Should there be any doubt that LA belongs among the big 6 urban US cities? - Page 14

Crawford · #**261** Posted **Dec 30, 2023, 4:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easy

Well 2.60 pph is slightly lower than Brooklyn which is 2.64 and slightly higher than the average for NYC which is 2.56. It seems pretty normal to me.

Why would you compare LA's densest core neighborhoods to the entirety of Brooklyn, or all of NYC? Doesn't that just illustrate how core LA is so different?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easy

If your point is that the poorest neighborhood in LA isn’t elite, well ok. So what? Why compare Westlake to Nob Hill and not the Tenderloin? Or the Mission?

I'm pretty sure both neighborhoods would have significantly lower household sizes, and the Mission would have significantly higher incomes. Tenderloin has really good built form, likely unmatched in the Western U.S.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easy

As for poor immigrant neighborhoods, I don’t see what that has to do with anything but will point out that Chinatowns in SF and NYC are near the core as well as The Mission in SF. Little Italys as well although not many Italians left in either. Those have all been poor as well.

Poverty doesn't drive the same neighborhood functions and amenities as wealth. You won't have choice transit riders, or redevelopment, or the same retail amenities. You'll have lower household sizes, so the relative urbanity is misleading.

I don't know much about SF Chinatown but Manhattan Chinatown hasn't been a big immigration neighborhood in many generations. It's still Chinese (but decreasingly so) due to strict rent control and Chinese families owning the buildings.

There are no gateway immigrant neighborhoods in Manhattan anymore. Washington Heights was the last, for Dominicans maybe till around 1990. Nowadays Dominicans head to the Bronx first.

Crawford · #**262** Posted **Dec 30, 2023, 5:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The big urban 7 by average household size:

LA: 2.82
NYC: 2.62
Philly: 2.57
Chicago: 2.52
Boston: 2.37
SF: 2.36
DC: 2.29

This makes sense, as Boston, SF and DC are the most geographically constrained. The gentrified tracts make up a larger share of city proper than the others. DC is likely the most gentrified city in the U.S., and fittingly has the lowest household size. There's nothing in DC now but gentrified areas, and shrinking legacy black areas.

And it makes sense that LA and NYC have slightly higher household sizes than Chicago and Philly due to somewhat more immigration. The Orthodox might also contribute a bit in NYC, esp. in Brooklyn. LA is likely highest due to highest income to housing cost ratio, encouraging more intergenerational living.

Docere · #**263** Posted **Dec 30, 2023, 5:28 PM**

Interesting group at the bottom (smallest household sizes): St. Louis, Seattle, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh.

Crawford · #**264** Posted **Dec 30, 2023, 5:38 PM**

Seattle, demographically, is likely very similar to SF, Boston and DC. Heavily gentrified, expensive, few children.

Not sure what's going on with the other three. All are geographically constrained. Pittsburgh likely has a high share of university students. None get immigrants, so maybe that means skewing towards older households with few children. There are no Mexican neighborhoods.

Docere · #**265** Posted **Dec 30, 2023, 5:46 PM**

Though Seattle is the only one of the super-gentrified cities that's majority white.

Docere · #**266** Posted **Dec 30, 2023, 6:12 PM**

Cleveland (2.21)
Madison (2.21)

Hard to think of two more different cities, yet coincidentally their average HH sizes are identical.

iheartthed · #**267** Posted **Dec 30, 2023, 6:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jd3189

I don't remember if this was mentioned earlier in the thread, but I heard somewhere that the core 40ish square miles of LA has a similar density to the 49 square miles of SF proper.

Having done some driving/walking, cycling in both cities, I would say that SF does have more wall to wall dense urbanism in neighborhoods like Nob Hill, Tenderloin, Chinatown, the Mission, etc. A lot of the Victorian homes are actually small apartments in addition to being large townhomes. However, once you get towards Twin Peaks and the Sunset District, it's basically just large swaths of single family homes packed walk to wall.

LA's core has a lot of single family bungalows mixed with small apartments, either garden style or dingbats. There are also a good amount of large apartments sprinkled in. This type of urban/suburban development goes west from Downtown to pass Mid Wilshire into an area that's largely SFHs before you get to Fairfax. It goes as east as Boyle and Lincoln Heights before becoming standard suburban sprawl towards the rest of East LA and the San Gabriel valley, which is still consistently dense to the same degree as the SFV.

Again, I would say that core LA, despite still being car centric, has an excellent interwar urban fabric comparable to parts of other prewar US cities built around a similar time( ex. NYC outside of Manhattan).

LA has 10x the land area of SF. I actually don't think this makes the case that LA belongs in the big urban category because it should actually have far more people living in high density than SF. If LA maintained SF's density at scale it would have about the same population as New York, but would still be half as dense as NYC.

Easy · #**268** Posted **Dec 30, 2023, 6:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Why would you compare LA's densest core neighborhoods to the entirety of Brooklyn, or all of NYC? Doesn't that just illustrate how core LA is so different?

I'm pretty sure both neighborhoods would have significantly lower household sizes, and the Mission would have significantly higher incomes. Tenderloin has really good built form, likely unmatched in the Western U.S.

Poverty doesn't drive the same neighborhood functions and amenities as wealth. You won't have choice transit riders, or redevelopment, or the same retail amenities. You'll have lower household sizes, so the relative urbanity is misleading.

I don't know much about SF Chinatown but Manhattan Chinatown hasn't been a big immigration neighborhood in many generations. It's still Chinese (but decreasingly so) due to strict rent control and Chinese families owning the buildings.

There are no gateway immigrant neighborhoods in Manhattan anymore. Washington Heights was the last, for Dominicans maybe till around 1990. Nowadays Dominicans head to the Bronx first.

I’m really at a loss trying to understand what point you are making about Westlake and what its neighborhood demographics have to do with LA meeting an urban standard. You were wrong when you claimed that people are “stuffed” into housing and I’ve shown that while it may not be your ideal, it’s still very average. It would have over 30,000 ppsm even with 2.0 pph.

Why not use the neighborhoods in DTLA? Zip 90014 is 1.4 pph. 90013 is 1.8. If your point is that urban LA has lots of poor immigrants, well ok but so what? So it’s not your ideal. They still count don’t they? And LA has lots more than just that.

Steely Dan · #**269** Posted **Dec 30, 2023, 6:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

And it makes sense that LA and NYC have slightly higher household sizes than Chicago and Philly due to somewhat more immigration.

NYC is closer to Philly and Chicago than it is to LA.

LA is in it's own tier among the group on this measure.

No doubt LA's reputation for large multi-generational immigrant families all piling into a single SFH plays into this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Not sure what's going on with the other three. All are geographically constrained. Pittsburgh likely has a high share of university students.

University students might be a factor for all three.

They're all relatively small central cities with around 300K people, and all are home to substantial universities within city limits.

Total undergrad students of major universities:

Cincinnati (U.Cincinnati, Xavier): 35K
Pittsburgh (Carnegie-Mellon, Pitt, Duquense, Chatham): 34K
St. Louis (WashU, SLU, UMSL, Maryville): 33K

Crawford · #**270** Posted **Dec 30, 2023, 6:58 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easy

I’m really at a loss trying to understand what point you are making about Westlake and what its neighborhood demographics have to do with LA meeting an urban standard.

Westlake is clearly different than the other core neighborhoods. LA's core is different.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easy

You were wrong when you claimed that people are “stuffed” into housing

The household size data clearly shows this to not be true. Core LA has much higher household sizes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Easy

and I’ve shown that while it may not be your ideal, it’s still very average.

If Westlake household sizes resemble typical America more so than Manhattan, doesn't that answer the question? Clearly the much higher household sizes contribute to core LA feeling less dense than its urban core equivalents.

If Manhattan were demographically like Westlake it would have around 3 million people, but with the same built form that currently houses 1.7 million people.

You see this in NYC too. Some tracts in Queens have the highest peak density in NYC outside of Manhattan. But even these tracts aren't as urban as the peak tracts in Brooklyn and the Bronx. Queens has higher household sizes, so areas of (say) 60k density can feel more like Brooklyn/Bronx areas of (say) 40k density. Queens has more immigrants stuffed into housing. Elmhurst (Queens) feels nothing like the Concourse (Bronx) neighborhoods, despite higher density.

Easy · #**271** Posted **Dec 30, 2023, 8:19 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Westlake is clearly different than the other core neighborhoods. LA's core is different.

The household size data clearly shows this to not be true. Core LA has much higher household sizes.

If Westlake household sizes resemble typical America more so than Manhattan, doesn't that answer the question? Clearly the much higher household sizes contribute to core LA feeling less dense than its urban core equivalents.

No, that doesn't make sense unless your position is that families make places feel less dense and less urban. Smaller household size has been a trend over the last several decades but that doesn't mean that cities only recently became urban. Because in the end that's what that means. I already said that Westlake would have over 30,000 ppsm if the household size is 2.0.

Quote:

If Manhattan were demographically like Westlake it would have around 3 million people, but with the same built form that currently houses 1.7 million people.

And if Brooklyn were demographically like Westlake it would have the same population as now. Brooklyn is urban imo.

Quote:

You see this in NYC too. Some tracts in Queens have the highest peak density in NYC outside of Manhattan. But even these tracts aren't as urban as the peak tracts in Brooklyn and the Bronx. Queens has higher household sizes, so areas of (say) 60k density can feel more like Brooklyn/Bronx areas of (say) 40k density. Queens has more immigrants stuffed into housing. Elmhurst (Queens) feels nothing like the Concourse (Bronx) neighborhoods, despite higher density.

So in the context of this thread, which areas of nyc would you consider to be urban? NYC averages about the same number of pph as Westlake and about the same density. Subtract Manhattan and that leaves a lot of NYC much more "stuffed" than Westlake.

dktshb · #**272** Posted **Dec 30, 2023, 8:50 PM**

galleyfox · #**273** Posted **Dec 30, 2023, 8:56 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

The big urban 7 by average household size:

LA: 2.82
NYC: 2.62
Philly: 2.57
Chicago: 2.52
Boston: 2.37
SF: 2.36
DC: 2.29

Source: https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/cities/rank/average-household-size

Those stats are too old.

Household Sizes

2011 ACS

LA: 2.86
NYC: 2.67
Chicago: 2.61
Philly: 2.58
SF: 2.31
Boston: 2.31
DC: 2.15

2015 ACS

LA: 2.86
NYC: 2.68
Chicago: 2.53
Philly: 2.61
SF: 2.37
Boston: 2.38
DC: 2.24

2022 ACS

LA: 2.58
NYC: 2.41
Chicago: 2.26
Philly: 2.18
SF: 2.16
Boston: 2.13
DC: 1.94

2011-2015 Net Change

LA: -0.00
NYC: +0.01
Chicago: -0.08
Philly: +0.03
SF: +0.06
Boston: +0.07
DC: +0.09

2015-2022 Net Change

LA: -0.28
NYC: -0.27
CHI: -0.27
PHI: -0.43
SF: -0.21
BOS: -0.25
DC: -0.30

Family Sizes:

2011 ACS

LA: 3.66
Philly: 3.59
Chicago: 3.58
NYC: 3.47
Boston: 3.17
DC: 3.17
SF: 3.16

2015 ACS

LA: 3.66
Philly: 3.53
NYC: 3.48
Chicago: 3.46
SF: 3.22
Boston: 3.19
DC: 3.16

2022 ACS

LA: 3.35
NYC: 3.18
Chicago: 3.17
DC: 3.02
Philly: 3.01
SF: 2.94
Boston: 2.90

2011-2015 Net Change

LA: 0.00
NYC: +0.01
CHI: -0.12
PHI: -0.06
SF: +0.06
BOS: +0.02
DC: -0.01

2015-2022 Net Change

LA: -0.31
NYC: -0.30
CHI: -0.29
PHI: -0.52
SF: -0.30
BOS: -0.29
DC: -0.14

Steely Dan · #**274** Posted **Dec 30, 2023, 9:40 PM**

^ oh, thanks for those updated numbers.

Didn't realize things could change so much on average household size in one decade, but there it is.

3rd&Brown · #**275** Posted **Dec 31, 2023, 4:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

This makes sense, as Boston, SF and DC are the most geographically constrained. The gentrified tracts make up a larger share of city proper than the others. DC is likely the most gentrified city in the U.S., and fittingly has the lowest household size. There's nothing in DC now but gentrified areas, and shrinking legacy black areas.

And it makes sense that LA and NYC have slightly higher household sizes than Chicago and Philly due to somewhat more immigration. The Orthodox might also contribute a bit in NYC, esp. in Brooklyn. LA is likely highest due to highest income to housing cost ratio, encouraging more intergenerational living.

I don't disagree with your overall take, but how is DC geographically constrained? It's a mostly flat city on a river. If you're saying it's constrained because it's mostly built out and there aren't really any virigin or industrial areas to convert to other uses, then I agree. But there is nothing about its geographical setting that would limit its growth per se.

jmecklenborg · #**276** Posted **Dec 31, 2023, 4:55 PM**

To whoever remarked on the departure of black residents from the District of Columbia...Wikipedia still lists the district as 40% black in 2020:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Washington,_D.C.

I remember driving around the rough parts of DC on a trip in 1999 and not seeing a single open business for mile after mile. There were a fair number of vacant buildings, but not the tear-downs on the scale of Baltimore or Detroit.

Also per Wikipedia, 2000 was the nadir of DC's population, at 572k. It is now just under 700k, so a huge increase.

jmecklenborg · #**277** Posted **Dec 31, 2023, 4:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Docere

Interesting group at the bottom (smallest household sizes): St. Louis, Seattle, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh.

These cities are dirt cheap. Many people live alone, without roommates, because you don't need roommates to help pay the rent or mortgage.

Steely Dan · #**278** Posted **Dec 31, 2023, 5:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

I don't disagree with your overall take, but how is DC geographically constrained? It's a mostly flat city on a river. If you're saying it's constrained because it's mostly built out and there aren't really any virigin or industrial areas to convert to other uses, then I agree. But there is nothing about its geographical setting that would limit its growth per se.

the way I read Crawford's post, by "geographically constrained" I assumed he was talking about having a relatively small land area within city limits, which certainly applies to Boston, SF, and DC within the context of "big urban 6 or 7".

Land area:

LA: 469.5 sq. miles
NYC: 300.5 sq. miles
Chicago: 227.7 sq. miles
Philly: 134.4 sq. miles

DC: 61.1 sq. miles
Boston: 48.3 sq. miles
SF: 46.9 sq. miles

iheartthed · #**279** Posted **Dec 31, 2023, 6:04 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

To whoever remarked on the departure of black residents from the District of Columbia...Wikipedia still lists the district as 40% black in 2020:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Washington,_D.C.

I remember driving around the rough parts of DC on a trip in 1999 and not seeing a single open business for mile after mile. There were a fair number of vacant buildings, but not the tear-downs on the scale of Baltimore or Detroit.

Also per Wikipedia, 2000 was the nadir of DC's population, at 572k. It is now just under 700k, so a huge increase.

DC was 60% Black in the 2000 census, so dropping to 40% by 2020 was a pretty dramatic change in just two decades.

DC and Detroit had similar racial compositions throughout most of the postwar era, and they were on similar trajectories until the 1990s due to white flight suburbanization. DC actually had worse losses of white population in the first several decades after WW2, but Detroit caught up in the 1990s. DC also started to see substantial declines of its Black population in the 1980s, while Detroit's Black population did not begin to decline substantially until the 2000s. However, DC's white population grew substantially in the 2000s. Without that growth in white population since 2000, DC's total postwar population loss would still look similar to Detroit's.

People might point to DC being the seat of the federal government was a unique stopgap that Detroit didn't have to stabilize the population. But an even better reason for the divergence is the DC Metro. Detroit had the exact same opportunity to build a system like the DC Metro but was not able to pull it off due to political dysfunction. DC was able to do it and was fundamentally transformed by it.

Crawford · #**280** Posted **Dec 31, 2023, 6:51 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

If you're saying it's constrained because it's mostly built out and there aren't really any virigin or industrial areas to convert to other uses, then I agree.

Yeah, this was my point. I'd say DC is likely the most geographically constrained U.S. city proper. Strict height limits, a huge share of land is parkland or federally owned, no old industrial/warehouse areas, and basically everything west of the Anacostia is at least somewhat gentrified.

Even east of the river, there's no more abandonment, no more vacant retail strips, tons of redevelopment and the like. Those are still really bad, violent neighborhoods, but they look a lot different than bad neighborhoods in say, Baltimore. If you drive through, they don't look that rough, at all. And homes aren't cheap, not even in the worst hoods.

Even SF and Boston have room for new ethnic enclaves, for major upzonings and the like. DC can grow, but just by expanding the downtown professional class zone northwards and eastwards, with the same blocky midrise apartment buildings you see everywhere. And west of the park, in the most affluent zone, it's too NIMBY to grow.