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 more people in California and Los Angeles than what any census tells you due to the huge amount of uncounted immigrants.
People talk on Los Angeles but never even been out here,Manhattan is very very small compared to Los Angeles & i was shocked at how tiny it was when i visited. Still it has higher density due to it being a vertical built city wity people packed in apartments on top of each other where in L.A things are more spread out evenly & more normal, ,No terrible accent or dirty weather & rats everywhere, Than again you gotta Love the things that make New york what it is .
Both of the Greatest cities in American history though.
I do hope that we are not forgetting about Brooklyn which is incredibly dense over a fairly large expanse of land. Population of 2.6 million people within 71 square miles. Brooklyn serves as a pretty fine example of high density across a pretty large space of land.
Were all entitled to our own opinions sir so please don't continue to respond to me if you feel offended about my opinions or you'll be put on ignore without hesitation.
Dense sprawl does not equal urban in other words. Think : New York , Chicago, Philly, Miami
Los Angeles appears urban to confused and uneducated people due to all the overpopulation.
Make no mistake, LA is just a sprawled out suburbia on steroids and should not be confused with Urban.
Los Angeles county urban areas : Downtown , Santa Monica , Downtown Long Beach, get the picture?
.
Posted this in another thread. Trulia's Chief Economist (Ph.D. from Harvard) did a study on how urban or suburban U.S. cities are. His findings put Los Angeles as 87 percent urban.
Los Angeles county urban areas : Downtown , Santa Monica , Downtown Long Beach, get the picture?
.
You clearly don't know LA very well as you've left out some of highest density neighborhoods of the city/county (including Koreatown, Hollywood, Westlake/MacArthur Park, etc.).
You clearly don't know LA very well as you've left out some of highest density neighborhoods of the city/county (including Koreatown, Hollywood, Westlake/MacArthur Park, etc.).
All these densely packed neighborhoods you others are mentioning are apart of the suburban sprawl.
Downtown L.A is the "main hub" and it is overshadowed by it's densely populated suburbs.
When people visit L.A they most likely aren't visiting DT they are visiting the metro aka suburbs.
Having densely populated areas with strip malls unfortunately does not equal urban.
If that's the case all of Orange County as well is entirely urban due to it being over populated.
All these densely packed neighborhoods you others are mentioning are apart of the suburban sprawl.
Downtown L.A is the "main hub" and it is overshadowed by it's densely populated suburbs.
When people visit L.A they most likely aren't visiting DT they are visiting the metro aka suburbs.
Having densely populated areas with strip malls unfortunately does not equal urban.
If that's the case all of Orange County as well is entirely urban due to it being over populated.
I would wager a bet that in Central LA, the majority of retail is actually contained within street-oriented storefronts. Yes there are certainly way more strip malls than most other traditionally urban city's cores, but, at least to me in my wide experience traversing Central Los Angeles, they are not the majority of retail. Even in further out areas like Mid-City, Northeast LA and the Westside this the the case.
You mostly are just saying the same vague things over and over again, equating Los Angeles' dense areas to suburban sprawl and essentially writing off one of the densest large swaths of city in the country as being suburban because yes, it is relatively car-oriented compared to a few other big cities in the US.
When people in the past bashed LA as being suburban, they were bashing it for being essentially an enormous streetcar suburb with DTLA as its traditionally-urban core - and as it quickly. Now that suburbs have been taken to a whole new autocentric level, streetcar suburbs are actually considered fairly urban (Portland, Seattle, much of Boston, about half of Chicago, the East Bay and even decent portions of San Francisco) and Los Angeles is almost entirely made up of this sort of development. Additionally, what were once traditional streetcar suburbs (Hollywood, Mid-Wilshire, Santa Monica, Pasadena) have continued to grow into some fairly urban places. So I think the idea of Los Angeles as a suburban place is based on an idea that came about in the middle of the century, when suburbs were still pretty urban, transit oriented, and walkable.
You and this Kobe joker are really derailing the thread with vague, alternately boastful/vaguely critical posts that add nothing to the topic.
Please if you could, provide some evidence of your opinion. Any would do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityKing
If that's the case all of Orange County as well is entirely urban due to it being over populated.
Back to this fallacy again huh? It's been proven time and time again that overcrowding has little to do with the very high densities reached in LA's core areas (30-90k ppsm). There is nowhere in Orange County that even comes close to the 30k+ densities found all over Los Angeles, even with Santa Ana and Anaheim being pretty overcrowded. The fact that you cannot tell the difference between Los Angeles' core and a handful of overcrowded areas of Orange County speaks volumes about your intentions/experience/intelligence/all of the above.
Last edited by munchitup; 05-22-2015 at 10:43 AM..
I would wager a bet that in Central LA, the majority of retail is actually contained within street-oriented storefronts. Yes there are certainly way more strip malls than most other traditionally urban city's cores, but, at least to me in my wide experience traversing Central Los Angeles, they are not the majority of retail. Even in further out areas like Mid-City, Northeast LA and the Westside this the the case.
You mostly are just saying the same vague things over and over again, equating Los Angeles' dense areas to suburban sprawl and essentially writing off one of the densest large swaths of city in the country as being suburban because yes, it is relatively car-oriented compared to a few other big cities in the US.
When people in the past bashed LA as being suburban, they were bashing it for being essentially an enormous streetcar suburb with DTLA as its traditionally-urban core - and as it quickly. Now that suburbs have been taken to a whole new autocentric level, streetcar suburbs are actually considered fairly urban (Portland, Seattle, much of Boston, about half of Chicago, the East Bay and even decent portions of San Francisco) and Los Angeles is almost entirely made up of this sort of development. Additionally, what were once traditional streetcar suburbs (Hollywood, Mid-Wilshire, Santa Monica, Pasadena) have continued to grow into some fairly urban places. So I think the idea of Los Angeles as a suburban place is based on an idea that came about in the middle of the century, when suburbs were still pretty urban, transit oriented, and walkable.
You and this Kobe joker are really derailing the thread with vague, alternately boastful/vaguely critical posts that add nothing to the topic.
Please if you could, provide some evidence of your opinion. Any would do.
Back to this fallacy again huh? It's been proven time and time again that overcrowding has little to do with the very high densities reached in LA's core areas (30-90k ppsm). There is nowhere in Orange County that even comes close to the 30k+ densities found all over Los Angeles, even with Santa Ana and Anaheim being pretty overcrowded. The fact that you cannot tell the difference between Los Angeles' core and a handful of overcrowded areas of Orange County speaks volumes about your intentions/experience/intelligence/all of the above.
Wonderfully said, Munch! These LA-bashing threads spanning multiple forums are quickly getting old.
Yes your correct about Brooklyn also, This is the borough that i would compare to Chicago on it's own & be able to be it's own city respectively.
And the Bronx, and Queens, and a huge proportion of NJ.
The vast majority of people living in high density in the NYC area do not live in Manhattan. Manhattan is only a small part of the high density core.
Brooklyn, BTW, has the same population as Chicago but in less than 1/3 the land area. Brooklyn is basically three times as dense as Chicago. And the Bronx is even denser than Brooklyn. Most of the Bronx is essentially an extension of Manhattan, at least in terms of built-form.
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.
