Is "Manhattanization" and "being like LA" really a bad thing?

[Chase Unperson]

After skimming newspaper articles in the california forum discussing San Francisco's history of fearing the "Manhattanization of San Francisco" and remembering the same comments from neighborhood activists in and around downtown Chicago, I came to an ironic realization. Over the last few decades, NY and LA are the two most cities most commonly cited on "how not to be". NY is the prototypic example of a city that is crime-ridden, too crowded and too tall. LA is the prototypic example city of a city that is crime-ridden, too crowded, and too spread out. I have read and heard numerous times people comment on how "it is bad as LA here", or "we don't want to be like LA" or "I might as well move to LA". I know on the forum that NY is the holy city and LA is the demon city, but I am talking about in society in general.

Yet, relative to other US cities, NY and LA have been able to draw far more people into their metros and have economies, international stature and influence that match their size. In those regards, they are the most successful cities in the US. Wouldn't it make sense for cities to embrace Manhattanization and "being like LA"?

[ginsan2]

Speaking as a midwesterner, I can deeply sympathize.

It isn't that NYC or LA are bad, per se, although they do have their own problems. It's the overwhelming arrogance and provincialism you find from either coast when you do not offer exactly the same things in exactly the same way as they are in LA or NYC. There's this national stereotype that paints you as a hick with straw in your hair because you're between LA and NYC. Oh, and you probably drove your SUV to the voting booth where you voted straight-ticket Republican so you could keep your gun racks full.

Yesterday I was at a career fair for accounting students and I heard someone say "These kids from these flyover states..." It can be incredibly damaging to one's self-confidence.

I would say that there's nothing wrong with "Manhattanization" or "being like LA". Both cities have admirable qualities that clearly keep millions of people there and have somehow cultivated them into the best talent centers in the nation. The problem is that people are usually on the defensive because they're afraid of being looked down upon because their areas culture won't be recognized as valid or important if it doesn't live up to the established NYC or LA standards, which have standardized nationally what it means to have culture or be a "real" city.

[tackledspoon]

So long as there's a high degree of cultural preservation and the character of the city isn't being decimated, a lot of cities could learn a thing or two from Manhattan and LA. Like you said, they're both doing something right if they can hold on to people like they do. The goal of Manhattanization is not to have hundreds of tiny Manhattans dotting the map- it's an attempt to revive cities using the most successful American city as the model. I think that people freak out when they see the word "Manhattanization" and think of it as an attack on the culture and history of their city, when, in reality, it's more likely to manifest as a series of slowly occuring changes that, in the end, will hopefully be favorable.

[Taller Better]

I've been to both, and I'd rather experience Manhattanization than to Be Like LA, but that is just my personal preference.

[bobdreamz]

" I know on the forum that NY is the holy city and LA is the demon city"

who demonizes LA?....certainly not us....we demonize Phoenix! :D

[Mr Roboto]

I always thought "Manhattanization" sounded cool, at least the image that it conjures in my head. In Chicago I like to think its "Loopization" (to coin a horribly sounding phrase) though, or more realistically "canyonization", at least whats happening in our river north and south loop areas. Sorry, cant bring myself to use a NY term for the Chi.

As far as "be like LA", that creates an image of decentralization, and creating different nodes of centralized areas. That would never happen in one of the most centralized cities in the US, like Chicago, but I dont necessarily think thats a bad thing for other growing cities. I dont prefer the type of organization LA had with respect to its urban development, but I'd expect thats what happens with extreme growth centered around the automobile and commutes for workers. Something like that may be applied to the DC suburbs, and places like Phoenix, Vegas and Atlanta. To me "being like LA" would be a very positive thing for these rapidly growing cities.

[pricemazda]

What people are referring to on both charges is essentially cities that have ceased to function on a human scale. In NY the skyscraper canyons are not on a human scale, and it can feel oppressive. Equally the dispersed auto structured LA is also on a non-human level. It seperates people by vast distances.

[tackledspoon]

who demonizes LA?....certainly not us....we demonize Phoenix to a slightly lesser degree than LA! :D
I fixed your omission.

[pj3000]

ginsan2: Very good post. I've lived in New York for 7 years now and I still find the level of native New Yorker ignorant provincialism astonishing, and actually somewhat humorous. I've met so many adult New York natives that have basically never left the city, yet feel without a doubt, that anyplace other than NYC is lesser, rather than different; and, not really even being able to comprehend that the vast majority of the nation is nothing like NYC. The irony is great... such an insular, close-minded viewpoint that they feel exists everywhere else but New York.

[Buckeye Native 001]

LA could benefit from being more like Manhattan. Especially in the public transportation category...

[BTinSF]

I'm not sure "LA-ization" is possible--anywhere else. What those who use that term mean, I suppose, is sprawl. And that's almost always is a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. I don't have anything per se against the single family home with a yard and it offers more people the opportunity to have that, but at huge cost. But Phoenix-style sprawl does not make a new LA with it's setting between ocean and mountains, its skiing within day-trip range, the entertainment industry and its glamor, its function as a portal to Asia, its ethnic diversity and all the rest.

Manhattanization is something else. It has been hated by a segment of the population in San Francisco who think San Francisco has its own virtues: What someone somewhere on SSP described as a Mediterranean village by the Golden Gate. The problem is that what still existed of that reality by the 1950s, still exists today and is not greatly threatened by Manhattanization of the downtown which I strongly support.

There is no chance of highrises being built in Noe Valley or the Haight or Cow Hollow or the Marina or Glen Park or Bernal Heights or the other lowrise "Mediterranean" neighborhoods. The highrises are planned for downtown and SOMA and the other areas where highrises already exist to some degree. Aside from the esthetics of the skyline, which matter to me and the other geeks here at SSP, Manhattanization means a city which is dense enough to require and support a 24-hour lifestyle and which is diverse enough to make available pretty much any product or service from any culture you can think of. For me, that's it's main benefit: If I want some soba at 2 AM, it's there. If I feel like going to the gym at 4 AM, there's one open, nearby (and the transit system is running sufficiently to get me there and back).

[caltrane74]

I love Manhatten...its always good to emulate the best. nothing is wrong with throwing up tonnes of condo's in your cities downtown and seeing how it injects life into the vibe of the place.

Manhatten is go go 24/7 with the best babes I've ever seen in life. I love the place.

[craeg]

I think the larger point here is that the terms have taken on a life of their own that exist separately from the places.
Manhattanization refers to the intense Highrise development, lack of sunshine, wall of highrises level of development
"Being like LA" has come to represent sprawl, strip mallification, surface parking, lack of public transit, etc.
Personally, I think everyone who decries "manhattanization" should be forced to travel to manhattan and and tour the island. The reality is that many places could learn a thing or two from manhattan outside of its development policies.

[tdawg]

who demonizes LA?....certainly not us....we demonize Phoenix!

yet still, we all go there to grow old and die!

[Chicago103]

Honestly I think its lame to refer to a movement in your city either unfavorably or favorably as "Manhattanization" of "Los-Angelization". To me Chicago is Chicago and when I support density in Chicago I AM supporting the traditional Chicago way of life, highrise construction downtown and along the lake and mixed use walkable communities out in the neighborhoods. So when these idiot NIMBY's downtown and in traditional highrise areas complain about buildings being out of scale they cant comprehend how "out of scale" the John Hancock Center was when it was built where it was. The Sears Tower was out of context for office buildings in that part of the Loop. The context of downtown Chicago has been one of constant change and to a degree that also applies to many of the neighborhoods. Also, when people out in Jefferson Park and similar places complain about mixed use out there and want to preseve "the character" of the nieghborhood what faux nestalgia are they refering to? I am willing to be people are alot more dependent on their cars there than in 1950 when the population density was the same if not higher, when mixed use retail areas that are walkable where the norm. These suburban minded people are really the ones that are out to suburbanize Chicago and change the context and not people like me.

Manhattanization can roughly refer to urbanization and Los Angelezation to suburbanization although there are problems with that. Los Angeles for instance is car oriented only when compared to other mega cities such as NYC or Chicago but when compared to most of the nation it is less car dependent. Places like Phoenix or Nashville are better examples of suburbanized cities to me. If I wanted to play along with these generalization terms I would say Chicago is like a fushion of NYC and LA in terms of transit/car dependence especially. We arent as much of a transit culture as NYC but we arent as much of a car culture as LA. In that sense its people like me that want to "Manhattanize" Chicago and the NIMBY's/autocentrics/suburban mindeds that want to "Los-Angelize" Chicago.

[brian_b]

Yesterday I was at a career fair for accounting students and I heard someone say "These kids from these flyover states..." It can be incredibly damaging to one's self-confidence.


Don't worry about it, check out the backgrounds of the people who made it big on the coasts and you'll find an awfully high percentage of them came from the "flyover states"

[brickell]

I think the larger point here is that the terms have taken on a life of their own that exist separately from the places.
Manhattanization refers to the intense Highrise development, lack of sunshine, wall of highrises level of development
"Being like LA" has come to represent sprawl, strip mallification, surface parking, lack of public transit, etc.


Agreed. This is really about the terms and they are by definition, bad things. Their reference the actual cities mean little to the people using the phrases.

[Jularc]

People in the other boroughs of New York also use the term 'Manahttanization' alot when they see lots of new shinny buildings or tall ones poping up. I guess the other boroughs haven't seen 'market rate' developement since maybe the 50's. Manhattan has always been in a construction phase for along time. Even in the 70's some things went up. So all of a sudden all these condo buildings start to pop up in these other borough's neighborhoods that hasn't seen change for the longest time and then people start to called it the 'Manahttanization' of the neighborhood or the borough.

I guess it has something to do with money aswell. I think people associate manhattan with alot of money and when they see new 'market rate' apartment buildings they think of people with lots of money moving in them. Which is true in NYC. Affordability in a 'descent' neighborhood is an issue right now for the whole city.

[Xelebes]

Don't worry about it, check out the backgrounds of the people who made it big on the coasts and you'll find an awfully high percentage of them came from the "flyover states"

Only because an awfully high percentage of the US population lives in the flyover states. :)

[dktshb]

:gaah: Here we go again. Will the Los Angeles sprawl myth ever die? We're the most densely populated metro in the US and Candada as of the 2000 census and Los Angeles is the only major city in the USA that continues to become more dense. I know some think I am a broken record but I am so tired of being associated with something that were not.

Robert Hanashiro, USATODAY
Los Angeles has a surprisingly low sprawl index score of 78.

"Los Angeles has single-family homes stretching for miles. Away from downtown, few high-rises break up the monotony. “For some people, that’s sprawl,” says Rolf Pendall, a planning professor at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. But population density is the key determinant of sprawl."


Read the article here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sprawl/main2.htm

Or here:
http://www.numbersusa.com/interests/urbansprawl.html

Here's a blip from Numbers USA.


"Los Angeles is a prime example of the limits to how far Americans will go in packing additional people into their neighborhoods. No city in America may be a better model of the goal of attempting to restrain sprawl by channeling population growth into ever-denser settlements, both in the urban core and throughout the suburbs. Between 1970 and 1990, per capita land consumption fell until the L.A. Urbanized Area was the most densely populated in the country. Many people find this hard to believe because of Manhattan's skyline. But New York's suburbs are only 60% as dense as those of Los Angeles. No other Urbanized Area provided so little land per resident as Los Angeles (0.11 acre). Most American communities have refused to come anywhere near the L.A. densities."

[UrbanSophist]

Myth shmyth. L.A.'s spead out and everyone know's it. :tup:

[chicubs111]

chicago has had dense areas just as much as manhatten just not overall on the same scale...manhattenization is a term that should be used for a city that has never had a dense neighborhoods...It should not be used for chicago whatsoever...it just happens that some people who dont understand the history of chicago may throw that term like its something that is just happening

[Xelebes]

Trying to think of the Canadian equivalent of "Manhattanization".....

Vancouverisation.

[zilfondel]

NY is the prototypic example of a city that is crime-ridden, too crowded and too tall. LA is the prototypic example city of a city that is crime-ridden, too crowded, and too spread out.

The commonality between what people hate about the two cities sould be obvious: too many people. I believe this is because [Americans] fundamentally hate other people... and with all of the sensationalist news media in the US of A, people believe there is super high crime everywhere.

In actually, NYC has a much lower crime rate PER CAPITA than LA, and one of the lowest in the USA for a large city. NYC is ranked #49 out of 68 for the highest crime rate of cities over 250,000 people in America, while LA is #28. #1 is the highest, #68 being the lowest. Additionally, NY and LA have about the same total #s of homicides and rapes, although NY is much larger than LA (~3x, according to the study. Non-metro pop).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Cities_by_Crime_Rate

[zilfondel]

I'm not sure "LA-ization" is possible--anywhere else. What those who use that term mean, I suppose, is sprawl. And that's almost always is a bad thing as far as I'm concerned. I don't have anything per se against the single family home with a yard and it offers more people the opportunity to have that, but at huge cost. But Phoenix-style sprawl does not make a new LA with it's setting between ocean and mountains, its skiing within day-trip range, the entertainment industry and its glamor, its function as a portal to Asia, its ethnic diversity and all the rest.

Tokyo? It's got 35 million people, it's THE gateway to Asia (as well as actually being in Asia, yet it is totally different than any other place in Asia as well), it's also stuck between the mountains and the ocean, and the real estate is insanely high! Not to mention the earthquakes... :sly:


who demonizes LA?....certainly not us....we demonize Phoenix!

yet still, we all go there to grow old and die!


'cause it's one step from hell? :)

[fflint]

Trying to think of the Canadian equivalent of "Manhattanization".....

Vancouverisation.
No. In an attempt to create a Canadian equivalency only for its own sake, you're ignoring the crucial aspects of "Manhattanization" so many NIMBYs find unpleasant and unwelcome.

Manhattanization represents to NIMBYs, among other things, an unrelentingly brutalist cityscape. For mile after mile, the sky is blocked out and life is out of balance; people move about the deep, windy, darkened street canyons in a total absence of sunlight, greenery, open space.

As Craeg noted above, the phrase Manhattanization has taken on a life of its own--it seems rooted in mid-20th century visions of urban dystopia--but it does nevertheless bear a passing resemblence to parts of Manhattan on a really bad day. Vancouver in no way presents or represents that particular type of cityscape.

[BTinSF]

Tokyo? It's got 35 million people, it's THE gateway to Asia (as well as actually being in Asia, yet it is totally different than any other place in Asia as well), it's also stuck between the mountains and the ocean, and the real estate is insanely high! Not to mention the earthquakes... :sly:


I believe the discussion was about the US, but I've spent considerable time near Tokyo and I'd put it more that LA should aspire to "Tokyoization" in that Tokyo has the excellent transit system LA is trying to build and the urban density it's working toward. Tokyo doesn't really have "beaches" in the sense LA does, though.

[BTinSF]

Manhattanization represents to NIMBYs, among other things, an unrelentingly brutalist cityscape. For mile after mile, the sky is blocked out and life is out of balance; people move about the deep, windy, darkened street canyons in a total absence of sunlight, greenery, open space.

OK, OK. Bladerunner. But really those deep dark canyons mostly have a lot of exciting street-level life going on. The NIMBYs ignore that.

Vancouver in no way presents or represents that particular type of cityscape.

True. Vancouver has much more in common with San Francisco; as it is--pre-"Manhattanization".

[fflint]

OK, OK. Bladerunner. But really those deep dark canyons mostly have a lot of exciting street-level life going on. The NIMBYs ignore that.
The NIMBY concept of "Manhattanization" has no upsides, as opposed to the real Manhattan, which is neither as bleak as the opponents of "Manhattanization" would have us think, nor as one-dimensional.

[verictson]

I'm somewhat new to the forum, but it seems the Chicagoans have alot of pride (rightfully so) they always seem to bring it up in alot of the topics that have nothing to do with Chicago.
I wouldn't mind a city where a 1/4 of it has been Manhattanized, 1/4 LA'd, 1/4 Miami'd, 1/4 SF'd, with DC suburbs - thats my kind of city

[verictson]

sorry.. double post

[LordMandeep]

Manhattanization may refer to the fact the city lacks trees in some areas. However central park makes up for that.

[ginsan2]

I think that ultimately what is wrong with "Manhattanization" and "being like LA" is that it deprives cities or areas of an identity. It's like a blanket statement that there is no other valid culture or way of life, and that's simply incorrect. Other cities have different cultures (even those of us in the Midwest and Texas) that are as valid as any other. It's this constant glorification of NYC and Los Angeles as the "best at everything".

That's what it means to "Manhattanize" or "be like LA". We've all bought into this concept that those two cities are what we should aspire to, but the truth is that we are simply different people in different areas. Neither NYC or LA lifestyles work where I live, and they just never will. The people are different, the culture is different, and we're not worse off for it. I think that Chicago has had to deal with this far more keenly than anywhere else in the United States; maybe that's why I can admire the city so much.

[verictson]

I think that ultimately what is wrong with "Manhattanization" and "being like LA" is that it deprives cities or areas of an identity. It's like a blanket statement that there is no other valid culture or way of life, and that's simply incorrect. Other cities have different cultures (even those of us in the Midwest and Texas) that are as valid as any other. It's this constant glorification of NYC and Los Angeles as the "best at everything".

That's what it means to "Manhattanize" or "be like LA". We've all bought into this concept that those two cities are what we should aspire to, but the truth is that we are simply different people in different areas. Neither NYC or LA lifestyles work where I live, and they just never will. The people are different, the culture is different, and we're not worse off for it. I think that Chicago has had to deal with this far more keenly than anywhere else in the United States; maybe that's why I can admire the city so much.

i would say cities like SF, Miami, Lv have all created their own identities.

[BTinSF]

:gaah: Here we go again. Will the Los Angeles sprawl myth ever die? We're the most densely populated metro in the US and Candada as of the 2000 census and Los Angeles is the only major city in the USA that continues to become more dense.

It's a dense metro, it's not a dense city. That really is another way of saying the population is sprawled out fairly evenly throughout the geographic basin it occupies. And, yes, it's getting more dense because it may have reached the limits of its ability to sprawl.

But I'm not really an LA basher. As I said earlier in the discussion, not many places can match its location between mountains and sea, nor its climate. And because it has to get denser and has done a decent job in recent years trying to retrofit things like transit, it should get more "urban" and possibly even more liveable.

[Xelebes]

No. In an attempt to create a Canadian equivalency only for its own sake, you're ignoring the crucial aspects of "Manhattanization" so many NIMBYs find unpleasant and unwelcome.

Manhattanization represents to NIMBYs, among other things, an unrelentingly brutalist cityscape. For mile after mile, the sky is blocked out and life is out of balance; people move about the deep, windy, darkened street canyons in a total absence of sunlight, greenery, open space.

As Craeg noted above, the phrase Manhattanization has taken on a life of its own--it seems rooted in mid-20th century visions of urban dystopia--but it does nevertheless bear a passing resemblence to parts of Manhattan on a really bad day. Vancouver in no way presents or represents that particular type of cityscape.

Little Toronto?

[Nouvellecosse]

From what I've heard, people r against Manhattanisation because it tends to be associated with the destruction of what already exists, in that high real estate prices prompt the destruction of other buildings so new, taller ones can be built. A lot of people just happen to like the city they're living in, and don't want to see it all replaced by something unfamiliar.

The stereotypical urban negatives play a part as well, in that people feel that if they wanted to have the trade-off between problems like crime, pollution, traffic, noise, etc., then they'd just move to a big city like NY. They don't see the point of making their city into a mini NY, when the world already has NY, but there's only one of their city.

Also, people fear that Manhattanisation will make their city unaffordable to average people. Of course, building more, and taller, buildings won't increase prices, but in a way, these things aren't actually Manhattanisation; they're the physical effects of Manhattanisation, which is basically just extremely high demand for central locations which in turn prompts the changes in the physical landscape.

As far as LA, even tho LA has densified a lot, it's still thought of as the most spreadout big, world megacity, and likely will for a long time. Why? Because even tho metro NY may not be as dense as metro LA, NY's city section has its own totally unique identity seperate from the sprawl, freeways, etc, while LA has those things dominating its city proper to a much greater extend. Also, Manhattan is physically seperated from NY's suburbs by by being on an island, while LA is all a continuous area.

[Buckeye Native 001]

But I'm not really an LA basher. As I said earlier in the discussion, not many places can match its location between mountains and sea, nor its climate. And because it has to get denser and has done a decent job in recent years trying to retrofit things like transit, it should get more "urban" and possibly even more liveable.

The Big One will strike long before this metro becomes a dense urban mecca like Chicago or Manhattan.

[Quixote]

It's a dense metro, it's not a dense city.

Los Angeles is approaching a density level of 9,000 per/square mile. Now contrast that to the other "non real cities, "sprawling suburbs" of Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, and Phoenix. All of those cities have a density level in the 3,000s. As you can see, Los Angeles is no sprawling suburb. It even has a higher population density than Seattle. Los Angeles is not too dense compared to NYC or SF, but it's still denser than most American cities.

[BTinSF]

^^^Yeah, but a "real" LA suburb, Santa Ana, is denser than the central city at around 13,500 per sq mile and West Hollywood is denser than SF according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_selected_cities_by_population_density . The point being that the LA metro's population is spread around the basin with multiple nodes of concentration, the City of LA being not the most prominent (even though it has the highrises).

[BTinSF]

The Big One will strike long before this metro becomes a dense urban mecca like Chicago or Manhattan.

Since LA lies west of the San Andreas and SF largely east of it, and since the plate to the west is moving north relative to the east plate, the LA metro and the Bay Area will be fused by the "Big One" and then we'll see who's boss.

[Quixote]

I see what you're saying. Surely there are seperate cities like Santa Monica and West Hollywood which have an overall greater density than the City of Los Angeles. But if you were to break up the entire LA Basin district by district, you would discover that the densest areas belong to the City of Los Angeles.

[b-s]

I'm somewhat new to the forum, but it seems the Chicagoans have alot of pride (rightfully so) they always seem to bring it up in alot of the topics that have nothing to do with Chicago.
I wouldn't mind a city where a 1/4 of it has been Manhattanized, 1/4 LA'd, 1/4 Miami'd, 1/4 SF'd, with DC suburbs - thats my kind of city

Because these two terms being discussed don't have anything to do with Chicago. They never did, and they never will. We don't do "Manhattanization" or "LA-izing" around here. Chicago doesn't become more like its peer, or more like its little brother. Chicago becomes more like Chicago. Chicago Chicago-izes itself.

Perhaps American cities are trying not to become LA or NYC. Instead what they're trying to do, whether they know it or not, is trying to become more like Chicago.

(By the way, minus the Miami bit, your description is more like Chicagoland than any other.)

[dktshb]

It's a dense metro, it's not a dense city. That really is another way of saying the population is sprawled out fairly evenly throughout the geographic basin it occupies. And, yes, it's getting more dense because it may have reached the limits of its ability to sprawl.

But I'm not really an LA basher. As I said earlier in the discussion, not many places can match its location between mountains and sea, nor its climate. And because it has to get denser and has done a decent job in recent years trying to retrofit things like transit, it should get more "urban" and possibly even more liveable.

From your Wikipedia Los Angeles at 493 square miles has a density of 8200/sq mi and is denser than cities like:

Baltimore, Detroit, Seattle, St Louis, Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Portland, Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix, etc., etc., etc.

Denser cities:
Boston- 89 sq mi, population density 11,543/sq mi;
San Francisco- 47 sq mi, population density 15,834/sq mi;
Chicago-234 sq mi, population density 12,604/sq mi:

Yet look at the sq mi comparison... I'd like to see the density levels of these cities at a comparable area of 493 sq mi. So being a dense city surrounded by equally dense and more dense cities to make the metro area most dense in America I don't think using Los Angeles as an example of sprawl or to associate it as sprawl is accurate.

[ginsan2]

The Big One will strike long before this metro becomes a dense urban mecca like Chicago or Manhattan.

Why, thank you :cool:

Actually, the San Andreas fault line isn't long enough to produce a magnitude earthquake of any serious threat (ie, Cali falling into the ocean). I think 8 is about as high as it can go, although obviously if the epicenter is near a highly urbanized area it's going to cause massive damage.

People have bizarre conceptions about earthquakes and faultlines. California doesn't actually have a very bad faultline. It isn't long enough to cause serious magnitude (this is how M is determined) and it's pushing the two continents together because of the bend in its origin.

I think it's safer to say that the Big One will strike in Kentucky/So-Ill before it does in Cali. ;)

[verictson]

Because these two terms being discussed don't have anything to do with Chicago. They never did, and they never will. We don't do "Manhattanization" or "LA-izing" around here. Chicago doesn't become more like its peer, or more like its little brother. Chicago becomes more like Chicago. Chicago Chicago-izes itself.

Perhaps American cities are trying not to become LA or NYC. Instead what they're trying to do, whether they know it or not, is trying to become more like Chicago.

(By the way, minus the Miami bit, your description is more like Chicagoland than any other.)

I'm sorry, I find this very laughable =)
I've been to chicago and will admit it is a beautiful city, but the combination I put in was for a dynamic city, not a big slow city :shrug: (this is only my opinion, I apologize if this is offensive to anyone).

(oh yeah thats by the way as well)

[verictson]

Because these two terms being discussed don't have anything to do with Chicago. They never did, and they never will. We don't do "Manhattanization" or "LA-izing" around here. Chicago doesn't become more like its peer, or more like its little brother. Chicago becomes more like Chicago. Chicago Chicago-izes itself.

Perhaps American cities are trying not to become LA or NYC. Instead what they're trying to do, whether they know it or not, is trying to become more like Chicago.

(By the way, minus the Miami bit, your description is more like Chicagoland than any other.)

might I also add that Chicago was still never mentioned in the first post. Dang your arrogant...

[brinegarempire]

I don't see Manhattanization as a bad thing at all. I don't think any cities I frequent are striving to be more like LA...at least I hope not. I think being opposite of LA is probably a better idea. And to the midwesterner who fears ignorance on the coast, Boston and Seattle should be a little more younger and entrepenuerial for you than NY or LA.

[b-s]

i'm sorry, i find this very laughable =)
i've been to chicago and will admit it is a beautiful city, but the combination i put in was for a dynamic city, not a big slow city :shrug:

(oh yeah thats by the way as well)

You don't know what combination you're looking for because you're nothing but a little tweenie who doesn't know shit because your joke of an irrelevant little toy town is from the bottom of the barrel holding shit.

You should spend less time wishing for your "25% yuppie, 25% tweenie, 25% idiot, 25% inferiority complex frat boy" town and more time saving your allowance so you can leave that irrelevant nothingville you're too ashamed to say you're from.

might I also add that Chicago was still never mentioned in the first post. Dang your arrogant...

You asked why Chicago was brought up, I gave you an answer. It doesn't fit the mold of the polar opposites being discussed here. I can't help it you have a severe inferiority complex. What was it? Got lost? Couldn't afford something? People laughing at your face while you stared blankly at a map in the middle of an intersection?

"Dang" is from the vocabulary of a 12 year old.

Go away. Your mom is calling you from the driveway, time to pick up some food at Costco.

[edluva]

From your Wikipedia Los Angeles at 493 square miles has a density of 8200/sq mi and is denser than cities like:

Baltimore, Detroit, Seattle, St Louis, Dallas, Houson, Atlanta, Portland, Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix, etc., etc., etc.

Denser cities:
Boston- 89 sq mi, population density 11,543/sq mi;
San Francisco- 47 sq mi, population density 15,834/sq mi;
Chicago-234 sq mi, population density 12,604/sq mi:

Yet look at the sq mi comparrison... I'd like to see the denisity levels of these cities at a comprable area of 493 sq mi. So being a dense city surrounded by equally dense and more dense cities to make the metro area most dense in America I don't think using Los Angeles as an example of sprawl or to associate it as sprawl is accurate.


Even those numbers are inaccurate. LA has an urbanized center so dense and large (based on UA) it can swallow Chicago (or any other city in the US) whole. LA's metro is like a slightly denser version of NY's metro, except with one and a half Chicagos in the middle (in place of NYC).

But I'd still argue that LA sprawls far more than either of these, as the concept of sprawl doesn't necessarily reflect on how dense a place is. You can be crowded and sprawl (LA), or you can be relatively sparsely populated and yet, not sprawl so much (Portland). Sprawl is closely related to density, but it's not equivalent to it, as there are other factors that determine how a place sprawls.

LA has multiple centers of commercial activity, not just a single big one. In that sense, it sprawls like crazy, despite being the densest metro.

[fflint]

You don't know what combination you're looking for because you're nothing but a little tweenie who doesn't know shit because your joke of an irrelevant little toy town is from the bottom of the barrel holding shit.

You should spend less time wishing for your "25% yuppie, 25% tweenie, 25% idiot, 25% inferiority complex frat boy" town and more time saving your allowance so you can leave that irrelevant nothingville you're too ashamed to say you're from.

You asked why Chicago was brought up, I gave you an answer. It doesn't fit the mold of the polar opposites being discussed here. I can't help it you have a severe inferiority complex. What was it? Got lost? Couldn't afford something? People laughing at your face while you stared blankly at a map in the middle of an intersection?

"Dang" is from the vocabulary of a 12 year old.

Go away. Your mom is calling you from the driveway, time to pick up some food at Costco.
If you post a flame like this again you're out of here.

[PHX602]

'cause it's one step from hell? :)

Greetings from hell Oregoners! It's so miserable down here in hell I don't know what to do with myself, I guess I'll just sit out by the pool this weekend and cry into a couple margaritas. ;'( Don't forget the raincoats and umbrellas goners!:)

Phoenix 5 day
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7517/fsscr001at9.jpg
Portland 5 day
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8341/fsscr000bp8.jpg

[GregNYC]

Perhaps those of us that live in Manhattan and LA should fear the effects of "flyoverization." Afterall, Broadway is nothing more than a Disney theme park, and we have our share of Olive Gardens, Applebees and Chilis. And come summer-time, I know that I will nearly miss boarding the 45 because some tourist with a fanny-pack won't step into the train (although there are plenty of NYers who are guilty of such an inexcusable crime). But, whatever, that's capitalism...

I think people are afraid that development will somehow spoil their way of life, and they use Manhattan and LA as general examples because it's a quick and inarticulate way of (read stereotyped) way of describing things. Americans are not entitled to a big house, plentiful parking, or a pool in their backyard when they live in the desert. Just as some may find the residents of Manhattan and LA to be arrogant, I think the term "manhattan-ization" to reflect its own sense of arrogance and entitlement. Just my opinion though...

[brickell]

It should also be noted that most regions have their own variations. Miami is usually the scapegoat for Florida. We're not even "American" after all. The Miamization of Orlando is well underway however.
Charlotte doesn't want to be Atlantazized. Austin doesn't want to be Houstinized. I'm sure Chicago and Detroit are a bad word in many parts of the Midwest.

It's really about change and growth and these are bad words by themselves in too many places in the US.

[Nouvellecosse]

From your Wikipedia Los Angeles at 493 square miles has a density of 8200/sq mi and is denser than cities like:

Baltimore, Detroit, Seattle, St Louis, Dallas, Houson, Atlanta, Portland, Denver, Las Vegas, Phoenix, etc., etc., etc.

Denser cities:
Boston- 89 sq mi, population density 11,543/sq mi;
San Francisco- 47 sq mi, population density 15,834/sq mi;
Chicago-234 sq mi, population density 12,604/sq mi:

Yet look at the sq mi comparrison... I'd like to see the denisity levels of these cities at a comprable area of 493 sq mi. So being a dense city surrounded by equally dense and more dense cities to make the metro area most dense in America I don't think using Los Angeles as an example of sprawl or to associate it as sprawl is accurate.
But a lot of the cities u named didn't DEVELOP along the principles of sprawl, so it's just a probelm they've come to face, rather than an aspect of their very identity. Not that LA isn't changing that, but it takes time for an entire identity to change.

[dktshb]

But a lot of the cities u named didn't DEVELOP along the principles of sprawl, so it's just a probelm they've come to face, rather than an aspect of their very identity. Not that LA isn't changing that, but it takes time for an entire identity to change.

:rolleyes: I shouldn't post so late at night after cocktails and the pipe... I'm a worse speller than I thought.

Well sprawl exceeds LA's in most all major cities in America... especially in the Midwest and South. The most accurate way to define sprawl is by density. Cities such as Nashville, Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston and Dallas should come to mind if you want to identify a city as an example of sprawl. Los Angeles metro is just big... 18 million people live here. LA's buildout beyond the city core was and is at a much denser rate than most cities in America. Los Angeles has always been adding density through constant infill too, yet you hear people say "I don't want to become another LA" when all along their city is and has been exceeding LA's in the "principles of sprawl."

[verictson]

You don't know what combination you're looking for because you're nothing but a little tweenie who doesn't know shit because your joke of an irrelevant little toy town is from the bottom of the barrel holding shit.

You should spend less time wishing for your "25% yuppie, 25% tweenie, 25% idiot, 25% inferiority complex frat boy" town and more time saving your allowance so you can leave that irrelevant nothingville you're too ashamed to say you're from.



You asked why Chicago was brought up, I gave you an answer. It doesn't fit the mold of the polar opposites being discussed here. I can't help it you have a severe inferiority complex. What was it? Got lost? Couldn't afford something? People laughing at your face while you stared blankly at a map in the middle of an intersection?

"Dang" is from the vocabulary of a 12 year old.

Go away. Your mom is calling you from the driveway, time to pick up some food at Costco.


first of all if you need to know, I live in Manhattan, New York City, New York State, currently, and I think you've done yourself quite enough damage with your own words.

I chose the 4 quarters because:
1. Manhattanization - I would like a central island with all the focus and culture with a centrally located park that serves as a "getaway" from it all
2. LA'd - Of course cities in the USA tend to be expansive no matter how you layout the city, and if this were to happen, I like for it be an even expansiveness outside of the centrally Manhattanized island I mentioned above. Oh yeah and of the course the geography of the region is superb.
3. Miami'd - I love the islands in a tropical setting, so maybe a Manhattanized Island in a tropical setting like Miami with the expansiveness of LA?
4. SF'd - the liberal atmosphere of the city, and the hills!
5. DC suburbs - suburbs will be created of course and so I'd like to have areas like Bethesda, Alexandandria, Arlington at the outer edges of the cities.

so all in all a Manhattan in tropical island setting like Miami with its beaches and islands with a mountain backdrop and an even expansiveness outside of the core like LA with the hills and atmosphere of SF, with outer ring cities like DC has

hope this helps your accusations

[lawsond]

In NY the skyscraper canyons are not on a human scale, and it can feel oppressive.

read delerious new york by rem koolhaus.
i read it and almost understood it.
i think he was trying to say...manhattanization is extra way cool.
vertical, artificial worlds of organized chaos.
like coney island for stock brokers.

[zilfondel]

Greetings from hell Oregoners! It's so miserable down here in hell I don't know what to do with myself, I guess I'll just sit out by the pool this weekend and cry into a couple margaritas. ;'( Don't forget the raincoats and umbrellas goners!:)

Phoenix 5 day
http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7517/fsscr001at9.jpg
Portland 5 day
http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/8341/fsscr000bp8.jpg

lol, I said that cause I lived in Phoenix for a year, and the weather during the summer - I may as well been in hell. =P

[urbanflyer]

"flyoverization" - loving it! :laugh:

[ajmstilt]

I would like my City (dallas) to become more like Manhatten and LA. But I would not liek the city to be "Manhattanized, or become like LA"

The term Manhattanization I think is a term used to describe a too dense, too brutal, too expensive, urban environment. However most people would know what you are talkign about if you complained about a development creating xyz , or would cause abc, but if you complain sayign it'll make "manhattanize" it your average joe will understand. Same with LA, If i complain about a suburban development by talkign about the burden it will put on resources, or it's land use plans most peoples eyes will glaze over. But If I say it'll turn into "LA" people suddenly realize what I'm talkign about.

LA and Manhattan are used not so much because people hate LA or Manhattan, but because they are two places most familar with the most people. Everyone has a picture int heir head of What LA and NY look like in their head. Whether or not it is the correct one, they still have one.

[edluva]

If LA, as it is currently stands, is some sick twisted detour to some more enviable, more sustainable future, then I hope every city can become more like LA. Otherwise, "being like LA" can be a really bad thing. Sprawl isn't a bad thing at all, unless it's auto-centric sprawl.

Culturally though, LA is pretty fucking awesome.

[Taller Better]

Each to their own taste, as they say...."chacun à son goût".
I'll take Manhattan! ;)

[UrbanSophist]

Well, they usually symbolize a city losing its genuineness in an effort to imitate more successful models. So, I wouldn't say they are great things.

[Chase Unperson]

If LA, as it is currently stands, is some sick twisted detour to some more enviable, more sustainable future, then I hope every city can become more like LA. Otherwise, "being like LA" can be a really bad thing. Sprawl isn't a bad thing at all, unless it's auto-centric sprawl.

Culturally though, LA is pretty fucking awesome.

Indeed. I was reading a comment by a med student who was talking about how much he hated Vegas and said "it is so bad here that I might as well live in LA". It reminded me of that one editorial piece by an author in Pheonix who said he thought comments like "if it gets any worse here, it will be like LA" were rediculous. His final assessment was that Pheonix had no hope of coming close to LA in terms of dynamics, greatness and culture and that people should be saying "if it gets any worse here it will be like Riverside County without the proximity to LA".

It is odd to me that people would use the US's possibly two most successful and greatest cities as a negative comparison. If someone said to me "do you want SF to be Manhattanized?" I would think that "fuck year!", as who doesn't love Manhattan and who wouldn't want that visceral intensity and excitement in their own city?

[miketoronto]

I think overall people don't have a problem with Manhattan. But when they fear their city is going the Manhattan way, they just don't want so much density in one place.

Manhattan is great. But lets be honest. Most people don't want to live in high-rise apartments with zero greenspace, like most Manhattan residents do.

I think people have no problem with downtowns having some high-rises, etc. But they don't want a entire city covered in Manhattan style housing.

And I don't see a problem with that. Many inner cities in the USA and Canada have amazing neighbourhoods with houses, etc. And why knock that all down for high-rises?

We want people to live in our cities, and except for a small percentage, the key to getting people to live in cities will be houses. Not Manhattan apartments, except for select areas in a cities downtown, etc.

[craeg]

It is odd to me that people would use the US's possibly two most successful and greatest cities as a negative comparison. If someone said to me "do you want SF to be Manhattanized?" I would think that "fuck year!", as who doesn't love Manhattan and who wouldn't want that visceral intensity and excitement in their own city?

You should hear some of the extreme ignorance that comes out of San Franciscan mouths regarding "Manhattanization"
I once listened to someone tell me that in Manhattan the subways were only ridden by criminals and were covered with graffiti. The last time he had been to NYC was in 1985. This is what passes for informed opinion in SF.

[TMitch]

I really don't like to see Los Angeles get bashed so often. I lived there for 5 years up until last year when I moved to Chicago.

It's such an interesting fascinating place. Within most portions of the city and metropolitan area you won't find a whole lot of homes with acres and acres of land. It's really hard to come by. In Connecticut where some of my family lives, which is outside NYC about an hour, people have far more land.

Los Angeles as a skyline is not nearly as impressive as that of a smaller Chicago, but comparitively it's easier to find larger plots of land outside Chicago than Los Angeles.

Also another difference that focuses on Chicago vs. Los Angeles would be that in Chicago, it's also easier to find abandoned buildings closer to the city center and that if rented go far less than Los Angeles.