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

[DZH22]

Originally Posted by tech12

Center City is not as dense as downtown SF. The densest census tract in downtown SF has 171k people per square mile, while the densest in Philly has 64k per square mile.

Nobody lives in office buildings, hotels, or labs. American city downtowns skew towards these uses. Center City is mostly office buildings.

Originally Posted by tech12

SF has four downtown neighborhoods with multiple tracts above 100,000 per square mile: The Tenderloin, Nob Hill, Chinatown, and Rincon Hill. Philly has none. Philly is impressive, but it's not more impressive than SF when it comes to density, which for the record, is something that I've noticed myself when I've visited Philly.

I'm not talking about the other tracts, or overall population density. Boston has denser tracts and its downtown is surrounded by a significantly grander (if comparatively limited) set of row-house type residentials than Philly's downtown. That doesn't matter. I'm specifically pointing towards Center City as the closest North American approximation of being in Manhattan outside of NYC itself. It makes sense considering they're only 2 hours apart.

[Segun]

Originally Posted by homebucket

I think LA21st was referring to pedestrian counts, and I'm assuming, pre-pandemic, not necessarily architectural feel. I think I saw some stat that SF has the one of the highest percentages of its metro population employed in the downtown core. .

Is that CMSA or CMA or urban area? Most data says either Chicago or Washington DC are numerically the second largest downtowns in terms of employment. Last I saw, Chicago's downtown was around 600,000 + workers, which is greater than the whole labor force of the entire city of SF. Dc and Chicago also have extensive rail serving the city to an extent greater than SF.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by Segun

Is that CMSA or CMA or urban area? Most data says either Chicago or Washington DC are numerically the second largest downtowns in terms of employment. Last I saw, Chicago's downtown was around 600,000 + workers, which is greater than the whole labor force of the entire city of SF. Dc and Chicago also have extensive rail serving the city to an extent greater than SF.

Here's one source that shows that SF has the second highest % of jobs in the CBD, which was my original statement. I never said SF has more total workers than Chicago or DC. You are right in that Chicago and DC have more employment. I'm a bit surprised by Chicago, as I thought it would've had a higher % given its monocentric urban spatial structure. SF MSA has quite a few large job centers outside the city such as Oakland, Berkeley, South San Francisco, and San Mateo.

Interestingly, SF does have higher CBD transit share than both Chicago and DC.

[38 Geary]

Here's another source showing US downtown commercial core employment data.

For total jobs in the commercial core of the urban 8 metros (added LA and Seattle):
1. NYC 2,228,698
2. Chicago 738,949
3. Boston 558,144
4. SF 510,640
5. DC 494,411
6. Philly 353,612
7. LA 324,595
8. Seattle 311,531

% of jobs in commercial core:
1. NYC 23.6%
2. SF 20.9%
3. Boston 20.2%
4. Chicago 16.2%
5. DC 15.9%
6. Seattle 15.8%
7. Philly 12.1%
8. LA 5.1%

This was sorta interesting too.

% of MSA that resides in commercial core:
1. SF 4.8%
2. NYC 3.8%
3. Boston 3.3%
4. Seattle 2.9%
5. Chicago 2.3%
6. DC 2.3%
7. Philly 2.0%
8. LA 1.0%

[sopas ej]

It's been well-established and it's been the case for decades, that people in LA don't really depend on its downtown like people do in other cities. So, MUST downtown LA become the focus of the region? How would we all benefit from that if it does?

These are employment density maps from ResearchGate. It shows jobs per square km. The data is from 2000, but it gets the point across about Metro LA's jobs being pretty dispersed.

a) Pittsburgh
b) Los Angeles/Orange Counties
c) Paris
d) São Paulo

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by tech12

Center City is not as dense as downtown SF. The densest census tract in downtown SF has 171k people per square mile, while the densest in Philly has 64k per square mile.

That's surprising. Even LA has a 100k ppsm census tract downtown, between Spring and Broadway.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

It's been well-established and it's been the case for decades, that people in LA don't really depend on its downtown like people do in other cities. So, MUST downtown LA become the focus of the region? How would we all benefit from that if it does?

I think most people understand that out of the biggest metros, DTLA is not as large of a focal point as the downtowns of other metros. It's still good to look at the data from time to time to see if perception matches reality, or if employment/resident trends are shifting.

For example, in the next decade, we'll probably see the % of the MSA that resides in the commercial core go up for LA, and perhaps employment % remain the same, if not decreases, since it seems like there's a lot of residential going up in DTLA, while office developments seem to be happening primarily outside the core.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

It's been well-established and it's been the case for decades, that people in LA don't really depend on its downtown like people do in other cities. So, MUST downtown LA become the focus of the region? How would we all benefit from that if it does?

^I agree that it's not a fair comparison. I've been looking at a map that was cited on the Brookings website here. The size of the area of those 300k+ jobs is much smaller than the other areas being measured because the job centers in LA aren't contiguous. This could be great for LA. Allowing everybody who lives in an area to have their own job center. Unfortunately that's not how it seems to work out.

For instance, downtown:

Total Residential Population 174.975
Total Worker Population 351.621
% of Workers Living in This Area Who Work in This Area 19.4%
% of Citywide Population in This Area 4.61%

Wilshire/Koreatown

Total Residential Population 223.487
Total Worker Population 63.968
% of Workers Living in This Area Who Work in This Area 11%
% of Citywide Population in This Area 5.89%

Westwood/UCLA

Total Residential Population 81.305
Total Worker Population 114.522
% of Workers Living in This Area Who Work in This Area 16.8%
% of Citywide Population in This Area 2.14%

I honestly don't know LA that well, but just from the % of workers who work where they live when looking at job centers, it doesn't seem like a great sign for urbanism.

[iheartthed]

I thought the San Fernando Valley was a major drag on L.A.'s density, but that's not really the case. Backing out the Valley from L.A. appears to only slightly move the needle up in terms of density.

• San Fernando Valley population (including L.A.): 1,826,028
• Valley minus Burbank, Calabasas, Glendale, Hidden Hills, and San Fernando: 1,473,236 in an area of 194 sq. miles for a density of 7,577 ppsm.
• Los Angeles minus Valley population: 2,425,511 in an area of 275 sq. miles for a density of 8,802

So removing the Valley just slightly increases L.A.'s 2020 density from 8,312 ppsm to 8,802 ppsm.

Prewar L.A. also did not really match the big eastern cities in terms of scale of density. Los Angeles's 1950 population was 1.9 million and roughly 200k-300k of the population was in the San Fernando Valley by then. Los Angeles would have still easily been in the top 5 by population without the Valley, but its population density would've still been far lower than the rest of the top 5 in 1950:

U.S. cities with greater than 1 million in 1950 by population density (in people per square mile)

1. New York - 26,306.52
2. Chicago - 15,951.37
3. Philadelphia - 15,459.74
4. Detroit - 13,402.67
5. Los Angeles - 4,201.18 (w/o Valley between 6,074 ppsm and 6,437 ppsm)

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

I honestly don't know LA that well, but just from the % of workers who work where they live when looking at job centers, it doesn't seem like a great sign for urbanism.

What do you mean?

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I thought the San Fernando Valley was a major drag on L.A.'s density, but that's not really the case. Backing out the Valley from L.A. appears to only slightly move the needle up in terms of density.
[. . . .]
So removing the Valley just slightly increases L.A.'s 2020 density from 8,312 ppsm to 8,802 ppsm.

Prewar L.A. also did not really match the big eastern cities in terms of scale of density . . . .

First, yes--LA did not replicate the scale of density found in the eastern cities prior to WWII. The ethos of pre-war Los Angeles was about eschewing the New York model of city building. The plan, insofar as there was one, was for private developers to build homes, offices, shops, etc. for many millions of people--but in a more decentralized and lower-density fashion. Nevertheless, downtown, Westlake, Koreatown, Hollywood, etc. have densified over the decades. And for various reasons, LA now has a higher peak density census tract (or three, I can't remember) than most eastern cities. But that wasn't the initial plan.

Second, I think weighted density is the better measure of the population densities at which people actually live. However, when it comes to simply dividing the population of Los Angeles by its land area, the hills and mountains are what really drag down the city's overall density numbers.

The hills are lightly populated, relative to the flatlands, because of difficult terrain and zoning and fire codes restricting development on narrow, winding roads. Meanwhile, the mountains are unpopulated altogether. On the Google Map linked below, look at the Santa Monica Mountains from Topanga State Park eastward, the Hollywood Hills, and Griffith Park--they are all within LA city limits. So are the mountainous areas rising up from Chatsworth in the northwest, Sylmar to the north, and on both sides of Sunland to the northeast. These areas significantly reduce the population divided by square miles calculation.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Los+An...d-118.242643!16s%2Fm%2F030qb3t?entry=ttu

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by craigs

What do you mean?

Sorry this was a little confusing, but in comparison to other downtowns for instance:

% of Workers Living in This Area Who Work in This Area

Midtown Manhattan
55.9%

Downtown Chicago
51.8%

Downtown Washington DC
50.5%

Center City
40.7%

Downtown Pittsburgh
31.3%

Downtown Austin
35.9%

Downtown Denver
30.9%

Downtown Dallas
21.3%

Downtown Atlanta
21%

Downtown LA
19.4%

Downtown Houston
17.9%

Downtown Phoenix
15.3%

Of course there are other factors, but when 4 out of 5 workers who live downtown are commuting out of your downtown to go to work, that doesn't seem like a good sign. I would assume the closer you live to your job, the easier it is to support the vibrant urban fabric in the area. In all of these areas a lot of people are commuting as well, but the full time residents provide a foundation for the businesses to flourish outside of 9-5.

Like I said, I don't know LA that well. I know things are done differently there. So I'm happy to be informed how this works out in terms of vibrancy.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

Of course there are other factors, but when 4 out of 5 workers who live downtown are commuting out of your downtown to go to work, that doesn't seem like a good sign.

A good sign of what, though? Everybody and his brother knows that LA is decentralized.

I would assume the closer you live to your job, the easier it is to support the vibrant urban fabric in the area.

San Francisco isn't included in your source, but I would argue that the vast majority of San Franciscans live more than a mile from downtown--the Mission, the Castro, etc. In only one out of the 25 years that I lived in San Francisco proper did I live within one mile of my job. Is SF not vibrant or urban?

Also, note that NYC, Philly, Boston, Chicago, etc. have large metro and commuter rail networks to move people between where they live and where they work. That's because people don't generally work where they live.

Like I said, I don't know LA that well. I know things are done differently there. So I'm happy to be informed how this works out in terms of vibrancy.

I'm happy to engage, but you need to define your terms. To me, the entire Los Angeles metropolis is vibrant.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by craigs

A good sign of what, though? Everybody and his brother knows that LA is decentralized.


San Francisco isn't included in your source, but I would argue that the vast majority of San Franciscans live more than a mile from downtown--the Mission, the Castro, etc. In only one out of the 25 years that I lived in San Francisco proper did I live within one mile of my job. Is SF not vibrant or urban?

San Francisco is not included in the map that I linked. I would've included it if it was. Here's a pdf of the full report. I found the numbers for San Francisco in the full report.

Downtown San Francisco
37.9%

The problem is not that people are commuting downtown to work. That's not what the percentage is measuring. The percentages that I listed were measuring the percentage of people who live downtown AND work downtown where they live.

My impression is that ideally, to support peak urban form, a decentralized city would maintain many job centers that supported a majority of their own workers. That's not to say that nobody would commute between job centers, but when 4 out of 5 people are commuting OUT of downtown to go to their job, that seems unideal to me.

And Downtown LA has the best numbers in all the LA based areas in that study.

Wilshire/Koreatown 11%
Hollywood 10.6%
Westwood/UCLA 16.8%

That's not to say that Chicago doesn't have its own problems. Since it has one dominant job center, we should be supporting much more density in closer proximity to downtown as well as a more robust transit system to allow commuters to be less car dependent. Those are two perennial issues in Chicago that we are continuing to work on.

Originally Posted by craigs

Also, note that NYC, Philly, Boston, Chicago, etc. have large metro and commuter rail networks to move people between where they live and where they work. That's because people don't generally work where they live.

Right and a lot of suburbs around Chicago are not urban except in small patches or districts unless they're a streetcar suburb. That doesn't mean they're not great places to live for their own reasons.

As an example of a former streetcar suburb, Hyde Park's "% of Workers Living in This Area Who Work in This Area" is 18.4%. Not too different from Downtown LA. That said, I love Hyde Park and often rely on its commercial and social wealth, but it does feel like a lot of people who live in Hyde Park leave the area and go downtown or to the North Side for many of their needs.

[craigs]

I still don't see how having local residents holed up all day in offices nearby, as opposed to holed up all day in offices a couple of miles away, makes any specific difference in terms of downtown urbanism or vibrancy. Either people live downtown or they don't. Either people work downtown or they don't. If a critical mass of people do both, then a city center is more likely to be vibrant. I don't think it matters if the people living there and working there are the same.

According to the linked Brookings maps, downtown LA has about 350,000 workers. Those folks will help keep downtown vibrant at lunchtime, and perhaps into dinnertime. But like office workers everywhere--downtown or not--they'll be spending the vast majority of their workday inside. And then they'll go home.

Meanwhile, Brookings puts LA's downtown population at about 175,000 residents. The vast majority of those folks will, again, spend their days holed up in an office somewhere. They will, however, likely contribute to the vibrancy of downtown when they get home from work. That's a decent number of folks who can help keep downtown's restaurants and bars open and busy, at least until the club kids and barhoppers arrive downtown and take it from there. Office workers don't usually stay up all night on workdays, after all.

In any case, I appreciate that you're working with Brookings' maps as it gives us some facts upon which to discuss things. But I question what conclusions we can rationally draw from statistics showing the proportions of downtown residents who also work downtown. One I can see is how many people might walk to work, or ride a bike. But I don't see how, say, downtown Dallas' slightly higher proportion of residents who work nearby means Dallas is more "urban" or "vibrant" than downtown LA. That is especially questionable considering downtown Dallas' total residential population is only 10% of downtown LA's, and its downtown workforce is only 35% of downtown LA's. How would these statistics support the idea that downtown Dallas is more "urban" or "vibrant" than downtown LA? I just don't see it.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by craigs

The "only five cities" crowd on this forum also requires 'urban' cities to be hundreds of years old, and feature extensive brick residential vernacular.

Right. There’s a large emphasis on form — see pj3000 on page 1. Or anytime Cincinnati’s Over-The-Rhine or New Orleans’ French Quarter is mentioned, even though 8K and 4K live in those enclaves, respectively.

[Quixote]

I really want to know. If the general consensus is that you don't "need" a car in the five cities (Chicago, Philly, SF, Boston, DC), then why do the vast majority of households in those cities (people who actually live there) own cars? If transit is integrated into the local culture and is the primary way of getting around (next to walking), then why are those cities' rail systems achieving 50-60% of pre-pandemic ridership? That's pretty clear evidence of systems deriving much of their usage from cross-town commuters as well as those commuting from the suburbs, who transfer onto rapid transit for first/last mile.

Are people not going out or something? Is everything they need within a 10-minute walking distance? DC felt like a half-empty city when I visited last June. At the neighborhood level (Georgetown, Adams Morgan), pedestrian and car traffic was light on an early Saturday afternoon. The Metro stations were virtually empty, and there were more visitors than locals on the trains. It was the exact opposite when I was in NYC that same week.

[Klippenstein]

Originally Posted by craigs

In any case, I appreciate that you're working with Brookings' maps as it gives us some facts upon which to discuss things. But I question what conclusions we can rationally draw from statistics showing the proportions of downtown residents who also work downtown. One I can see is how many people might walk to work, or ride a bike. But I don't see how, say, downtown Dallas' slightly higher proportion of residents who work nearby means Dallas is more "urban" or "vibrant" than downtown LA. That is especially questionable considering downtown Dallas' total residential population is only 10% of downtown LA's, and its downtown workforce is only 35% of downtown LA's. How would these statistics support the idea that downtown Dallas is more "urban" or "vibrant" than downtown LA? I just don't see it.

I don't think it's one or the other. Having more downtown residents is a plus. So is having more street life from people walking or biking to work as you mentioned. I would think as a decentralized metro area it would be in LA's favor to have people working closer to where they live. That's all I've been saying. This is one advantage that I'd love to see LA take advantage of. I'd be curious to see LA's average commute time/distance as well as how work from home changed these numbers.

[jd3189]

After driving through the city again yesterday, I would also add that LA has been built to be a "sprawling" city. It is very suburban and heavily reliant on cars to get around. However, it's not as bad as many of the postwar cities. In fact, the interwar urbanism allows for a more open feel that is different from the eastern cities. Buildings are on average shorter, but they go on for miles.

[Quixote]

On SF and cars:

A 2019 study by @INRIX found that 49% of all vehicle trips in SF are < 3 miles & 1 in 5 are < 1 mile.

The recent proliferation of electric bikes & powered mobility devices eliminate the need to drive a car short distances for most ppl, yet still ppl to choose to drive.

...

Braitsch’s map — which was made by using a combination of public DMV and U.S. Census data to build — proved that car ownership has a direct relationship to affluence in San Francisco, as well. And, by proxy, how much more low-income areas in the city rely on accessible public transport than others.

Braitsch found in his research that areas in the Tenderloin and Chinatown had 85% of neighborhood homes sans cars. Communities in Sea Cliff, the Presidio, and other more affluent neighborhoods, on the other hand, had less than 3% of addresses in those zones without a car.

Driving in San Francisco is also a dangerous affair — largely for pedestrians.

“According to [San Francisco Department of Public Health] data, a driver crashes in SF every 4 hours,” Braitsch wrote in a Twitter thread published in March of 2022, explaining his work and calling for safer infrastructure (read: reduced speed limits and better-timed crosswalks) to curb the vehicle-caused injuries and deaths. “That’s 6 times every single day!”

The good news for pedestrians and Mother Nature, alike? Car ownership in SF is actually on the decline. An average 2.2% year-over-year decrease in car ownership has been recorded in San Francisco over the past few years.

...

In addition to inadequate public transportation options, research shows that people tend to choose driving over, say, biking or scootering in dense urban areas out of fear for their safety.

https://underscoresf.com/remember-theres-a-car-ownership-map-of-san-francisco/

If half of all car trips in the city are less than 3 miles, that's a good indication of:

1) Livable amenities not being within walking distance
2) Lack of neighborhood-serving transit within walking distance
3) Transit that's too deemed too slow, unsafe, or unreliable to be viable
4) Ability to find parking at the destination
5) Cross-town (greater than 3 miles, although 3 miles could be cross-town depending on where you are) mobility via transit is not convenient (hence the "need" to drive)

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Quixote

I really want to know. If the general consensus is that you don't "need" a car in the five cities (Chicago, Philly, SF, Boston, DC), then why do the vast majority of households in those cities (people who actually live there) own cars? If transit is integrated into the local culture and is the primary way of getting around (next to walking), then why are those cities' rail systems achieving 50-60% of pre-pandemic ridership? That's pretty clear evidence of systems deriving much of their usage from cross-town commuters as well as those commuting from the suburbs, who transfer onto rapid transit for first/last mile.

Are people not going out or something? Is everything they need within a 10-minute walking distance? DC felt like a half-empty city when I visited last June. At the neighborhood level (Georgetown, Adams Morgan), pedestrian and car traffic was light on an early Saturday afternoon. The Metro stations were virtually empty, and there were more visitors than locals on the trains. It was the exact opposite when I was in NYC that same week.

I think it's about not having to drive for everything compared to outside of those cities. If I moved to SF instead of the East Bay, I would have still had my car but probably wouldn't use it outside of commuting to work or driving to the other end of town or the Bay Area. I would walk or take Muni to most placed around SF proper. In most cities, you have to drive to go to the nearest restaurant, bar or store.