Should there be any doubt that LA belongs among the big 6 urban US cities?

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by eschaton

When I lived in Capitol Hill 20 years ago, I kind of boggled at how little there was to walk to within a 10-minute radius of my apartment, despite the area clearly being 19th century and having good walking infrastructure. For most of my shopping needs I either biked to Eastern Market, walked to the mini-mall in Union Station, or took the Metro to another part of the city which was more active.

About 5 years ago, I discovered why. Capitol Hill used to be packed with corner stores, but in 1958 the city converted the area to use-based zoning, which all-but eliminated them. So you have blocks and blocks of single-use residential housing - nice, historic single-use residential housing, but nonetheless.

For sure, the lack of amenties hurt street life, because there isn't a ton of stuff to walk to. Which is my point of DC, outside of the core/urban DC, it is lacking for retail/storefronts in many neighborhoods.
Westlake in LA is uglier/less pleasant and low income, but there's storefronts all over the damn place there. It makes it feel more "city" even though its grittier.

[Crawford]

I mean, DC does have affluent, busy, urban neighborhoods. Dupont Circle, Adams Morgan, Foggy Bottom, Kalorama, Georgetown, U Street, Logan Circle all fit the bill. Plus newer, soulless but dense and somewhat busy corridors like the Waterfront and around the baseball stadium. And Arlington and Alexandria have their nodes. Capitol Hill is likely the deadest in-town neighborhood.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by LA21st

No idea how Miami would be more urban. Highrises dont mean shit at street level. Just empty condos with massive podiums.
There's nothing in Miami even remotely close to LA"s historic core. To say nothing of Hollywood, Koreatown etc. Little Havana, with it's 90 walk score (lol) would just be another place in the interior Valley or San Gabriel Valley for fucks sake. There isn't even a Westlake or Pico Union in Miami. Or Echo Park. It's not the same. Miami might be more urban than Dallas or Houston or Phoenix, but LA? No.

Aventura, with all its highrises, looks like a ghost town in every video I've seen it. Nobody walking around. Its creepy honestly.

Miami and LA trade off on things but I think they land in about the same territory right now. Miami Beach is a level of urban experience that I don't think any place in LA quite matches. But L.A. at least has sidewalks throughout most of the city, while they can be conspicuously absent in areas of Miami where they should exist.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Miami and LA trade off on things but I think they land in about the same territory right now. Miami Beach is a level of urban experience that I don't think any place in LA quite matches. But L.A. at least has sidewalks throughout most of the city, while they can be conspicuously absent in areas of Miami where they should exist.

LA just has too many walkable districts vs Miami. Even all over the suburbs. Its not really close. They're just not connected. There's more than people think, because LA was built around the street car. Those older districts still remain all over the metro and even in Orange County.

Miami Beach? Eh, if you walked from one of Santa Monica to the end of Venice Beach, is pretty damn vibrant and dense the whole way for like 5-6 miles. When you include the bike path/pier it can feel like a madhouse. Not 15 blocks with South Beach.
Just because theres less towers, doesnt mean it's less urban. Its just different.
Miami Beach beats it for nightlife. Sorry, but boring residential midrises with little or no retail for miles isn't urban/walkable or great.There's a reason why those streets have less people walking around.

Thing is, that's Miami most urban area where in LA, Santa Monica and Venice is just another district. That's the big difference.

[38 Geary]

Miami I think is a solid tier below LA. Maybe more, but definitely at least one.

I have NYC by itself in the S tier. Then in no particular order, Chicago, SF, Philly, DC, Boston in the A tier. Then LA as a tweener in between A and B. Then your B level cities where I think Miami probably fits. Miami is also relatively spread out like LA, but doesn't have nearly as many walkable districts, and even then the quality of the walkable districts is probably below that of LA's. The podiumism is also at least a tier or two more blatant, and the public transit system is a tier or two below.

There's just no way Miami is on the same level as LA.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Miami I think is a solid tier below LA. Maybe more, but definitely at least one.

I have NYC by itself in the S tier. Then in no particular order, Chicago, SF, Philly, DC, Boston in the A tier. Then LA as a tweener in between A and B. Then your B level cities where I think Miami probably fits. Miami is also relatively spread out like LA, but does't have nearly as many walkable districts, and even then the quality of the walkable districts is probably below that of LA's. The podiumism is also at least a tier or two more blatant, and the public transit system is a tier or two below.

I can get on board that trolley!

NYC obviously stands alone within the US when it comes to urbanism. That really shouldn't be up for any debate.

But LA's separate tier seems more lateral in my mind; it's not necessarily less than, just quite different from the Boston's and Chicago's.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Miami I think is a solid tier below LA. Maybe more, but definitely at least one.

I have NYC by itself in the S tier. Then in no particular order, Chicago, SF, Philly, DC, Boston in the A tier. Then LA as a tweener in between A and B. Then your B level cities where I think Miami probably fits. Miami is also relatively spread out like LA, but doesn't have nearly as many walkable districts, and even then the quality of the walkable districts is probably below that of LA's. The podiumism is also at least a tier or two more blatant, and the public transit system is a tier or two below.

There's just no way Miami is on the same level as LA.

That's my thought. Where would Baltimore fit though? Its east coast urban, but less vibrant than those others. Tweener A-B?

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by LA21st

That's my thought. Where would Baltimore fit though? Its east coast urban, but less vibrant than those others. Tweener A-B?

I've never been to Baltimore so I can't provide my opinion. I'd have to defer to someone more experienced. Usually I try to only give my opinion on places I've had my boots on the ground.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by LA21st

LA just has too many walkable districts vs Miami. Even all over the suburbs. Its not really close. They're just not connected. There's more than people think, because LA was built around the street car. Those older districts still remain all over the metro and even in Orange County.

Miami is entirely waterfront oriented which gives it higher peak density, but there is a dramatic dropoff into suburban stroad hell once you go inland a bit. LA is denser and more urban throughout with nodes of activity distributed across the metro. But the biggest difference is LA's huge swath of prewar urban bones and its Historic Core. It makes a big difference in the character of the two cities. An LA without its prewar bones would still be huge and vibrant, but it would feel a little less urban.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I've never been to Baltimore so I can't provide my opinion. I'd have to defer to someone more experienced. Usually I try to only give my opinion on places I've had my boots on the ground.

I think Baltimore is very dense but also very quiet. They way other forumers were describing Capitol Hill I'd describe almost the whole of Baltimore, including the Inner Harbor...whose density feels manufacturered.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

I think Baltimore is very dense but also very quiet. They way other forumers were describing Capitol Hill I'd describe almost the whole of Baltimore, including the Inner Harbor...whose density feels manufacturered.

I was stayed in downtown Baltimore in 2018 or 2019 near Camden Yds.
Nice density for its population, but yea. Wasnt bustling.

Inner Harbor has seen better times as well. Didnt seem as popular like in the 90s.

[ocman]

It can’t fit into that traditional pre-war standard of urbanity, because that’s very specific. LA feels more like an independent nation than a city. It’s uniqueness is that it’s the only true polycentric city in the country, where it has almost every type of urban feature both traditional and contemporary. It’s can feel like Utah or Alabama or Mexico or NYC or whatever depending on that part of the city.

[mhays]

Baltimore and Pittsburgh would be a different type of tweener. They're more transit-oriented and walkable than LA or Miami (more like Seattle), but their density is in limited areas, they don't get many immigrants, they're more inward-US looking....

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Miami is entirely waterfront oriented which gives it higher peak density, but there is a dramatic dropoff into suburban stroad hell once you go inland a bit. LA is denser and more urban throughout with nodes of activity distributed across the metro. But the biggest difference is LA's huge swath of prewar urban bones and its Historic Core. It makes a big difference in the character of the two cities. An LA without its prewar bones would still be huge and vibrant, but it would feel a little less urban.

And it’s the prewar bones that I’m getting at. LA has always been streetcar/automobile oriented in its urban layout but it’s still very dense, relatively walkable, and is just lends itself to being more urban than anywhere else I been to in the Sunbelt.

Miami has more of that than the rest of the Sunbelt outside of LA, but the latter is just one another scale.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Yes, I think there should be doubt. You're trying to compare Los Angeles' level of urban development with that of cities that were established as major urban centers for MUCH longer than Los Angeles.

Los Angeles' prewar built environment is not all that impressive, in comparison. It's just a function of age/era of development.


LA's urban environment is certainly distinct from the cities you mention. But forget about comparison to the "big 6" cities that you mention. Los Angeles doesn't even have the built environment of smaller city like Pittsburgh:

I will say that LA doesn’t have the wall to wall urbanism of many of the Eastern cities. But its urban-suburban layout with homes and buildings having some space between them can get to that level In Pittsburgh in its own way. A lot of the communities in East LA kinda look that that, although a less dense version.

Based on the responses so far, I can agree with LA being more of an interwar city. However, another thing that still intrigues me about it that I did not know before is the prevalence of multi family units and small apartments among the SFH. It’s a better balance than the overwhelming majority of other US cities built largely in the postwar period. Despite being car centric, it still functions as a place where people are seen walking.

[Segun]

Something vibrant is always happening in LA and it's happening in a physical area only NYC can match. It operates in its own tier, regardless of how walkable it is.

I see Seattle mentioned as being a possible 7. Does Seattle have a very large area where you can walk and get lost in any direction and find countless busy streets and sidewalks, or does it mostly follow a few linear paths? The last time I visited, I found Seattle more akin to a tier of cities such as Denver, Minneapolis, San Diego and Portland.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by jd3189

And it’s the prewar bones that I’m getting at. LA has always been streetcar/automobile oriented in its urban layout but it’s still very dense, relatively walkable, and is just lends itself to being more urban than anywhere else I been to in the Sunbelt.

Miami has more of that than the rest of the Sunbelt outside of LA, but the latter is just one another scale.

Relative to other sunbelt cities, Los Angeles has a much more substantial and traditionally urban pre-war core. It's no Manhattan or Chicago, but it's on another level than the pre-war cores of Dallas, Phoenix, San Antonio, and Houston. And while Miami has far more modern highrises, it doesn't have a core like this either:


My pic

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by jd3189

I will say that LA doesn’t have the wall to wall urbanism of many of the Eastern cities. But its urban-suburban layout with homes and buildings having some space between them can get to that level In Pittsburgh in its own way. A lot of the communities in East LA kinda look that that, although a less dense version.

Based on the responses so far, I can agree with LA being more of an interwar city. However, another thing that still intrigues me about it that I did not know before is the prevalence of multi family units and small apartments among the SFH. It’s a better balance than the overwhelming majority of other US cities built largely in the postwar period. Despite being car centric, it still functions as a place where people are seen walking.

Yea, even in the rich areas like Hancock Park, Montana ave, Brentwood or Pacific Palisades, people
Are walking in those villages there.

Coming from Fairfax County, where you seldom saw people walking in Great Falls or Mclean, it was different.

People in la arent walking from neighborhood to neighborhood like nyc or sf, but they sure are out and about lol.

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Yea, even in the rich areas like Hancock Park, Montana ave, Brentwood or Pacific Palisades, people
Are walking in those villages there.

Coming from Fairfax County, where you seldom saw people walking in Great Falls or Mclean, it was different.

People in la arent walking from neighborhood to neighborhood like nyc or sf, but they sure are out and about lol.

Fairfax County is more like an Orange County CA comparison than LA - again, comparing apples to oranges. The DMV is quite polymorphous, not unlike the larger LA metro in that regard whether it be VA or MD suburbs (Reston, Tysons Corner, Arlington, Bethesda, list goes on) with the difference being that the DC metro conveniently reached most of these nodes.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Segun

Something vibrant is always happening in LA and it's happening in a physical area only NYC can match. It operates in its own tier, regardless of how walkable it is.

I see Seattle mentioned as being a possible 7. Does Seattle have a very large area where you can walk and get lost in any direction and find countless busy streets and sidewalks, or does it mostly follow a few linear paths? The last time I visited, I found Seattle more akin to a tier of cities such as Denver, Minneapolis, San Diego and Portland.

Seattle's a tweener between that group and the urban six.

Its peak density is much higher. It's transit and walking commute shares are much higher. It's far more on an immigrant center. It has tourist districts (as does only SD).

Activity is in nodes that comprise 20% of the city. Some of these are linear, and others are dotted around town.

But it's true that all of these cities are growing in similar formats.