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

[eschaton]

I'm not sure why people are comparing Miami Beach to Central LA. The obvious Los Angeles area comparison is Santa Monica.

Actually, it's interesting how in both metros (despite very different scales) the choice walkable areas are not in the immediate core (Brickell excepted, though I don't think it's that walkable) instead being found in either independent municipalities or a pretty large distance from the city center, which is mostly lower income.

[Crawford]

IMO Hollywood or West Hollywood are more closely analogous to South Beach. Iconic neighborhoods with art deco early-mid century accents that broadly represent their respective regions; vibrant but overtouristed and somewhat avoided by locals. Lots of restaurants and nightlife and high degree of jerk behavior.

SM and SB are just superficially similar due to beach/ocean.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Ditto Chicago (1.7M to 3.4M).
I always forget how Detroit and LA both kinda got "really big" together at roughly the same time.

I think the big difference (aside from climate, obviously) is that Detroit was laid out from Day 1 to be HUGE. Detroit's wide radial avenues lead directly to a neatly defined downtown. Los Angeles is the opposite - the downtown is a bit nebulous and the well-known avenues don't lead to it in an organized fashion because there was never any expectation that the tiny hamlet would one day grow to be the sort-of center of a 10+ million metro area.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I'm not sure why people are comparing Miami Beach to Central LA. The obvious Los Angeles area comparison is Santa Monica.

Speaking for myself, I compared Miami Beach to Central LA because the poster I was replying to claimed that Miami Beach was more urban than LA. And then I compared it to Santa Monica too (which is both larger and denser than it). And two of the following three posts, that were made right before yours, also mentioned Santa Monica. Maybe try reading more thoroughly? lol

Originally Posted by eschaton

Actually, it's interesting how in both metros (despite very different scales) the choice walkable areas are not in the immediate core (Brickell excepted, though I don't think it's that walkable) instead being found in either independent municipalities or a pretty large distance from the city center, which is mostly lower income.

Some of LA's most walkable areas are right in the center of the city. Weird that you ignored them, but mentioned Brickell (which you then denounce as unwalkable anyways).

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by tech12

Speaking for myself, I compared Miami Beach to Central LA because the poster I was replying to claimed that Miami Beach was more urban than LA. And then I compared it to Santa Monica too (which is both larger and denser than it). And two of the following three posts, that were made right before yours, also mentioned Santa Monica. Maybe try reading more thoroughly? lol





Some of LA's most walkable areas are right in the center of the city. Weird that you ignored them, but mentioned Brickell (which you then denounce as unwalkable anyways).

People just equate highrises with urbanism. Its bs. Venice beach is lowrise, but has alot of narrow residential streets, the boardwalk, the bike path, and then streets like Rose, Windward, Abbot Kinney, and Washington Ave for restaurants/storefronts. You'll see alot of people walking around the residential streets on the weekend. Its actually a compact walking area that doesnt get alot of credit here.
If you walk north from Venice, youll hit Main Street in Santa Monica, more bike path/ocean walk, downtown Santa Monica, the Pier and Palisades Park etc. Or even allitte further northwest to Montana Ave.
There are ALOT of pedestrians in this area.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There were three major shopping districts along Grand River - Grand River/Joy, Grand River/Oakman and Grand River/Greenfield.

If you look at the 2009 Streetview, you still see active retail around Grand River/Oakman. Now all gone.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3730919,...20090701T000000!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu

Yes, I think the Woolworth's was near Grand River and Joy Rd. I think it was there until the early 1990s.

Originally Posted by Crawford

The Sears Oakman flagship lasted until the late 70's. Grand River Greenfield had department stores until the 1990's. The Highland Park Sears lasted until early 2000's.

There was a department store called Kings Way in the big building on the southeast corner of Grand River and Greenfield until the late 1980s. This was a chain that bought up a lot of the defunct Federal stores, which is what was there before. When Kings Way went out of business Mammoth opened in its place, but that was a discount retailer, and not really an actual department store.

I believe the Montgomery Wards in the mall on the north side of the street also lasted until the late 1980s, maybe early 1990s. It appears that Foreman Mills is the mall's anchor now. Although the building has seen much better days, the mall is still a nice building and I'm glad they've been able to keep it from being abandoned. I don't know how much more time it has as a retail center, but hopefully the building finds new life before it begins to crumble.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Ditto Chicago (1.7M to 3.4M).

Though obviously nowhere near as numerically impressive as NYC's early 20th doubling.

But it was a period of massive growth across the board for the legacy cities.


Hell, Detroit 5X'ed itself over those three decades (285K to 1.6M)!

And LA 12X'ed itself (100K to 1.2M)!!!

I always forget how Detroit and LA both kinda got "really big" together at roughly the same time.

Yeah, Detroit and L.A. both kind of just exploded. Neither were in the top 10 in 1900 and both were in the top 5 by 1930. Los Angeles had the luxury of land, though. Los Angeles annexed the San Fernando Valley in the 1910s and that allowed the city to continue comfortably growing as the country moved into suburban style growth patterns. Detroit's land acquisitions in the 1910s more than doubled the footprint of the city, but it's land area was still just a fraction of L.A.'s. Detroit ran out of land by the late 1940s and has really never recovered from that.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by tech12

Some of LA's most walkable areas are right in the center of the city. Weird that you ignored them, but mentioned Brickell (which you then denounce as unwalkable anyways).

I didn't say walkable. I said "choice" walkable. Meaning walkable and middle/upper-middle class.

Lots of Westlake/Koreatown is very dense, and walkable in the theoretical sort of sense, but it's not a desirable area for middle class people (and a lot of the walking infrastructure is pretty meh, for reasons I outlined - narrow sidewalks, huge four/six lane boulevards, ect.).

I think Echo Park/Silver Lake are the only middle/upper-middle class areas close to DTLA. Wealth is clearly more focused on the westside.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

IMO Hollywood or West Hollywood are more closely analogous to South Beach. Iconic neighborhoods with art deco early-mid century accents that broadly represent their respective regions; vibrant but overtouristed and somewhat avoided by locals. Lots of restaurants and nightlife and high degree of jerk behavior.

SM and SB are just superficially similar due to beach/ocean.

They're both touristy zones, but Hollywood (well, Hollywood Blvd) feels much more like the center of a big business district than does Miami Beach. I would also argue that Hollywood is also historically more car accommodating than Miami Beach. If all of Hollywood looked like Hollywood Blvd, then I think the argument for adding LA to the big 6 would be much stronger. But the rest of Hollywood is pretty car centric with wide roads, strip malls, and plenty of surface parking lots.

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by LA21st

People just equate highrises with urbanism. Its bs. Venice beach is lowrise, but has alot of narrow residential streets, the boardwalk, the bike path, and then streets like Rose, Windward, Abbot Kinney, and Washington Ave for restaurants/storefronts. You'll see alot of people walking around the residential streets on the weekend. Its actually a compact walking area that doesnt get alot of credit here.
If you walk north from Venice, youll hit Main Street in Santa Monica, more bike path/ocean walk, downtown Santa Monica, the Pier and Palisades Park etc. Or even allitte further northwest to Montana Ave.
There are ALOT of pedestrians in this area.

It was actually your post that DC urbanism was somehow inferior as it was smaller buildings to say, LA. And now you are stating the opposite as it doesn’t fit a point you wish to make.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Prahaboheme

It was actually your post that DC urbanism was somehow inferior as it was smaller buildings to say, LA. And now you are stating the opposite as it doesn’t fit a point you wish to make.

I didnt say smaller dc buildings in DC is less urban. I said Capitol Hill feels quiet despite looking more urban than LA. And I'm not the only one who said that about Capitol Hill either. Venice Beach doesnt have rowhouses, but its residential streets have more pedestrians than Capitol Hill. Easily. I've said a few times I think lowrise areas in cities appear more active than highrise districts in general.

I said Georgetown is doing fine since covid, and is still probably the most vibrant area in DC per block. I'm from NOVA. I know DC very well. 14th street is vibrant, but from what I've seen, M Street still takes it.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

They're both touristy zones, but Hollywood (well, Hollywood Blvd) feels much more like the center of a big business district than does Miami Beach. I would also argue that Hollywood is also historically more car accommodating than Miami Beach. If all of Hollywood looked like Hollywood Blvd, then I think the argument for adding LA to the big 6 would be much stronger. But the rest of Hollywood is pretty car centric with wide roads, strip malls, and plenty of surface parking lots.

It's going to get there eventually. Sunset blvd has a ton of 20-40 story buildings planned. Sunset will end up becoming the big hotel/office/skyscraper street in hollywood.
In the early 2030s, Hollywood will become LA's 2nd biggest skyline/downtown etc.

[Prahaboheme]

Originally Posted by LA21st

I didnt say smaller dc buildings in DC is less urban. I said Capitol Hill feels quiet despite looking more urban than LA. And I'm not the only one who said that about Capitol Hill either. Venice Beach doesnt have rowhouses, but its residential streets have more pedestrians than Capitol Hill. Easily. I've said a few times I think lowrise areas in cities appear more active than highrise districts in general.

I said Georgetown is doing fine since covid, and is still probably the most vibrant area in DC per block. I'm from NOVA. I know DC very well. 14th street is vibrant, but from what I've seen, M Street still takes it.

How do you know that residential streets in Venice has more pedestrians overall than Capitol Hill? I take issue when some people present ideas as facts without any way of backing up these assertions. Aside from a few busy streets, Venice residential areas are also pretty quiet and pleasant.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Detroit ran out of land by the late 1940s and has really never recovered from that.

Detroit is surrounded by flat land for 100+ miles. There are no mountains. LA ran out of land but Detroit didn't.

The difference is that Los Angeles County is 9% black whereas Wayne County is nearly 40% and the city of Detroit is 80% black. When a city is overwhelmingly populated by the poorest demographic in the United States, it's doomed.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Prahaboheme

How do you know that residential streets in Venice has more pedestrians overall than Capitol Hill? I take issue when some people present ideas as facts without any way of backing up these assertions. Aside from a few busy streets, Venice residential areas are also pretty quiet and pleasant.

By exploring both many times? Because Venice has more things to walk to? There's more visitors/tourists?
They dont flood the residential streets but they do spill over on weekends.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Detroit is surrounded by flat land for 100+ miles. There are no mountains. LA ran out of land but Detroit didn't.

The difference is that Los Angeles County is 9% black whereas Wayne County is nearly 40% and the city of Detroit is 80% black. When a city is overwhelmingly populated by the poorest demographic in the United States, it's doomed.

Detroit was not 80% Black in the 1940s.

[Crawford]

Detroit was less black than Cleveland, Chicago, NYC, Philly and other northern cities until well into the postwar years. I believe Cleveland was the blackest major northern city (if we aren't counting DC or Baltimore as traditionally northern) in 1960.

Pre-1960, Detroit was lily-white outside of a small, dense core area north and east of downtown.

[Altoic]

Yknow when you think about it both LA and Miami are like sisters from another mother. LA definitely has better bones than Miami, but I mean.. Both have a place named "Hollywood" nearby, both have iconic beaches, diversity, good food, and both share the love of the podium in almost every development.

I should probably mention i'm joking before LA21st comes for me

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Detroit was less black than Cleveland, Chicago, NYC, Philly and other northern cities until well into the postwar years.

Detroit and Chicago were pretty similar on that score back in the day, before Detroit started pulling away as its white flight was several degrees more severe.



% black 1940:
Detroit: 9%
Chicago: 8%



% black 1950:
Detroit: 16%
Chicago: 14%



% black 1960:
Detroit: 29%
Chicago: 23%



% black 1970:
Detroit: 43%
Chicago: 33%



% black 1980:
Detroit: 63%
Chicago: 40%



% black 1990:
Detroit: 76%
Chicago: 39%

[iheartthed]

Yes, Detroit went from 90% non-Hispanic white in 1940 to 54% by 1970, then 10% by 2000. Until the 2000s, non-Hispanic white is the only ethnic category to ever decline in the city's history*. After 2000, all of the population losses in Detroit have been driven by an exodus of Black residents. The 2010s is the first decade that the non-Hispanic white population in Detroit has increased since the 1940s, but this increase was likely driven by Middle Easterners.

*There was likely a decline in east Asians that is obscured by an influx of south Asians, but this is not picked up due to those groups being combined into one ethnic category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Detroit