Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade
I find 500,000 almost impossible. That would be a density considerably higher than Manhattan's.
200,000, however, is attainable which would be enough to make the region to be completely unrecognizable.
I really hope subway changes Los Angeles, creating a real urban culture and way of life.
|
Manhattan’s UWS has a density of 110,000 per square mile, and a lot of it is 3-5-story townhouses and multi-unit rowhouses (like the one Meg Ryan’s character in “You’ve Got Mail” lives in). Manhattan’s density is “only” 75,000 — but that’s factoring in Central Park and a huge chunk of the island, most notably Midtown, that is dedicated to office space.
At 75,000, DTLA is already 38% of the way to “attainable” 200,000 — with a shit ton of room to go vertical. The population grew by 20,000+ with relatively few skyscrapers to show for it. What’s going to happen when DTLA finally undergoes Toronto/Vancouver/Miami-ization?
I’d be worried frankly if 200,000 was considered a target goal, because that would represent a density of 45,000. Vancouver’s West End is 62,000 per square mile, and it’s not even particularly tall. For DTLA, I think anything short of 350,000 is not ambitious enough.