HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 2:09 PM
Prahaboheme Prahaboheme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,754
Quote:
Originally Posted by jpdivola View Post
I feel like DC is the least urban of the so called Big 6. Partially due to being a master planned government city with a lot of impersonal government buildings in the core. But, also it is really more a hybrid urban/sunbelt city than the 5 others. In 1930, DC was far smaller than Boston or Philly to say nothing of Chicago. DC's prewar core is more like STL than Boston or Philly. With the rise of modern zoning, much of DC's quiet row house neighborhoods were basically frozen in time. Had DC grown earlier, it is likely Capitol Hill would have seen more apartment buildings and commercial mixed-use development built.
Capitol Hill is the largest historic residential neighborhood in Washington, D.C., stretching easterly in front of the United States Capitol along wide avenues. It is one of the oldest residential neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., and, with roughly 35,000 people in just under 2 square miles (5 km2), it is also one of the most densely populated.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill

Even with that said, Capitol Hill neighborhood is not DC's densest. That would be Logan Circle.

Not unlike LA, however, being a somewhat polymorphous metro area, the highest track of density is actually the Ballston metro station area in Arlington, VA. Its certainly not the most urban but boosts some walkability. https://ggwash.org/view/82262/greater-washington-has-a-new-densest-neighborhood-and-its-not-in-dc

Keeping things in context helps to understand the greater picture.

Last edited by Prahaboheme; Dec 18, 2023 at 2:31 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 2:50 PM
eschaton eschaton is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,590
I think it's important to recognize even though outer DC didn't really get built out until the interwar era, similar to Philly and Baltimore attached and semi-attached housing continued to be built throughout the interwar years, and even early postwar.

Neighborhoods like this on the fringes of DC are quite common in every cardinal direction other than the favored quarter of Northwest.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 4:21 PM
mhays mhays is online now
Never Dell
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 21,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post
The forum's 2020 census thread yielded interesting statistics on metropolitan population density. The cities that you and Segun were discussing vary quite a bit in terms of overall density.

Percentage and number of persons in each MSA who lived in census tracts with population densities of 10,000+:
(Los Angeles: 50.0%, 6,611,283)
San Diego: 24.7%, 816,530
Seattle: 12.5%, 505,840
Denver: 10.6%, 315,809
Portland: 7.1%, 179,612
Minneapolis: 6.5%, 241,894

Seattle is not notably dense, but it is growing rapidly and in the right way--prioritizing transit-, pedestrian-, and bike-friendly new development and transit extensions in times of very high population growth.
The distinction is really peak density like I said. In 2020:

San Diego's densest census tract would've ranked #9 in Seattle. Portland's also #9. MSP's #12. Denver's #23.

Seattle had 26 tracts of at least 30,000/sm (incl. one in Bellevue). San Diego 7. Denver 4. Portland 2. MSP 2.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 7:12 PM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 6,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Yes and no. Detroit was far more dense than Los Angeles is today. Detroit was more similar to peak Philadelphia in density (and population). The areas of Detroit built between 1920 and 1950 have a pretty strong resemblance to those areas built in Los Angeles during that period. This is actually the building stock in Detroit that is most likely to still exist and has strong resemblances to the prewar sfh areas of L.A.
Interesting that Detroit was denser back then.

The interwar built form of LA, Detroit, and some other American cities seems to be a good balance between the wall-to-wall mixed use development you see in the prewar cities and the extreme Euclidean low density development seen in most of the postwar Sunbelt.

Again, besides downtown LA, most of the city's core and outside nodes are in a streetcar suburb layout with one to two story commercial corridors with occasional large apartment buildings. A lot of the residential side streets have rows of small apartment buildings, often with basement parking, but not as bad as the larger parking podiums or blatant parking lots adjacent like in other parts of the metro ( ex. where I lived before in the IE).

Yes, LA is built mainly for the car in mind. But I would argue that it's one of the finest examples of a city that incorporates the automobile while not being overly hostile to pedestrians, at least in the American context. The neighborhoods are still scaled for people to walk around amongst the cars and it could be a great place for more cycling infrastructure. You still feel like you're in a bustling place even when you're in Hollywood, Venice, Mid Wilshire, Koreatown, Boyle Heights, Westlake, Echo Park, etc.

And the quasi urban/suburban feel is actually a benefit, in my opinion. That's something California does right for its type of urbanism. From the air LA looks like all concrete and asphalt, but it has a good amount of greenery for each plot on the street level. In order to provide more housing, they would just need to keep building those small apartments throughout the city/county and build larger mixed use complexes around metro stations, which is already happening in Boyle Heights and other hoods.
__________________
MAWA: Make America Walkable Again
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 7:18 PM
ChiSoxRox's Avatar
ChiSoxRox ChiSoxRox is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 2,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by mhays View Post
The distinction is really peak density like I said. In 2020:

San Diego's densest census tract would've ranked #9 in Seattle. Portland's also #9. MSP's #12. Denver's #23.

Seattle had 26 tracts of at least 30,000/sm (incl. one in Bellevue). San Diego 7. Denver 4. Portland 2. MSP 2.
From the 2020 thread, using the threshold summations I did in 2021:

Quote:
Originally Posted by dimondpark View Post
This is just the 2M+ MSAs

MSAs by % of Population at 30,000+ density per sq mile
34.35% New York: 6,919,220
9.24% San Francisco: 439,958
6.29% Boston: 311,585
5.34% Philadelphia: 334,754
4.88% Chicago: 470,391
4.53% Los Angeles: 599,822
3.77% Washington: 241,319
2.54% Miami: 156,904
2.38% Seattle: 96,014
1.03% San Diego: 34,839
I would include LA in the Big 7.
__________________
Like the pre-war masonry skyscrapers? Then check out my list of the tallest buildings in 1950.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 7:33 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 11,884
Uh, I think L.A. is the exception to the rule in relying on density as a proximity for "urban". L.A. has some very dense tracks, but many of them aren't particularly walkable and not what we would call "urban". These are all +30k ppsm tracts in Los Angeles:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/iDuyVUHfTakATKJ77

https://maps.app.goo.gl/zyKREF6QkaoaQEi8A

https://maps.app.goo.gl/A1qTzqFfycLhaHks9

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jDXtawbk6CaA7h719 (64k ppsm!)

They all seem like very car centric places without much in the way of walkable commercial districts.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 7:42 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,330
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Uh, I think L.A. is the exception to the rule in relying on density as a proximity for "urban". L.A. has some very dense tracks, but many of them aren't particularly walkable and not what we would call "urban". These are all +30k ppsm tracts in Los Angeles:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/iDuyVUHfTakATKJ77

https://maps.app.goo.gl/zyKREF6QkaoaQEi8A

https://maps.app.goo.gl/A1qTzqFfycLhaHks9

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jDXtawbk6CaA7h719 (64k ppsm!)

They all seem like very car centric places without much in the way of walkable commercial districts.
Those all look urban and walkable to me. Small lots, good density, and retail and other amenities within a few blocks walking distance. Some of the blocks are kinda long, but it's not a big deal. Public transit isn't bad either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 7:49 PM
Docere Docere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 8,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shawn View Post
I'm pretty sure if you expand Boston's size to include land area about the size of LA minus the San Fernando Valley and all the Port of LA acreage (so, about 200 sq miles), you'd still be able to make a pretty apt comparison.

Most of southeastern Middlesex and Sussex Counties outside of Boston are more urban / denser than large parts of the City of Boston's southern neighborhoods. Cambridge, Somerville, Everett, Chelsea, Revere, etc. This ~200 sq mile "Greater Boston" has about 1.85 million people. Which is pretty close to how many people live in LA sans the SF Valley (about 1.99 million).
Seems like every municipality that borders Boston is really more urban than suburban, except those on the south (not sure about Brookline which seems to go either way?)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 7:56 PM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is online now
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 30,243
Quote:
Originally Posted by Docere View Post
Seems like every municipality that borders Boston is really more urban than suburban, except those on the south (not sure about Brookline which seems to go either way?)
Yeah, Brookline is a two-face.

Northern half has tracts in the 20K & 30k ppsm ranges.

Southern half has 3 large tracts all under 5,000 ppsm.


But the overwhelming majority of Brookline residents live in high density part of town, it's just attached to an odd area of giant estate mansions
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a marvelous middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 8:03 PM
Docere Docere is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 8,672
Brookline is in some ways like Westmount in Montreal. Most of it is quite dense and urban, but it also includes a low-density "mansion district." Both resisted incorporation into the larger city and remained their independence.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #111  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 8:03 PM
eschaton eschaton is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,590
Again, I feel like the major thing holding back the commercial corridors in LA is just road width.

Where you can find business districts on sensible streets - Abbot Kinney, Main Street in Santa Monica, or Mateo Street in the Arts District - the pedestrian environment is fine.

Ultimately, the vast majority of four-lane stroads are completely unacceptable as walkable commercial business corridors. And that goes doubly for six-lane stroads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #112  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 8:04 PM
ChrisLA's Avatar
ChrisLA ChrisLA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 6,713
Deleted
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #113  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 8:06 PM
ChrisLA's Avatar
ChrisLA ChrisLA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 6,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Uh, I think L.A. is the exception to the rule in relying on density as a proximity for "urban". L.A. has some very dense tracks, but many of them aren't particularly walkable and not what we would call "urban". These are all +30k ppsm tracts in Los Angeles:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/iDuyVUHfTakATKJ77

https://maps.app.goo.gl/zyKREF6QkaoaQEi8A

https://maps.app.goo.gl/A1qTzqFfycLhaHks9

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jDXtawbk6CaA7h719 (64k ppsm!)

They all seem like very car centric places without much in the way of walkable commercial districts.
All of those areas are walkable. I’m familiar with at least one on 43rd St., which is on the east side of South central LA. I grew up in an area similar and they were always corner liquor stores, grocery markets, cleaners, pharmacies, banks, etc. all within walking distance of our house. We walked everywhere, and there was periods in my childhood that we didn’t have a car and we went everywhere we wanted to go using public transportation. My mom worked for ABC Studios back in the day and took the one bus to East Hollywood/Los Felix neighborhood from our home in south central. Blocks are longer than in NYC but I don’t think most people thought of these areas as not walkable. Every kid in my neighborhood walked just about anywhere, including school, there was no yellow school buses picking us up, we walked.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #114  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 8:19 PM
38 Geary 38 Geary is online now
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 11,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 View Post
Those all look urban and walkable to me. Small lots, good density, and retail and other amenities within a few blocks walking distance. Some of the blocks are kinda long, but it's not a big deal. Public transit isn't bad either.
Take away the palm trees and it sorta looks like some parts of Oakland.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #115  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 8:23 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 11,884
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisLA View Post
All of those areas are walkable. I’m familiar with at least one on 43rd St., which is on the east side of South central LA. I grew up in an area similar and they were always corner liquor stores, grocery markets, cleaners, pharmacies, banks, etc. all within walking distance of our house. We walked everywhere, and there was periods in my childhood that we didn’t have a car and we went everywhere we wanted to go using public transportation. My mom worked for ABC Studios back in the day and took the one bus to East Hollywood/Los Felix neighborhood from our home in south central. Blocks are longer than in NYC but I don’t think most people thought of these areas as not walkable. Every kid in my neighborhood walked just about anywhere, including school, there was no yellow school buses picking us up, we walked.
Those don't really appear to be convenient places to live car free. I'm sure people do it out of necessity, but I strongly doubt there are people living in those neighborhoods and going car free by choice.

I'm not poor shaming, but our working rule of thumb has been that the big urban cities have people of all classes living in high density environments, not just poor people. Density in Los Angeles still seems like it's just for poor people.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #116  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 8:35 PM
ChrisLA's Avatar
ChrisLA ChrisLA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 6,713
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Those don't really appear to be convenient places to live car free. I'm sure people do it out of necessity, but I strongly doubt there are people living in those neighborhoods and going car free by choice.

I'm not poor shaming, but our working rule of thumb has been that the big urban cities have people of all classes living in high density environments, not just poor people. Density in Los Angeles still seems like it's just for poor people.
Density is all over LA, not just in poor areas. In fact I’m pretty sure there are more middle class areas that have better walkable neighborhoods than poorer ones in LA. Much of the south SFV have higher density areas and walkable all along the Ventura Blvd corridor and none of those areas are poor. Many people walk in these neighborhoods but it’s also mostly higher income neighborhoods so of course most of the people have cars as well.

Anyway I wouldn’t exactly call Venice, and many of the neighborhoods along the Wilshire 16 mile corridor as poor l, and Hollywood isn’t exactly poor either. Not to mention those areas outside the city, Santa Monica, Glendale, Long Beach, Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, and even parts of Burbank.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #117  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 8:41 PM
eschaton eschaton is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 5,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Those don't really appear to be convenient places to live car free. I'm sure people do it out of necessity, but I strongly doubt there are people living in those neighborhoods and going car free by choice.

I'm not poor shaming, but our working rule of thumb has been that the big urban cities have people of all classes living in high density environments, not just poor people. Density in Los Angeles still seems like it's just for poor people.
Back in 2021, I stayed in Del Ray for a week with my family. The area was theoretically walkable-ish - two blocks from W Washington Boulevard.

One day, my wife took the rental car out with my daughter, and I had to stay home with my son because he had gotten sick that day. I needed to walk like 15 minutes to a Wallgreens. No big deal, I thought - I walk twice that daily in Pittsburgh.

But this was the street I had to walk down.

Again, I'm not saying this was peak urbanism by LA's standards - we couldn't have rented a whole house in the "peak urbanism" parts of LA at our budget. But it should have been a doable walk, and it was unpleasant and felt actively dangerous, even though I didn't even have to cross Washington Boulevard.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #118  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 8:50 PM
38 Geary 38 Geary is online now
你的媽媽
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: The Bay
Posts: 11,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
Uh, I think L.A. is the exception to the rule in relying on density as a proximity for "urban". L.A. has some very dense tracks, but many of them aren't particularly walkable and not what we would call "urban". These are all +30k ppsm tracts in Los Angeles:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/iDuyVUHfTakATKJ77

https://maps.app.goo.gl/zyKREF6QkaoaQEi8A

https://maps.app.goo.gl/A1qTzqFfycLhaHks9

https://maps.app.goo.gl/jDXtawbk6CaA7h719 (64k ppsm!)

They all seem like very car centric places without much in the way of walkable commercial districts.
Some similar looking Oakland neighborhoods.

LA: https://maps.app.goo.gl/iDuyVUHfTakATKJ77
Oakland: https://maps.app.goo.gl/vaEJEarKJSuSqE5o7

LA: https://maps.app.goo.gl/zyKREF6QkaoaQEi8A
Oakland: https://maps.app.goo.gl/tyvg9HnA8DrHLdsz5

LA: https://maps.app.goo.gl/A1qTzqFfycLhaHks9
Oakland: https://maps.app.goo.gl/UwzZJkkStDSrVPSd6

LA: https://maps.app.goo.gl/jDXtawbk6CaA7h719
Oakland: https://maps.app.goo.gl/WJAcDWt2Gzox8weo6
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #119  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 8:51 PM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 34,740
LA and pre-decline Detroit are/were quite dense, but it's a different kind of density.

I've read a lot about the Grand River & Greenfield shopping district, which was Detroit's most important non-core retail center. Now eviscerated, it was a major crossroads until the 1980's. The district had big department stores, built during the 1930's and 40's. Even at this early stage, the stores had dual front and back entrances, with the backs opening to large parking lots. The display windows were front and back too. By the 1960's, while the neighborhood remained dense and still had strong bus ridership, the back entrances became the main entrances. It looked largely the same, but wasn't.

LA seems similar, with the big former department stores along Wilshire oriented around rear parking lots. LA's 1930's and 40's growth was probably quite distinct from equivalent growth in the older metros. Nowadays, there are vibrant and largely contiguous mid-century street-fronting retail strips everywhere but choice pedestrian activity seems limited. Ventura Blvd. in Studio City, La Cienga by Cedars Sinai and the like.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #120  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2023, 8:56 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 11,884
Yeah, Oakland always reminds me of a smaller L.A. moreso than a twin to San Francisco.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:04 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.