Dense in the future?

[JManc]

Chicago's central/ loop area is freaking massive. I walked from Desplaines St to Wabash and then from Wabash to Millennium Park and then on to area around JHC. That was 3 miles and only a small dent in the total area.

[edale]

If you're just looking at core to core, Chicago feels like a much bigger and important city than LA. But if you look at the metro level, or even just driving from one end of the city to the other, it's pretty clear that LA is substantially larger. LA just doesn't end, and nearly every parcel in the entire basin and surrounding valleys is built out. DTLA still feels woefully undersized and definitely a TON rougher around the edges than our peer cities' downtowns, though it has gotten a lot better and continues to improve. There are some big projects underway right now, but DTLA still has a ways to go before it can really be mentioned in the same breath as center city Chicago or even SF. It will be interesting to see if the 3 new subway stops from the regional connector project will spur new growth. They don't seem to be located in places that will have much impact, but we'll see. While I appreciate the grit and vintage vibe the Historic Core has today, I'd absolutely love to see the area clean and economically vibrant, and the theaters restored to their original uses on Broadway.

[LA21st]

Downtown LA might always feel undersized relative to the area, unforunately. Even if it becomes larger than these other downtowns, it still won't match the 18-20 million people living here. I've accepted that lol. However, it's possible the Wilshire-Hollywood-Beverly Hills-Westwood-Santa Monica corridor will come close.

That doesn't mean downtown can't improve greatly and expand the skyline in all four directions. It's already one of the more interesting/vibrant downtowns in the country and just getting started.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by edale

If you're just looking at core to core, Chicago feels like a much bigger and important city than LA. But if you look at the metro level, or even just driving from one end of the city to the other, it's pretty clear that LA is substantially larger. LA just doesn't end, and nearly every parcel in the entire basin and surrounding valleys is built out. DTLA still feels woefully undersized and definitely a TON rougher around the edges than our peer cities' downtowns, though it has gotten a lot better and continues to improve. There are some big projects underway right now, but DTLA still has a ways to go before it can really be mentioned in the same breath as center city Chicago or even SF. It will be interesting to see if the 3 new subway stops from the regional connector project will spur new growth. They don't seem to be located in places that will have much impact, but we'll see. While I appreciate the grit and vintage vibe the Historic Core has today, I'd absolutely love to see the area clean and economically vibrant, and the theaters restored to their original uses on Broadway.

The Bunker hill stop is a block from the Grand ave project and the Colburn expansion. The 2nd and Broadway station will have the two, 50 story towers by Onni at the former LA Times parking lot, the 40 story tower on top of the new station and a couple blocks from both Grand Ave and the Civic center, which will be getting a new park and several new highrises. Not much going in near the new Arts District / Little Tokyo station though, but its mostly built out in that area

[JManc]

When you're in NY or Chicago, you really feel like you're in the 'city' compared to LA which is so decentralized and feels much more like a region. The LA area seems so massive that you get the impression that it's bigger than Chicago or even New York.

[the urban politician]

I would also add that if you want to "see" the NW Indiana burbs a bit better (which is a strange thing to be interested in--they aren't pretty unless you're into post-industrial porn), you should take the I-90 tollway instead of I-94 next time you're in the area.

Most people take I-94 so they aren't going to experience that.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I would also add that if you want to "see" the NW Indiana burbs a bit better (which is a strange thing to be interested in--they aren't pretty unless you're into post-industrial porn), you should take the I-90 tollway instead of I-94 next time you're in the area.

Most people take I-94 so they aren't going to experience that.

It's more out of curiousity than anything .

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Interestingly enough, you can actually drive north / east and be in a national forest (Angeles National Forest, which are the San Gabriels you see behind the skyline / Rose Bowl covered in snow and is approximately 700,000 acres) within 30 min of Downtown LA and if you continue up another 30 min, you'll be in an alpine forest at 8000 plus feet. However, North and South from Downtown LA stretches forever.

[Crawford]

Chicago's core is extremely dense and huge, but it drops off almost immediately in most directions but N/NW.

If you take, say, the Stevenson Expressway west, you go from downtown--endless warehouses--suburbia. You can actually be in woodsy suburbia like Burr Ridge in maybe 30 minutes (obviously excepting rush hour). If you work off-hours, it's actually quite easy to have a big suburban house and drive downtown to work.

LA's core is rather inconsequential, and doesn't even feel like the real center. But 30 miles from the core doesn't look/feel much different than two miles from the core.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Chicago's core is extremely dense and huge, but it drops off almost immediately in most directions but N/NW.

actually, the middle and outer ring western burbs are, on average, a little bit denser than their northern counterparts, with the exception of the waukegan area.

https://www.socialexplorer.com/c1ee92b1e2/view


but yes, generally speaking, the contrast between "the city" and "the burbs" is MUCH starker in chicagoland than it is in metro LA.

once again, hyper centralization vs. hyper poly-centrism.

[the urban politician]

Most people who grew up out west just don't understand why eastern cities are the way they are.

Cities like Chicago started at their core and were built up densely for well over a century until the car took over, and almost overnight some very low density suburbs were built. That explains why there is a stark difference.

Most California cities saw a majority of their growth after car ownership was already prevalent, so it's obvious that their towns and cities tend to be more spread out as far as density goes--you just won't see the contrast between city and burbs like you will with older cities; San Francisco being the major exception.

Another thing that makes Chicago's burbs seem artificially less dense than places in California is the fact that the region is geographically flat.

So if I'm in the Bay Area driving on the expressways, for example, I see hills all around me with houses on them. To me, then, it visually seems like there are more homes around me.

Take the same drive along Chicagoland's expressways and you are surrounded by flatlands. Some of that is Forest Preserve Land (hence disallowed from private development), and the rest is low density suburbia that you probably just can't see because these neighborhoods aren't up on hills like they are in many of California's bigger metros.

[Steely Dan]

^ tree cover in suburbia also tends to be much heavier in the humid east as well.

and at least in chicagoland, there are some places where thin lines of forest are planted along the expressways to shield residential areas from the noise. so for someone who might not know any better, they might just think they're driving through a forest when in fact there are thousands of people living on the other side of the tree line that you simply cannot see driving by at 70 mph. this phenomenon is most apparent on northern sections of the tri-state.

just a regular old 8 lane expressway through an uninhabitted forest, right?

not exactly, when you zoom out.



here's another example from the lake street extension in the western burbs

but when you zoom out........

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

and at least in chicagoland, there are some places where thin lines of forest are planted along the expressways to shield residential areas from the noise.

No sound walls?

Are freeway sound walls just a California thing?

Decades ago, when I first drove in New Jersey, I remember seeing what you just described, where it looks like I'm driving on a freeway through a forest, but when you look through the trees, you see houses. I thought 'man, that must be exceptionally noisy.' Not that freeway sound walls really block any noise, but it does muffle it somewhat... if you use your imagination, it sounds like you're right near the beach---you're hearing ocean waves on the shore!

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

No sound walls?

you also see sound walls along some stretches of expressway in chicagoland as well, but they are hideously ugly, so you'll typically only see them when housing butts directly up to an expressway (although not in the city itself, for some reason).

if there is room for it, a linear tree buffer is the much preferred option. or as TUP pointed out, the land is zoned for commercial, warehouse, light industry, etc. - uses that don't give nearly as much of a shit about expressway noise as homeowners do.

[jtown,man]

Sound barriers are everywhere.

Here in southern Virginia, most of our interstates are like Chicago's in the burbs. It looks like you are in the middle of the forest. Not a popular opinion on here, but I much prefer how Texas has feeder roads and everything fronting the interstate. Not in cities, mind you, but out in the burbs.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

you also see sound walls along some stretches of expressway in chicagoland as well, but they are hideously ugly, so you'll typically only see them when housing butts directly up to an expressway (although not in the city itself, for some reason).

Same here in Houston; usually only seen when housing is directly adjacent to freeway. They are graffiti magnets.

[jd3189]

^^^ Yeah, those small lots in the parts of the Greater Bay Area I was in made everything seem like a dense collection of cities in the forest, at least near Santa Cruz/Capitola area.

Originally Posted by sopas ej

No sound walls?

Are freeway sound walls just a California thing?

Nah, they are in a lot of other places. I know Florida and Georgia have them, but not sure about Tennessee. NYC has them in certain parts of the parkways.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by jd3189

^^^ Yeah, those small lots in the parts of the Greater Bay Area I was in made everything seem like a dense collection of cities in the forest, at least near Santa Cruz/Capitola area.




Nah, they are in a lot of other places. I know Florida and Georgia have them, but not sure about Tennessee. NYC has them in certain parts of the parkways.

Sound walls are present if decibels reach a level that is recordable in residential districts [60?]. Sound wall construction has been ongoing and added in many urban freeways that are retrofitted.

You probably don't need a sound wall if traffic crawls at all hours of the day.

[edale]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

No sound walls?

Are freeway sound walls just a California thing?

lol really? Some Californians are so incredibly naive and ignorant about the rest of the country. You really thought sound walls around freeways were just a California thing? It reminds me of when I was in college (in Los Angeles) and people asked me if we had Starbucks in Ohio. Come on...

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by edale

lol really? Some Californians are so incredibly naive and ignorant about the rest of the country. You really thought sound walls around freeways were just a California thing? It reminds me of when I was in college (in Los Angeles) and people asked me if we had Starbucks in Ohio. Come on...

Californians are like the Americans of America.