The Next Nashville? Billions In New Investment Could Put Baltimore Back On The Map

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

I feel like when Detroit and LA are compared as somewhat analogous - at least in comparing pre-1950 extents - its still sometimes seen as an insult to Detroit or to what it once was, somehow. But if you've walked LA, or even driven or rode cross city and are also reasonably familiar with Detroit I don't (personally) see how it can be seen this way.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/8cZUnJAk93CDtbRb7

And you know Wilshire and Woodward sort of seem like one is an echo of the other.

People both underestimate LA's legacy urbanism, and underestimate how much legacy urbanism Detroit had, only to later lose.

Though Detroit was still, even back in 1950, less urban than peer cities like Cleveland and Milwaukee by virtue of booming a few decades later.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan

Maybe it's because I was 8 when it was glaringly obvious, but I didn't understand the Philly-Detroit comparison during my first visit last year when I ran the International Half-Marathon. I liked Detroit a LOT more than I expected to (I can't wait for my next visit), but it didn't remind me of Philly at all. Philly is more compact, diverse, has a larger and livelier downtown, has a larger student population, and has a more educated population. Detroit also didn't have any apparent wealthy quarters like Chestnut Hill, Rittenhouse Square, or Spruce Hill.

IMO, Detroit reminded me of LA in a weird way. The wide roads, detached single-family homes, emphasis on car culture, and lack of citywide transit coverage reminded me of a Midwestern LA.

Definitely overlap between Detroit and L.A. too, particularly in the areas of each city built between 1930 and 1950. I think of Detroit as the last major prewar city, and L.A. as the first postwar city. And although Detroit and L.A. added the bulk of their populations after 1910, Detroit's layout was more of a product of the late 19th century than Los Angeles's.

There very much was/is overlap between Detroit and Philly, starting with the physical size and densities of the two cities, both of which are cities of roughly 140 square miles that topped out around 2 million in population. Both cities experienced a ton of white and corporate flight to the suburbs starting in the 1950s, and reverse commuting to jobs in the suburbs became the norm in both cities. Both cities are located on the western bank of a river in the southeastern corner of their respective states, located across a river from a different state/territory. The most affluent suburbs of each city are to the northwest of the city's core.

Detroit and Philadelphia had similar racial demographics in the mid-20th century. In 1960, Philadelphia was 72% white (and 26% Black) vs Detroit at 71% white (and 29% Black). In 1970 Philadelphia was 64% white (and 33% Black) vs Detroit at 56% white (and 44% Black). Both cities were very late to attracting Hispanic immigrants. Today Philadelphia is about 15% Hispanic, while Detroit is 8% Hispanic. White flight was absolutely far more thorough in Detroit, though. And Philadelphia preserved way more of its urban fabric.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by The North One

I guess Oakland County is a lot like LA, mostly car-centric and with walkable urban nodes scattered around main corridors.

I think a lot of the comparisons between Detroit and Los Angeles are based on the outer areas of Detroit and/or its inner suburbs, since that's what people not from Detroit are more familiar with. The areas on Detroit's mile grid would have similar spatial qualities to Los Angeles, since I think much of non-SFV Los Angeles is on a similar laid grid. But Detroit's core is not on the mile grid.

Originally Posted by The North One

IThe city proper is obviously an older Midwestern style place. Actually Detroit has an identical grid to Chicago with the mile road system. I don't see how it's being singled out for wide roads, the roads aren't really any wider than a typical Midwestern city like Cleveland, Minneapolis, Chicago.

Detroit's radial avenues are wider than Chicago's, and wider than most roads in Philadelphia. But most of the north/south and east/west roads in Detroit are typical widths for a major pre-war city. The thing that is truly standout in Detroit are the freeways, which are overbuilt throughout the city of Detroit. Northeastern cities dodged a bullet by not allowing those to be built through the cities like Midwest cities allowed. Philadelphia only has I-95 through it, which hugs the riverfront and did much less damage than Detroit's freeways. In hindsight, it was extremely foolish what they did in Detroit.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Though Detroit was still, even back in 1950, less urban than peer cities like Cleveland and Milwaukee by virtue of booming a few decades later.

Detroit did not boom later than Milwaukee. They boomed together, and then Detroit REALLY boomed in the early 20th.

From 1850 to 1900, Detroit and Milwaukee remained nearly the exact same size, with some of the most exactly parallel growth curves between two cities over a half century time span.

But then Henry Ford got a pretty good idea, and Detroit zoomed off to the stars, chasing Chicago, and laying the ground work for LA with its automobile revolution (hence all of the proto-LA talk, and my "bridge between Milwaukee and LA" comment).

At no point in time has Milwaukee ever been substantively larger than Detroit.

[pj3000]

We simply do not tire of the Detroit-LA comparison discussion, do we?

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by eschaton

If you're talking about the Gold Coast proper, sure. But Chicago's North Side is almost entirely Census tracts with $100,000+ household income now. Center City isn't like this - it's mostly middle class these days, but not as universally rich. Of course, it's a difference of degree, rather than kind, but still.

Also, Philly has a second favored quarter (much of Northwest Philadelphia - Chestnut Hill, Roxborough, Manyunk, East Falls, etc.) Chicago really lacks this.

I'm not sure this is true. Center City is "mostly middle class"? Philly doesn't have $100k+ census tracts? Center City's HHI is just shy of $100K while the surrounding neighborhoods are north of 100K (Fairmount, Northern Liberties, Fishtown, Southwest CC etc). Center City is brought down I'd argue because of the disproportionate number of students that live in CC. If you were to exclude students (of which there are 10s of thousands in this number) the HHI would for sure be well north of 100K.

Then as you mention, all of NW Philadelphia (Chestnut Hill, East Falls, Roxborough (which has gone very upmarket in the past 5 years), Manayunk, Mt Airy) is uniformly around 100k.

https://www.inquirer.com/news/philad...-20231207.html

[meh]

Originally Posted by wanderer34

Baltimore has a world-renowned major hospital (Johns Hopkins), and St Louis has one (Barnes-Jewish), in which the service is very overrated and very subpar...

my eyes almost rolled out of my head.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I find it interesting that the in-town favored quarter of Baltimore (basically the "white L") has basically the same population as the favored quarter of Pittsburgh (150,000). The difference being the balance of the city in the case of Pittsburgh is still mostly a collection of intact, if unfashionable neighborhoods, where the balance of Baltimore (some 430,000) is mainly 80%-90% black neighborhoods, often considerably troubled.

This is the single biggest reason, TBH, that Baltimore lags the rest of the Northeast corridor. For all that gentrification is presented as being a process where wealthy white people displace poor black and brown people, gentrifiers preferentially pick working-class white neighborhoods. When those aren't available, they move into Latino areas, which Baltimore has a distinct lack of (though areas of East Baltimore around Baltimore Highlands/Armstead Gardens/Bayview have flipped Latino over the last 20 years). Black neighborhoods when they do gentrify, tend to do so quite slowly, over generations. And let's also be clear that according to polling, even most black people don't prefer to live in hyperblack communities, which is why black flight occurs across the country both in gentrifying and declining black urban neighborhoods. That means that the future of most such areas is often bleak, short of managed reconstruction heavily subsidized by federal HUD money.

While this problem is largely intractable on the local level, a more solvable one for Baltimore is fixing downtown. Baltimore has a lot of cute, walkable urban areas on the downtown fringe, like Federal Hill, Mt. Vernon, Ridgeley's Delight, and Little Italy. However, downtown has many flaws. It's quite large - past the point of easy walkability. The conversion of most roads into multi-lane one-way streets means cars zip through at unsafe speeds. Highways and large multi-lane boulevards stop easy pedestrian connectivity with most of the nearby neighborhoods. Even pre-COVID, it wasn't a particularly robust downtown for office work, though outside of a few nodes, the residential component also feels a bit lackluster. Most of the efforts to revitalize downtown have focused on the Inner Harbor, and the large-scale developments there are very inward-focused (like in a sunbelt city) and don't have much to draw someone to explore the wider area on foot.

As someone who lives in Pittsburgh, I'm well aware of the process where in-town neighborhoods steal the luster of Downtown proper, weakening efforts to revitalize the core. That said, it's missing something akin to Pittsburgh's Cultural District, or Market Square. There's plenty of interesting things, but they're often blocks apart, without a decent high street packed with commercial draws.

I'd like to push back on that. It's not that black people don't prefer "hyperblack" communities (very unique choice of words). It's just that black people of a certain socioeconomic status would prefer to live in neighborhoods with good schools, services, infrastructure, safety like any other middle class American. Unfortuntely, because of our history of redlining and benign neglect against black neighborhoods, they don't have the same amount of options as their white counterparts. With that said, even in the Baltimore and St. Louis metros there are majority black, solidly middle class neighborhoods that have very little crime. Let's not even talk about t how they have many of these neighborhoods right outside of Atlanta, DC, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, etc. Let's not generalize.

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

I feel like when Detroit and LA are compared as somewhat analogous - at least in comparing pre-1950 extents - its still sometimes seen as an insult to Detroit or to what it once was, somehow. But if you've walked LA, or even driven or rode cross city and are also reasonably familiar with Detroit I don't (personally) see how it can be seen this way.

https://maps.app.goo.gl/8cZUnJAk93CDtbRb7

And you know Wilshire and Woodward sort of seem like one is an echo of the other.

Los Angeles' urbanity is severly underrated. It gets compared to the Post-War sunbelts a lot, but Los Angeles was still one of the largest cities in the country and has an insane amount of Pre-War neighborhoods and infrastructure.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan

IMO, Detroit reminded me of LA in a weird way. The wide roads, detached single-family homes, emphasis on car culture, and lack of citywide transit coverage reminded me of a Midwestern LA.

I'm unfamiliar with Detroit so I won't address the overall comparison, but I will challenge the idea that Los Angeles lacks citywide transit coverage. Last month Angelenos took just under a million trips a day on Metro's buses, light rail, and subway trains. Going on last month's APTA ridership report, it appears that Detroit's average workday transit ridership is under 40,000. The two cities are not comparable when it comes to transit.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by goat314

Sorry, definitely meant underrated change it.

If you look at google maps, half of south la looks street car midwesternish. Old commercial strips, corner stores etc
Its def older than most think. Some of those areas have commercial streets every two blocks. It was built for a larger population

[edale]

Originally Posted by goat314

I'd like to push back on that. It's not that black people don't prefer "hyperblack" communities (very unique choice of words). It's just that black people of a certain socioeconomic status would prefer to live in neighborhoods with good schools, services, infrastructure, safety like any other middle class American. Unfortuntely, because of our history of redlining and benign neglect against black neighborhoods, they don't have the same amount of options as their white counterparts. With that said, even in the Baltimore and St. Louis metros there are majority black, solidly middle class neighborhoods that have very little crime. Let's not even talk about t how they have many of these neighborhoods right outside of Atlanta, DC, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, etc. Let's not generalize.

Thank you for saying this. Also, DC is an example of a 'hyperblack' city that has experienced huge amounts of gentrification. I understand the general point that Black neighborhoods are some of the last to undergo gentrification in many markets, but I disagree with the generalization expressed in the post. There are plenty of examples of Black neighborhoods that have gentrified over the years, so the attitude that Baltimore's demographics will damn its chances at revitalization is somewhat puzzling to me. Plus, DC contends with Atlanta for the professional Black class-- it's definitely seen as one of the premier markets in Black America. Further reason to pay less attention to race and more to income. Baltimore does have issues with concentrated, entrenched poverty in many parts of the city. That's a challenge that Austin and Nashville didn't really have to overcome, at least not to the same degree.

[homebucket]

City vs city posts deleted.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Detroit did not boom later than Milwaukee. They boomed together, and then Detroit REALLY boomed in the early 20th.

Right. But my point is that Detroit has more interwar fabric, and interwar stuff is pretty much invariably less urban than stuff built out before WW1.

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

I'm not sure this is true. Center City is "mostly middle class"? Philly doesn't have $100k+ census tracts? Center City's HHI is just shy of $100K while the surrounding neighborhoods are north of 100K (Fairmount, Northern Liberties, Fishtown, Southwest CC etc). Center City is brought down I'd argue because of the disproportionate number of students that live in CC. If you were to exclude students (of which there are 10s of thousands in this number) the HHI would for sure be well north of 100K.

Then as you mention, all of NW Philadelphia (Chestnut Hill, East Falls, Roxborough (which has gone very upmarket in the past 5 years), Manayunk, Mt Airy) is uniformly around 100k.

https://www.inquirer.com/news/philad...-20231207.html

Checked out the stuff via Justice Map. Hotlinking no longer works, but you can compare Philly and Chicago.

There are dark blue precincts in Philadelphia, of course, but the "big blue blob" in Chicago is much larger - almost an unbroken swathe from the South Loop to Horner Park.

Originally Posted by goat314

I'd like to push back on that. It's not that black people don't prefer "hyperblack" communities (very unique choice of words). It's just that black people of a certain socioeconomic status would prefer to live in neighborhoods with good schools, services, infrastructure, safety like any other middle class American. Unfortuntely, because of our history of redlining and benign neglect against black neighborhoods, they don't have the same amount of options as their white counterparts. With that said, even in the Baltimore and St. Louis metros there are majority black, solidly middle class neighborhoods that have very little crime. Let's not even talk about t how they have many of these neighborhoods right outside of Atlanta, DC, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, etc. Let's not generalize.

IIRC, a survey of black Americans found that the median black respondent wanted a neighborhood in the range of 40%-60% black. Obviously, there will be outliers on either end (and IIRC, most black people do not live in hyper-segregated neighborhoods, they live in integrated areas).

I never said that all the black neighborhoods in cities like Baltimore or Saint Louis (even within city limits) are bad. My understanding is that within Baltimore, Ashburton is a pretty thriving black middle-class neighborhood, for example.

However, I don't think it can be denied that there isn't as strong an interest in revitalizing traditionally urban neighborhoods among younger black professionals. Or put more simply, there just aren't a ton of "buppies." Black mass suburbanization was about 30 years behind white suburbanization. I don't think we've really had enough time yet for a critical mass of younger black people who grew up in the suburbs to become disillusioned with it and want to try out urban life. So even in heavily black metros, with tons of black professionals, it's still rare that urban core gentrification is driven by black folks. Where it does happen (like say Harlem around 20 years ago) they often functionally end up first-wave gentrifiers, swamped once the neighborhood gets white interest.

Originally Posted by edale

Thank you for saying this. Also, DC is an example of a 'hyperblack' city that has experienced huge amounts of gentrification. I understand the general point that Black neighborhoods are some of the last to undergo gentrification in many markets, but I disagree with the generalization expressed in the post. There are plenty of examples of Black neighborhoods that have gentrified over the years, so the attitude that Baltimore's demographics will damn its chances at revitalization is somewhat puzzling to me. Plus, DC contends with Atlanta for the professional Black class-- it's definitely seen as one of the premier markets in Black America. Further reason to pay less attention to race and more to income. Baltimore does have issues with concentrated, entrenched poverty in many parts of the city. That's a challenge that Austin and Nashville didn't really have to overcome, at least not to the same degree.

DC has been somewhat of an exception, as black neighborhoods absolutely do gentrify there. But this was driven by a notable lack of any real in-town working-class white neighborhoods, coupled with high real estate prices. Baltimore wouldn't need price parity with DC to experience the same thing, but you'd need a lot more local demand than what the metro currently has.

Also, to be clear, I'm not saying that Baltimore couldn't further improve, just that given the vast array of highly segregated, poor neighborhoods in states of disrepair, coupled with the relatively low growth rate of the Baltimore MSA, it's probably not feasible that more than a handful of black neighborhoods improve each decade. Indeed, the last "gentrification map" of Baltimore I saw showed that most gentrification has been limited to white and mixed areas of the city.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by LA21st

If you look at google maps, half of south la looks street car midwesternish. Old commercial strips, corner stores etc
Its def older than most think. Some of those areas have commercial streets every two blocks. It was built for a larger population

yes, i've cut across south LA from LAX avoiding the the 405, 10, etc. and remember the first time I saw weather-beaten bungalows along the side of the street I was driving down and having a moment...it looked like I was in some parallel midwestern universe (transported to a mediterranean climate). reminded me of jumbo kansas city but detroit is also apt.


https://media.tenor.com/tvFWFDXRrmMA...mind-blown.gif

[L41A]

Originally Posted by goat314

I'd like to push back on that. It's not that black people don't prefer "hyperblack" communities (very unique choice of words). It's just that black people of a certain socioeconomic status would prefer to live in neighborhoods with good schools, services, infrastructure, safety like any other middle class American. Unfortuntely, because of our history of redlining and benign neglect against black neighborhoods, they don't have the same amount of options as their white counterparts. With that said, even in the Baltimore and St. Louis metros there are majority black, solidly middle class neighborhoods that have very little crime. Let's not even talk about t how they have many of these neighborhoods right outside of Atlanta, DC, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, etc. Let's not generalize.

Add me to the pushback. I also agree a very unique choice of words.
Most Black people have no problem living in 'hyperblack' communities. That is not the greatest of concern of most Black people. Such described communities are over a great geographic swath of metro Atlanta. And much of the Black people that live in them don't have a preference (big or small) to move out of them. And even my Black relatives and friends that live in other cities (like my lawyer sister in Baltimore) doesn't have a preference to live in a less Black neighborhood.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Notonfoodstamps

No, you actually can’t. It’s not dense enough outside the city proper.

https://statisticalatlas.com/metro-a...oit/Population

I'm extremely confident that you can find a contiguous area of 141 miles and 1 million people in Metro Detroit. It would require excluding some of the depopulated areas inside the city of Detroit and combining some of the inner ring suburbs, but I'm certain you can get there.

Keep in mind that as much as 40 square miles of Detroit's land is vacant, so if you just add populated areas of Detroit, the enclave of Hamtramck, and Detroit's two largest bordering suburbs you get pretty close to 1 million in 159 square miles by subtracting 40 from Detroit's official land area. If you did this by census tract, it would be pretty straightforward to get there.

Detroit: 639,111
Warren, MI: 139,387
Dearborn, MI: 109,976
Hamtramck, MI: 28,433

Total pop.: 916,907
Estimated occupied land area: 159 square miles

[PhilliesPhan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Definitely overlap between Detroit and L.A. too, particularly in the areas of each city built between 1930 and 1950. I think of Detroit as the last major prewar city, and L.A. as the first postwar city. And although Detroit and L.A. added the bulk of their populations after 1910, Detroit's layout was more of a product of the late 19th century than Los Angeles's.

There very much was/is overlap between Detroit and Philly, starting with the physical size and densities of the two cities, both of which are cities of roughly 140 square miles that topped out around 2 million in population. Both cities experienced a ton of white and corporate flight to the suburbs starting in the 1950s, and reverse commuting to jobs in the suburbs became the norm in both cities. Both cities are located on the western bank of a river in the southeastern corner of their respective states, located across a river from a different state/territory. The most affluent suburbs of each city are to the northwest of the city's core.

Detroit and Philadelphia had similar racial demographics in the mid-20th century. In 1960, Philadelphia was 72% white (and 26% Black) vs Detroit at 71% white (and 29% Black). In 1970 Philadelphia was 64% white (and 33% Black) vs Detroit at 56% white (and 44% Black). Both cities were very late to attracting Hispanic immigrants. Today Philadelphia is about 15% Hispanic, while Detroit is 8% Hispanic. White flight was absolutely far more thorough in Detroit, though. And Philadelphia preserved way more of its urban fabric.

I see what you mean now and agree to an extent. Philly and Detroit don't feel anywhere near close to each other on the ground, but they do have a shared history of disinvestment, redlining, blockbusting, and urban decay during the 2nd half of the 20th century. I agree that Philly preserved much more of its urban fabric, as even the most desolate corner of the city (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0234...5409&entry=ttu) is still nothing compared to the urban prairies I walked/rode my scooter through in Detroit.

Originally Posted by craigs

I'm unfamiliar with Detroit so I won't address the overall comparison, but I will challenge the idea that Los Angeles lacks citywide transit coverage. Last month Angelenos took just under a million trips a day on Metro's buses, light rail, and subway trains. Going on last month's APTA ridership report, it appears that Detroit's average workday transit ridership is under 40,000. The two cities are not comparable when it comes to transit.

I meant lack of coverage relative to the size of the city. As a transit professional, I recognize that LACTMA is expanding significantly faster than just about any US city. With that said, I felt like the rail coverage was lacking for a city of its size. It was tough to get from my hotel in Downtown LA to a number of spots while relying on transit. Furthermore, LAX should have a direct connection to DTLA.

To be fair, the last time I was in LA was November 2021. Both the K Line (Crenshaw Avenue) and the Chinatown Subway (?) were still under construction.

Originally Posted by goat314

I'd like to push back on that. It's not that black people don't prefer "hyperblack" communities (very unique choice of words). It's just that black people of a certain socioeconomic status would prefer to live in neighborhoods with good schools, services, infrastructure, safety like any other middle class American. Unfortuntely, because of our history of redlining and benign neglect against black neighborhoods, they don't have the same amount of options as their white counterparts. With that said, even in the Baltimore and St. Louis metros there are majority black, solidly middle class neighborhoods that have very little crime. Let's not even talk about t how they have many of these neighborhoods right outside of Atlanta, DC, Philadelphia, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, etc. Let's not generalize.

I agree with this 100%. I'm a black young professional who ended up buying a house in a majority white neighborhood in Northwest Philly. While I didn't prefer a neighborhood due to its racial composition (I did want at least some diversity though), you don't really have a choice if you prefer walkable, transit-accessible, amenity-rich neighborhoods that have less crime (the crime part is not a concern of mine, but my wife). It's a shame that the 20th century dealt such a blow to many neighborhoods, as some of the poor black neighborhoods in Philly have the best homes, architecturally speaking. I think North Philly is among the most beautiful sections of the city due to its architecture, and I might have considered buying in Strawberry Mansion if I were single at the time.

Here are a few examples of what I'm talking about:

Strawberry Mansion:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9883...5409&entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9848...5409&entry=ttu

East Parkside:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9757...5409&entry=ttu

Nicetown:

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0095...5409&entry=ttu

[The North One]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Detroit's radial avenues are wider than Chicago's, and wider than most roads in Philadelphia. But most of the north/south and east/west roads in Detroit are typical widths for a major pre-war city. The thing that is truly standout in Detroit are the freeways, which are overbuilt throughout the city of Detroit. Northeastern cities dodged a bullet by not allowing those to be built through the cities like Midwest cities allowed. Philadelphia only has I-95 through it, which hugs the riverfront and did much less damage than Detroit's freeways. In hindsight, it was extremely foolish what they did in Detroit.

I'm comparing to Midwest cities. Detroit didn't overbuild highways more than say Minneapolis. Detroit is actually pretty lucky to have never built a waterfront highway of some kind.

Not all of Chicago's avenues are smaller though. Some of them are just as wide or even a little wider in parts. Detroit's extremely long avenues are somewhat unique, so it's not easy to compare.

https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8558...5409&entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3825...5409&entry=ttu

[craigs]

Originally Posted by PhilliesPhan

I meant lack of coverage relative to the size of the city.

Los Angeles has good enough coverage to induce 980,000 transit trips on an average weekday, and that is just on Metro--there are other regional transit agencies as well. Looking at APTA's May ridership report, Detroit's transit agencies appears to provide only 40,000 trips on an average weekday. I don't get the idea that the two transit systems are notably similar. They are not.

As a transit professional, I recognize that LACTMA is expanding significantly faster than just about any US city. With that said, I felt like the rail coverage was lacking for a city of its size. It was tough to get from my hotel in Downtown LA to a number of spots while relying on transit. Furthermore, LAX should have a direct connection to DTLA.

Okay, it is true that most transit trips in LA are on buses. And while I don't know where you wanted to go but couldn't get to by transit from downtown, I will concede that driving is usually faster and more convenient. But even when we look only at rail coverage, LA blows Detroit out of the water. It's not even close. I don't get the comparison. As for LAX, the rail connection is under construction.

To be fair, the last time I was in LA was November 2021. Both the K Line (Crenshaw Avenue) and the Chinatown Subway (?) were still under construction.

The first phase of the K Line is open, as is the Regional Connector downtown. Chinatown is served by an elevated section of the A Line that's been in place for a long time. Or maybe you're thinking of San Francisco?