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.
because people have been to NYC, Paris, Barcelona, London, San Francisco ... etc and they can tell that whatever L.A is, it's not a real city
I like L.A but let's be real, it's more of a massive urban region, a collection of neighborhoods, than a real city
I think you are thinking of the county. Los Angeles City does have borders. You see signs saying "Los. Angeles City Limits"..
because people have been to NYC, Paris, Barcelona, London, San Francisco ... etc and they can tell that whatever L.A is, it's not a real city
I like L.A but let's be real, it's more of a massive urban region, a collection of neighborhoods, than a real city
Well, as some have mentioned, LA is a very different type of urban form.
Gosh though, I sure do love Barcelona! In LA terms, it's like taking the most beautiful buildings on LA's Broadway Street and multiplying them to cover the entirety of West LA. Given LA's similarly nice climate, I actually always wished that LA had instead developed to look like Barcelona.
The funny thing is that LA has the absolute perfect weather to have an entirely walkable city that focuses on walking/biking for transit. With perfect weather, commuting would be a joy.
LA doesn't have the "traditional" cohesive walkable feel that London, Paris, NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia (and to some extent Boston/SF) have, with an unbroken urban wall full of little shops and eateries (except for Broadway). This is because LA was built as a streetcar city with its developments spread out along streetcar lines. LA's residential development is very densely built, but not attractive for walking. Even highly developed blocks like those on Wilshire Blvd are unattractive to walk along from my personal experience. The pedestrian-scale just doesn't seem right, save for parts of Downtown LA.
So people incorrectly call LA suburban due to this. LA is not suburban, but at the same time many blocks in LA are not appealing to walk in. So for tourists or daily pedestrians, there are less city blocks to walk about in / more pedestrian deadspaces.
What blocks on Wilshire Blvd do you find so unattractive and unwalkable? I won't say London, Paris or New York but what street in Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, DC, Seattle has a more developed street than Wilshire Blvd? It's developed with office bldgs, apts, shops, restaurants, churches, some beautiful ones too, markets, hospitals. There's continued sidewalks from downtown to the ocean. There are some 24 hr businesses along Wilshire. 24 hr bus service with one of the most heavely traveled bus routes in North America. Any street in Seattle comparible? 1st? 4th? Madison? 45th? Rainier Ave?
What blocks on Wilshire Blvd do you find so unattractive and unwalkable? I won't say London, Paris or New York but what street in Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Boston, DC, Seattle has a more developed street than Wilshire Blvd? It's developed with office bldgs, apts, shops, restaurants, churches, some beautiful ones too, markets, hospitals. There's continued sidewalks from downtown to the ocean. There are some 24 hr businesses along Wilshire. 24 hr bus service with one of the most heavely traveled bus routes in North America. Any street in Seattle comparible? 1st? 4th? Madison? 45th? Rainier Ave?
Wilshire is definitely great. LA's version of something like in Chicago or NYC.
Yea, that one and the other picture of the narrow street.
I actually think LA and Detroit have quite a bit in common from a design perspective. They are both urban but car oriented (Detroit even more so) and boomed at the same time period - their biggest difference is LA continued to grow and avoided severe decline in the core due to an infusion of Latin and Asian immigrants while the same did not occur in Detroit.
LA doesn't have the "traditional" cohesive walkable feel that London, Paris, NYC, Chicago, Philadelphia (and to some extent Boston/SF) have
To "some extent Boston/SF"? SF and Boston have more of the traditional cohesive, walkable feel than any city in the country except NYC. Definitely moreso than Chicago and probably more than Philly.
To "some extent Boston/SF"? SF and Boston have more of the traditional cohesive, walkable feel than any city in the country except NYC. Definitely moreso than Chicago and probably more than Philly.
Yes, I agree. I was just being super careful with my words because it seems like any affirmative statement made on these forums results in a full blown debate.
I actually think LA and Detroit have quite a bit in common from a design perspective. They are both urban but car oriented (Detroit even more so) and boomed at the same time period - their biggest difference is LA continued to grow and avoided severe decline in the core due to an infusion of Latin and Asian immigrants while the same did not occur in Detroit.
Well, not only that but Los Angeles annexed a large portion of its metropolitan area. Detroit by comparison remained a smaller city within it's overall metro area. Growth in the outer areas in either city could have very well masked whatever declines were present even when the overall population of the city was growing. I know for Detroit, the downtown area started to fall apart after the Great Depression.
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.
