Entry-Level Mega Cities

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by badrunner

DTLA to Temecula is about 90 road miles. I think that's about the farthest outpost that still feels somewhat vaguely like LA. Places like Victorville and Yucca Valley (120 miles) really feel disconnected from the metro.

Even Temecula feels too peripheral. It’s closer to SD, and it’s not contiguous with the rest of the IE’s suburban sprawl.

[ssiguy]

I think in such a conversation it is important to differentiate between a mega-city and a mega urban area. The Cologne-Essen area of Germany is around 18 million which is certainly a huge urban area but I would never considered it as mega-city conversely London and Paris definitely qualify as mega-cities despite both being significantly smaller.

To me, a mega-city is a one with one major urban core and in some case 2 {ïe Minneapolis-St.Paul} which has grown in a metropolitan population over 10 million as opposed to a mega-area that has grown to over 10 million simply because a whole bunch of cities just grew into each other. To me, if you tell someone you "are going downtown for the day" and they haven't got a clue as to which one you mean, then you are not a mega-city.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

To me, if you tell someone you "are going downtown for the day" and they haven't got a clue as to which one you mean, then you are not a mega-city.

Or, you're in one of the, uh, ultra(?)-mega cities with multiple downtown nodes. If I said "I'm going downtown today" to someone who lives in Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai, Bangkok, etc., I'd get as equally confused looks as in your quote above.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Or, you're in one of the, uh, ultra(?)-mega cities with multiple downtown nodes. If I said "I'm going downtown today" to someone who lives in Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai, Bangkok, etc., I'd get as equally confused looks as in your quote above.

All mega cities {or even just big ones} have many different nodes. I guess the difference, for me, is that a mega city has over 10 million people and as it has grown it has absorbed the smaller ones around it as apposed to a mega region which is a series of different cities that just happened to grow into each other as an urban blob.

As for Chicago, although it nearly qualified, I don't think it will qualify as a megacity as both the city and metropolitan populations are in decline at a fairly significant and steady rate. Toronto is not a mega-city but with it's rapid growth it will probably hit that threshold in 15 years and at most 20. As far as megacities within the next 5 to 10 years, I think both Lima and Bogota will probably qualify bringing the totals for the entire Americas to 8.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

As for Chicago.... both the city and metropolitan populations are in decline at a fairly significant and steady rate.

no, chicago(land)'s population is not declining at a significant and steady rate, it's just full-blown stagnating.

over the past decade, for every person who's born/moves here, some one else dies/moves away, more or less.



place ------------- 2010 pop. ----- 2018 pop.

city of chicago --- 2,695,598 ----- 2,705,994 (0.38% growth)

chicago MSA ----- 9,461,105 ----- 9,498,716 (0.39% growth)

[JAYNYC]

Originally Posted by park123

It most certainly doesn’t feel like a large city when you park your car, get out, and look around. It’s just a never ending suburb or small city that keeps going and going. Even Wilshire blvd. Come on. At any particular spot, it’s really nothing special.

Spot on.

I worked near the intersection of Wilshire and San Vicente (the Beverly Hills intersection, not the West LA one) back in the day. It was a relatively dense area, smack dab in the heart of "Los Angeles" for all intents and purposes, yet the vibe/energy (daytime and nighttime) was basically the same as you'd get in places like Midtown Atlanta, Uptown Dallas or even Downtown Austin as opposed to the vibe/energy you feel anywhere in Manhattan, San Francisco, Philly, Boston, etc.

[Quixote]

LA’s weakness is urban design (wide streets, narrow and/or poorly maintained sidewalks, setbacks), but there are good bones to work with. That’s really the point that myself and most other Angelenos here are always pointing out when it comes to these sort of discussions. There’s an existing heavy rail system that reaches some major nodes which significant potential for increased density, and the Purple Line is being extended to reach other major business districts and cultural institutions.

Once LA reaches a critical mass of transit ridership (at least 1 million on Metro Rail), you’ll probably see more political momentum for things like road diets and reduced parking minimums.

The good news is that sidewalks can be widened and crosswalks painted literally overnight. The challenge is getting to a place where there’s the civic appetite for those changes.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by park123

Even Wilshire blvd. Come on. At any particular spot, it’s really nothing special.

Wilshire is pretty urban. Especially the part around LACMA in the middle of LA.

I visited in 2017 and remember thinking, 'hey, this is a pretty big city', even if there weren't tons of shops to walk to or highrises abutting the sidewalk.

[craigs]

Los Angeles is very walkable, in that there are sidewalks and crosswalks everywhere, etc., but few people walk in Los Angeles relative to other top-tier US cities.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by craigs

Los Angeles is very walkable, in that there are sidewalks and crosswalks everywhere, etc.

I'll accept this.

[Quixote]

^ Me too.

Also throw in the grid and the fact that there’s a bus line running along every major cross-town corridor. Factor in the possibility for mixed-use mid-rises or short skyscrapers (150 feet or so) up and down, across these arteries and bringing amenities within walking distance of millions of people, along with continual transit improvements. Theoretically, that should be enough for LA to make the jump to the next tier.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by craigs

Los Angeles is very walkable, in that there are sidewalks and crosswalks everywhere, etc., but few people walk in Los Angeles relative to other top-tier US cities.

Yeah but that's a horrible way of measuring walkability and everyone here knows that. Like, horrible.

[jtown,man]

Nevermind. It seems people California think this is walkable because SIDEWALKS and CROSSWALKS:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8508...7i13312!8i6656

I don't believe there are people on this site that think that. However, I could imagine some residents at a town hall meeting saying: "well gosh darn, we don't need no 'complete street' or anything to improve our walkability. We already have sidewalks and crosswalks, this community IS walkable already folks!"

[ChrisLA]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Nevermind. It seems people California think this is walkable because SIDEWALKS and CROSSWALKS:

https://www.google.com/maps/@36.8508...7i13312!8i6656

I don't believe there are people on this site that think that. However, I could imagine some residents at a town hall meeting saying: "well gosh darn, we don't need no 'complete street' or anything to improve our walkability. We already have sidewalks and crosswalks, this community IS walkable already folks!"

That’s an exaggeration I guarantee most would say this is not walkable, and the forumers here aren’t talking about an area like this. Besides this is not even in LA, or California for that matter.

Yes we do have wide streets and long blocks compared to some eastern cities, yet I can’t think of anything like this in the city of LA. In the suburbs, yes there are streets like this, in fact it looks a lot like Artesia Blvd that runs through the city of Gardena, but not so much in the city. Even Artesia Blvd running through Gardena is more built up and denser than the photo you posted, so in a sense it would be more walkable (although we all can agree it’s not), and it has a bus line running down Artesia.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by JAYNYC

I worked near the intersection of Wilshire and San Vicente (the Beverly Hills intersection, not the West LA one) back in the day. It was a relatively dense area, smack dab in the heart of "Los Angeles" for all intents and purposes, yet the vibe/energy (daytime and nighttime) was basically the same as you'd get in places like Midtown Atlanta, Uptown Dallas or even Downtown Austin as opposed to the vibe/energy you feel anywhere in Manhattan, San Francisco, Philly, Boston, etc.

So a totally random intersection in LA has the same vibe/energy as downtown Austin? and didn't you say you lived/worked in Glendale?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

That’s an exaggeration I guarantee most would say this is not walkable, and the forumers here aren’t talking about an area like this. Besides this is not even in LA, or California for that matter.

Yes we do have wide streets and long blocks compared to some eastern cities, yet I can’t think of anything like this in the city of LA. In the suburbs, yes there are streets like this, in fact it looks a lot like Artesia Blvd that runs through the city of Gardena, but not so much in the city. Even Artesia Blvd running through Gardena is more built up and denser than the photo you posted, so in a sense it would be more walkable (although we all can agree it’s not), and it has a bus line running down Artesia.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8674...7i16384!8i8192

N/S road- Two lanes of parking, two bike lanes, two travel lanes, one middle turning lane. So I guess like 6 lanes in total.
E/W road- 4 travel lanes, two bus lanes, two bike lanes. 7 lanes in total.

So this intersection isn't tiny, those roads are pretty hefty.

This intersection isn't walkable because it has crosswalks or sidewalks. It's walkable because of the built environment and the culture around it. Before you say "BUT WAIT there is a gas station and a grocery store parking lot right there!"-I post this intersection for that very fact, it's not perfect, but it works very well. Some very "anti-urban" attributes can be overcome if the culture is right(walking is not considered skanky) and the built environment encourages walking/train/biking.

A crosswalk and sidewalk do not give you the above intersection.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

That’s an exaggeration I guarantee most would say this is not walkable, and the forumers here aren’t talking about an area like this. Besides this is not even in LA, or California for that matter.

Yes we do have wide streets and long blocks compared to some eastern cities, yet I can’t think of anything like this in the city of LA. In the suburbs, yes there are streets like this, in fact it looks a lot like Artesia Blvd that runs through the city of Gardena, but not so much in the city. Even Artesia Blvd running through Gardena is more built up and denser than the photo you posted, so in a sense it would be more walkable (although we all can agree it’s not), and it has a bus line running down Artesia.

People use Google maps here for odd reasons. You'd have to go far out into the burbs to see something like that for LA.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8674...7i16384!8i8192

N/S road- Two lanes of parking, two bike lanes, two travel lanes, one middle turning lane. So I guess like 6 lanes in total.
E/W road- 4 travel lanes, two bus lanes, two bike lanes. 7 lanes in total.

So this intersection isn't tiny, those roads are pretty hefty.

This intersection isn't walkable because it has crosswalks or sidewalks. It's walkable because of the built environment and the culture around it. Before you say "BUT WAIT there is a gas station and a grocery store parking lot right there!"-I post this intersection for that very fact, it's not perfect, but it works very well. Some very "anti-urban" attributes can be overcome if the culture is right(walking is not considered skanky) and the built environment encourages walking/train/biking.

A crosswalk and sidewalk do not give you the above intersection.

It's not crazy walkable though. I used to go through there all the time. Roosevelt kinda sucks to walk on. I hated or was bored walking towards Clark Street.
It's a transfer station for the CTA, but you'd think the neighborhood would be much busier, pedestrian wise.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

That’s an exaggeration I guarantee most would say this is not walkable, and the forumers here aren’t talking about an area like this. Besides this is not even in LA, or California for that matter.

Yes we do have wide streets and long blocks compared to some eastern cities, yet I can’t think of anything like this in the city of LA. In the suburbs, yes there are streets like this, in fact it looks a lot like Artesia Blvd that runs through the city of Gardena, but not so much in the city. Even Artesia Blvd running through Gardena is more built up and denser than the photo you posted, so in a sense it would be more walkable (although we all can agree it’s not), and it has a bus line running down Artesia.

Yeah I was gonna say, no place in LA proper looks like that. You'd have to get pretty far out from the city to see that kind of thing. You could tell if someone's never been to LA when they think that's what it looks like. Or when they post a typical big city street scene of a busy intersection and act like it's something that you'll never find in LA.

[LA21st]

Yea, people suggest LA neighborhoods are like Dallas or something. That's all I need to know they've never been.