Should there be any doubt that LA belongs among the big 6 urban US cities? - Page 9

jd3189 · #**161** Posted **Dec 19, 2023, 10:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by eschaton

I just want to note here that the largest component of NYC's urban fabric is interwar or built just before (as in, from 1900 to 1945 or so).

I believe that. Pretty much all of the Bronx,Brooklyn, and Queens have the interwar urbanism. That's the New York I was born and raised in and core LA is very similar.

Docere · #**162** Posted **Dec 19, 2023, 10:40 PM**

The Bronx and Queens didn't really develop until the early 20th century, and Brooklyn grew significantly during this time too;

1900

Bronx 201,000
Brooklyn 1,167,000
Queens 153,000

1930

Bronx 1,265,000
Brooklyn 2,560,000
Queens 1,079,000

Increase

Bronx +529%
Brooklyn +119%
Queens +605%

Steely Dan · #**163** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 12:17 AM**

^ Holy crap!

In rough terms:

Brooklyn pulled a Chicago.

The Bronx pulled a Detroit.

And Queens pulled an LA.

I forget, is NYC on another level or something?

Docere · #**164** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 12:21 AM**

A lot of immigrants were pouring in and the opening of the subway made the outer boroughs accessible as Manhattan filled up.

craigs · #**165** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 12:44 AM**

From the forum's 2020 Census thread:

Weighted population density (MSA):
Los Angeles: 12,169.4
Miami: 8,489.2

Persons Living in Census Tracts with Densities of 20,000+ ppsm (MSA):
Los Angeles: 1,919,006 (14.5%)
Miami: 396,021 (6.4%)

Persons Living in Census Tracts with Densities of 30,000+ ppsm (MSA):
Los Angeles: 599,822 (4.5%)
Miami: 156,904 (2.5%)

I don't think those figures support the conclusion that the two are twins when it comes to population density.

Docere · #**166** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 1:06 AM**

The Bronx is mostly interwar and it was largely built as an extension of Upper Manhattan.

Crawford · #**167** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 1:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Docere

The Bronx is mostly interwar and it was largely built as an extension of Upper Manhattan.

I think the Bronx illustrates that density and history are important, but not sufficient factors. The Bronx boomed hardest basically concurrent with LA and Detroit, yet the built form is quite different.

The art deco 1930's-1940's buildings dominating the West and Central Bronx were basically never built with parking. In contrast, very similar buildings were built in parts of Detroit during the same time period, always with parking. I'm guessing LA art deco generally had parking accommodations too.

It's likely that cars were ubiquitous in middle class households in Detroit and LA even before WW2, shaping the built form, culture and usage patterns.

Segun · #**168** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 2:49 AM**

Quote:

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 feel like there aren't that many commercial corridors in Capitol Hill relative to its size, so people who don't live there have no reason to visit. King Street in Alexandria had more vibrancy than the one I visited.

LA21st · #**169** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 5:31 AM**

Yes, king street seems more alive than ch.
Probably the most walkable suburban area of dc.

Dont really care for rossyln. dull, sterile. Only looks ok from a distance. Ballston, marginally better. Crystal city really sucks.

. Again, highrises dont mean shit.

Prahaboheme · #**170** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 9:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Segun

I feel like there aren't that many commercial corridors in Capitol Hill relative to its size, so people who don't live there have no reason to visit. King Street in Alexandria had more vibrancy than the one I visited.

Just over 2 square miles, I would suggest otherwise. The "commercial" spine, if you will, of Capitol Hill runs down Pennsylvania Ave east of the Capitol Building to Eastern Market, then to Potomac Ave, Barracks Row. There is also the H Street corridor on the north side of Capitol Hill.

As far as walkable residential neighborhoods are, I'd say it's one of the better ones out there. In terms of things to do, its a very popular neighborhood for dining, markets, nightlife (H street), and quite convenient to job centers due to its accessibility. A successful urban neighborhood to me is one you can live in and do most of your daily activities on foot -- very easy to do in CH.

Alexandria's King Street area is of course, a tourist destination due to a number of factors including the colonial history, waterfront setting, restaurants/shops and all. A better comparison would be Georgetown and I much prefer Alexandria as Georgetown has major vehicular and pedestrian congestion on busy days. Also, Alexandria as a whole just has a lot of energy and growth these days that makes its evolution exciting to see.

iheartthed · #**171** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 4:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ Holy crap!

In rough terms:

Brooklyn pulled a Chicago.

The Bronx pulled a Detroit.

And Queens pulled an LA.

I forget, is NYC on another level or something?

Yeah, NYC grew by over 1 million per decade for 5 decades straight. Most of that growth came after 1900.

Docere · #**172** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 4:29 PM**

Ellis Island immigration was at its peak between 1900 and 1914, and there was high birth rates among immigrants through the 1920s.

Tom In Chicago · #**173** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 4:50 PM**

Just a couple of observations on L.A. and Miami as someone from Chicago. . .

1) L.A. is like Chicago on acid
2) Miami - while nice - doesn't have the amount of urbanity or population density to be in the same ballpark as Los Angeles. . . the two are not even comparable IMO. . .
3) Someone mentioned pre-war L.A. not having much, but I'll contend that the historic core of L.A. is more in-tact with older buildings than Chicago's Loop and there are probably more art-deco buildings in L.A. than Chicago. . . they're literally everywhere. . .
4) Hollywood is a slum

That's all. . .

. . .

LA21st · #**174** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 5:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom In Chicago

Just a couple of observations on L.A. and Miami as someone from Chicago. . .

1) L.A. is like Chicago on acid
2) Miami - while nice - doesn't have the amount of urbanity or population density to be in the same ballpark as Los Angeles. . . the two are not even comparable IMO. . .
3) Someone mentioned pre-war L.A. not having much, but I'll contend that the historic core of L.A. is more in-tact with older buildings than Chicago's Loop and there are probably more art-deco buildings in L.A. than Chicago. . . they're literally everywhere. . .
4) Hollywood is a slum

That's all. . .

. . .

eh, parts of Hollywood are bad. Others are not.
The Media District (near LaBrea/SM Blvd) could fit into the Golden Triangle of Beverly Hills with the people to match.
Melrose is still a top retail street. There's nothing wrong with Sunset in the Guild district (Sunset/Fairfax). Quieter, but its fine.

Whitley Hts/Franklin Village is solid residential neighborhood. Hollywood Blvd west of LA Brea is a nice dense residential area.
Sunset Blvd is emerging as Hollywood's new corporate location, possibly beating out Burbank in the future.
Hollywood's way too large to say it's any one thing.
Its always funny to hear tourists say they didnt see celebrities on Hollywood Blvd. No shit-why would they be with other tourists in McDonalds?

You would see them on Melrose/Franklin Village/
Runyon Canyon though. All the time.

Quixote · #**175** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 9:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirrus

It means neighborhoods outside of downtown where it's mainstream to walk more often than drive for daily tasks.

Three things:

1) Again, sans NYC, the cities have household car ownership rates of around 67% or higher. And three of the five cover about 50-60 square miles.

2) Not owning a car is, for the most part, more about inconvenience than actual need. I'd argue that it's inconvenience (i.e. limited parking, narrower streets) that induces walking and, beyond that, taking transit.

3) Within these cities though, owning a car can be neither necessary nor inconvenient. Given the housing typologies, most non-core-adjacent neighborhoods are overwhelming quiet and residential — blocks and blocks of multi- or single-family rowhouses, many with parking in the front, side, or back. They aren't anchored by commercial corridors, and if they are, they tend to be spotty.

Further, what if you love the neighborhood but half of the amenities aren't to your liking? What if you prefer the selection of a grocery store that isn't within walking distance? This is why car ownership rates are high but usage more limited. The urban form doesn't lend itself to driving or, in some cases, even walking. But a relative lack of amenities and rail within walking distance will always impact livability and viability of car-freedom, regardless of city, form, design, beauty, safety, demographics, etc.

Quixote · #**176** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 11:11 PM**

SF car ownership broken down by census tract and homeowners and renters:

https://transpomaps.org/san-francisco/ca/car-ownership

Overall:

362,141 households
30.85% car free

137,679 homeowners
10.73% car free

224,462 renters
43.19% car free

Quixote · #**177** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 11:27 PM**

With an average of 2.29 people per household, we can reasonably estimate that roughly 250,000 San Franciscans live in a household without a car — a far cry from the suggested 500,000 threshold earlier in this thread. I'd imagine DC and Boston are around 200-250K.

Philly and Chicago likely don't crack 500K and 1M, respectively.

NYC is around 5 million.

Crawford · #**178** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 11:34 PM**

SF has fairly high ridership compared to LA. And likely far more choice riders.

BART's daily ridership is slightly more than twice that of LA MTA subway. SF light rail and SF-Oakland bus are about about 2/3 that of LA. Caltrain tops Metrolink. Given the population differences SF has much higher proportional ridership.

Steely Dan · #**179** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 11:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quixote

Philly and Chicago likely don't crack 500K and 1M, respectively.

There's no way that 1M people in Chicago live in households that are car-free.

I don't even need to see stats to know that's not true.

Also, car-free households are going to veer towards singles and childless households, so I would imagine that average household size among that group is lower than it is city-wide.

I was car-free for my entire singlehood in Chicago, but my wife came bundled with a car, and ever since we've been together (and now with two children in tow) we've been a car-owing household, because it just makes life easier sometimes.

But only one car....... which is nice.

Quixote · #**180** Posted **Dec 20, 2023, 11:55 PM**

The point is that "car-lite" seems to better capture the actual experience of living in SF and the other four cities. Based on an examination of their cityscapes, transit shares, and anecdotal experience, it feels about right.

I mean, is the Southside of Chicago with its vacant lots, underdeveloped commercial corridors, and freeway median-running heavy rail really conducive to pedestrians and car-free living? Are the fringes of DC not reminiscent of what you'd find in inner-ring suburbia?