Quote:
Originally Posted by kool maudit
London and LA correspond in the sense that, upon becoming great cities, they both launched new models of urban form characterized by lower density. But in reality, London is Big Boston.
|
Agreed. Boston's outer neighborhoods have British design/form written all over it (it is New England, after all). But that's a dead obvious parallel, which is less interesting to talk about.
The LA/London comparison is even less pronounced than LA/Detroit, yet there are still many analogies that can be made. London has a distinct multi-nodal, urban-suburban hybrid model across a vast geographic expanse*, and both cities are defined more as urban agglomerations (Greater London, Los Angeles County). Central London (not the same as Inner London) is tiny in relation to Greater London, and there's a huge discrepancy in commercial activity/intensity between the two that isn't commensurate with the drop in built-form density.
*LA County is 4,058 square miles of land, but only about 30% isn't uninhabitable or sparsely populated. So that's about 10.1 million people across 1,200 square miles, for a density of roughly 8,500. By developed world standards (minus Japan), that's a pretty high level of density to sustain over such a large area. That Greater London has a density of over 14,000 despite thousands of acres dedicated to natural preserves, golf courses, and agricultural fields is highly impressive as well.