) without living like sardines and you can still have a car and some trees. It's a bit like living in Brookline MA across the entire city.
Much of what I'm calling the core of LA is setup like this as well. Here's a very suburban-styled neighborhood in east hollywood. https://goo.gl/maps/7Dv2umWVKPzK8BRk7
I think that a big difference between LA and Seattle is that even people in this neighborhood are only a few blocks (3-6) walk from grocery stores, drug stores, restaurants, coffee, beauty, the post office, a metro subway stop, a Target, a hospital, etc. And I don't think that it's unusual for the core of LA, although some areas are less connected. Looking at Google maps, Seattle has very large gaps between areas that have amenities. I went all over the map googling "drug store", "grocery store", and "restaurant", and the availability of such amenities are farther apart than I would have guessed. I almost feel like you could take the worst 5 square miles of LA's 50 square mile core and the number of amenities would equal or exceed the top 5 square miles in Seattle.
Houston is much bigger than DC and Seattle but I dont think anyone would argue its more urban.
Having grown up in LA, my opinion is:
DC
big gap
Seattle
smaller gap
LA
LA basically authored suburbanism and is still a very suburban place outside a few neighborhoods. Its very dense use but its suburban sprawl.
Aren't all three metros mostly suburban?
LA's "few neighborhoods" have hundreds of thousands of people living in them. The entirety of Seattle's urban neighborhoods are smaller than Koreatown plus Westlake with with probably half the people.
LA's "few neighborhoods" have hundreds of thousands of people living in them. The entirety of Seattle's urban neighborhoods are smaller than Koreatown plus Westlake with with probably half the people.
Not DC no.
On a metro level DC is more urban than the Bay Area. As a city SF edges it out.
Honestly, DC and LA are not on the same planet when it comes to urbanity. I guess Seattle could go either way, however on a per person basis its certainly more urban than LA.
On a metro level DC is more urban than the Bay Area. As a city SF edges it out.
Honestly, DC and LA are not on the same planet when it comes to urbanity. I guess Seattle could go either way, however on a per person basis its certainly more urban than LA.
Ok. We both agree that SF is more urban than DC, but disagree on the rest. I think that LA is the most urban on a metro level, due to its much higher density of people, jobs, and amenities throughout. The Bay is only held back because they have a huge Bay slicing through the middle of their metro that makes it function differently. And then mountains on top of that in the east bay.
DC is by far the least urban metro. The average person in the DC area lives in sprawling suburbs that are much less dense than comparable areas for LA. To my eyes, much of NoVa is built like Atlanta or Charlotte suburbs, just somewhat more dense. Maryland is only slightly better.
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.
