Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote
Answer the following:
1) If LA isn't urban in the American context, does that mean it's suburban?
2) If LA is suburban, then why is it relatively urban in the American context? Most of American suburbia looks, feels, and is very different.
3) If LA is suburban, is it suburban in relative or absolute terms?
4) Is it possible that LA is simply a "big urban" city but with more suburban characteristics than the traditional big 6?
5) If most of LA's urbanism is as urban as the least urban (but still urban) parts of the traditional big 6, wouldn't that still make it urban?
6) Is urbanism outside the form of traditional urbanism in the American context possible within the US, given that urbanism can take many forms? Tokyo and Paris are worlds apart.
7) How much of a city's urban fabric needs to be "affluent" to "count"? Most of NYC's urbanism isn't affluent.
8) Why is an affluent, structurally dense neighborhood being close to the urban core important? Is there a difference if it's 1 mile away or 3 miles away? Does that question inherently make assumptions about what urbanism is supposed to be, and if so, is it not based on traditional urbanism?
|
I'm not going to answer this point by point, but I will say that I think much of Los Angeles is a hybrid of urban and suburban development styles, and it's hard to choose one or the other as a blanket answer.
I think part of what makes LA such an enigma are the wild fluctuations in the built environment. Take the mid-city area near LACMA for example. You have skyscrapers, (soon to be) metro stations, rapid bus lines, etc on Wilshire. While it can leave a bit to be desired at ground level,
I'd absolutely call it urban. But look at what exists literally one block away from there- a
neighborhood of exclusively single family homes with driveways and big lawns. In my opinion, that's an undeniably suburban landscape. So how can someone make a blanket statement that this area is either suburban or urban when it contains both environments, cheek by jowl? Not to mention, if you go a few blocks away from Wilshire in the other direction, you have a
multi-family district that is pretty urban and definitely dense, but the buildings still have front yards, there's diagonal street parking, lots of curb cuts...not purely urban, not suburban...a hybrid.
For the record, I think each of these three environments are cool and pleasant. Just because LA doesn't belong in the 'big urban 6' or whatever doesn't mean it's a bad city. It just clearly has a different development pattern than those other cities, which is perfectly fine. I also agree that while LA might be less classically urban than the other 6, it has more urban energy, amenities, culture, etc. than anywhere in the US other than NYC. A critique on the urban form should not be interpreted as a critique on the city's offerings overall.
Prev
Linear Mode
