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

[Segun]

Originally Posted by citywatch

On the west coast, the older SF metro area somewhat follows a more traditional pattern....beyond the so called City, there are areas like San Jose, Napa Valley or Berkeley, but they're somehow not as singular or important as peripheral sections of metro LA are....for better or worse.

The competition to get a driver's attention is the most extreme in LA. Having a walkable downtown is a perk.

[badrunner]

Apparently citywatch has never heard of Silicon Valley. Anyway, just ignore citywatch, he's just stirring the shit. He doesn't even live in LA.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by craigs

This Washington Post article from September reports that the peak in US bike commuting was 2014. Since that year, bicycle commuting is down 20% nationwide. And this article reports that Portland's bike commute share peaked in 2014 at 7.8%. PDX bike commuting has dramatically imploded since.

That's interesting. There's been a proliferation of e-bikes since that time. I would think bike commute share would have increased since then. It's the best way to get around town.

[Segun]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Apparently citywatch has never heard of Silicon Valley. Anyway, just ignore citywatch, he's just stirring the shit. He doesn't even live in LA.

^ Would Silicon Valley be a destination for anybody besides the employees who work there? I see where he's coming from. Small cities in the Bay aren't prominent locations to visit to the same extent as LA. San Jose though? I would think that would be #3 after Oakland in terms of metro area prominence. Then again its far, and you have to pass through the exciting Silicon Valley to get to it.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Segun

^ Would Silicon Valley be a destination for anybody besides the employees who work there? I see where he's coming from. Small cities in the Bay aren't prominent locations to visit to the same extent as LA. San Jose though? I would think that would be #3 after Oakland in terms of metro area prominence. Then again its far, and you have to pass through the exciting Silicon Valley to get to it.

It wouldn't be a tourist attraction per se, but for many people visiting the bay, Silicon Valley would be the reason they are there in the first place. I agree that no other metro matches LA for the prominence and name recognition of its secondary nodes, but to say that Silicon Valley isn't as "singular or important" is just crazy talk. Or trolling.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by badrunner

That's interesting. There's been a proliferation of e-bikes since that time. I would think bike commute share would have increased since then. It's the best way to get around town.

I wonder if some of those bike commuters have been replaced by e-scooter commuters. It’s a lot easier to bring a scooter onto a crowded bus or train than a bike if you need a first/last mile options. Caltrain is somewhat easy since it has a bike carriage train. VTA light rail has bike racks and it’s not too crowded to begin with. BART can be challenging during commute hours and Muni Metro doesn’t allow bikes on trains. Buses are usually hit or miss since the bike racks can only fit 2 bikes maximum.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Regardless, the point remains the ideal for urbanity is to have stuff at (or near) your doorstep, not stuff accessible by transit.

Exactly.

I don't care if a transit line has headways of 15 seconds, I still don't wanna have to take a train or bus just to go to fucking Walgreens.

Give me daily needs within easy walking distance, or give me death!

[Crawford]

Is bike riding really down since the pandemic? Anecdotal, but I have never seen as many bikers as now. It seems like bike usage has soared.

Is it just that bike commuting has dropped, but overall biking hasn't?

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Is bike riding really down since the pandemic? Anecdotal, but I have never seen as many bikers as now. It seems like bike usage has soared.

Is it just that bike commuting has dropped, but overall biking hasn't?

IIRC, the Census only tracks commutes, not use of cars/transit overall.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Is bike riding really down since the pandemic? Anecdotal, but I have never seen as many bikers as now. It seems like bike usage has soared.

Is it just that bike commuting has dropped, but overall biking hasn't?

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me. There are clearly far more people biking in NYC in 2024 than there were in 2014. If there are fewer people biking to work then it has to be due to the fact that there are fewer people commuting in general.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, it doesn't make sense to me. There are clearly far more people biking in NYC in 2024 than there were in 2014. If there are fewer people biking to work then it has to be due to the fact that there are fewer people commuting in general.

Right, I mean the major bike corridors, esp. in Brooklyn/Queens, are just packed relative to 10 years ago. If you measured bike traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge or Queensboro Bridge, there's no way there isn't a large increase in biking. Maybe non-work trips account for the bulk.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Right, I mean the major bike corridors, esp. in Brooklyn/Queens, are just packed relative to 10 years ago. If you measured bike traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge or Queensboro Bridge, there's no way there isn't a large increase in biking. Maybe non-work trips account for the bulk.

Citibike launched in 2013 with 6,000 bikes. As of late 2023 they have 33,000 bikes in service. The article seems to be either missing something or being a little misleading.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by homebucket

Define viable.

It's got the top walk score in the US.

Walkable means livable amenities within walking distance. Pedestrian friendliness is slightly different. It speaks more to human-scale buildings, urban design elements (e.g. tight grid, continental crosswalks, dual curb cuts at intersections), decent transit options, and lack of public parking.

SF is both walkable and pedestrian friendly (minus the sidewalk to street width ratios, hills) but also not totally car unfriendly (reflected in the high car ownership rate and the fact that 50% of car trips are less than 3 miles). The same goes for the other cities, even NYC once you get to certain parts of the outer boroughs. NYC though is 8.5 million across 300 square miles.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Segun

^ Commercial streets. The veins of urbanity. 3-D urbanity: Large areas with many different walkable, pedestrian-friendly commercial streets, intersecting, interacting. This is where LA is different. In my opinion, downtown LA comes the closest to having this feel within the metro.

This linear-based urbanism is how U.S. and British isles cities are structured at the non-core neighborhood level. It’s more diluted, less intense, and less three-dimensional than Mediterranean urbanism.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Quixote

This linear-based urbanism is how U.S. and British isles cities are structured at the non-core neighborhood level. It’s more diluted, less intense, and less three-dimensional than Mediterranean urbanism.

And more preferable for raising kids, IMO.

Central Barcelona is cool as fuck, but no way in hell would I want to be raising my family in the thick of that kinda density.

I'll gladly keep my neighborhood chicago middle urbanism, thank you very much.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I think ridership is down because so many people no longer commuter to work.

Right. So this points to Muni Metro being heavily used as a cross-town service, and less for intra-neighborhood travel across shorter distances.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And more preferable for raising kids, IMO.

Central Barcelona is cool as fuck, but no way in hell would I want to be raising my family in the thick of that kinda density.

I'll gladly keep my neighborhood chicago middle urbanism, thank you very much.

Chicago's "city-in-a-garden" urbanism is beautiful. For a large city, ideally that vernacular would be more at the periphery instead of representative neighborhoods.

And like you've said, there are many different shades of gray. It's possible to have both the bucolic aesthetic as well as bigger buildings to avoid feeling sparse. You can find this a bit in LA at various levels of density:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/cZZKqwCe3HXzv5ts7

That 6-story building has 60 units, which is about the same or even more than many of the pre-war co-ops that line Park Avenue.

This has 28 condo units:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/1xhYCYxCpT1pY3va6

And this has 11:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/z1mFYhjGBKwgFJjCA

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Right. So this points to Muni Metro being heavily used as a cross-town service, and less for intra-neighborhood travel across shorter distances.

Usually for short intra-city trips, I bike or take the bus, since Muni Metro definitely has its limitations. As you can see on the map, the lines are not particularly extensive (the entire northern third of SF has no Metro coverage) and they all essentially funnel into the Market Street subway. And there's key missing routes, most glaringly, a Richmond-Sunset north-south connection and a Richmond-Downtown east-west connection (which will be filled in by BART), as well as other main arteries which are currently filled in by bus service. It works well (albeit slowly) if you live along those lines and need to get downtown, but otherwise, the bus will be your bread and butter to get around most of SF.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Chicago's "city-in-a-garden" urbanism is beautiful. For a large city, ideally that vernacular would be more at the periphery instead of representative neighborhoods.

Ideally for whom?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

And more preferable for raising kids, IMO.

Central Barcelona is cool as fuck, but no way in hell would I want to be raising my family in the thick of that kinda density.

I'll gladly keep my neighborhood chicago middle urbanism, thank you very much.

Barcelona and Chicago feel similarly "intense" to me, but Barcelona seems to spread out the density more evenly.