Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: NY-NJ-Philly looks down at SF and laughs at the hippies
1,144 posts, read 1,295,468 times
Reputation: 432
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Like I said, comically bad opinions.
Besides, we all know the mass transit argument against L.A. only exists because the "big suburb" argument was destroyed ages ago. The LA metro maintains a 10,000 psm average over 700 sq miles (for perspective, Chicago's psm is 10,800, but that's over 225 sq miles, at which point it peters out into um-dense suburbia). No other metro in the U.S. other than NY comes close to matching those numbers, so what to do? I know. Re-write the definition of "urban" in your subjective image. That way you can keep lying to yourself that much smaller
They are all more urban than LA. Please, feel free to start a thread with only those cities and see which one gets the least # of votes. I bet you it's LA.
True, Boston would probably win that poll. Of course, it's downright comical to spin a much smaller city as "more urban" than a much larger one--especially when the smaller city can't even beat the larger "sprawly" city for peak density. But what can you do?
I think Boston would be considered a far more urban city than Los Angeles. Yes, there are areas of Los Angeles with a higher peak density...but that doesn't necessarily matter in the grand scope of things. When you take into account things like walkability and mass transit, Boston is far ahead of Los Angeles.
What also needs to be taken into account is Los Angeles' sheer size working against it. It does have some very beautiful, urban areas...but the majority of the city is not like that. There are certainly pockets of Los Angeles which are just as urban as Boston, but the city as a whole doesn't work that way.
Also, while the entire city of Boston is considered to be very urban, along with neighboring cities Cambridge, Brookline, Somerville, Everett, and Chelsea--among others--you yourself said the central urban areas of Los Angeles are more/less exclusively for the lower class and (ugh) hipsters. Boston has the wealthy (Beacon Hill, Back Bay, South End), the middle (Southie, North End, parts of Dorchester & JP), the poor (Roxbury, parts of JP and Dorchester), and the students/hipsters/young professionals (Southie, North End, Roxbury, Allston Brighton, Symphony/Back Bay fens) all spread throughout very urban areas.
As much as I loathe hipsters, they are definitely good at refurbishing/integrating neighborhoods, so that's great news for Los Angeles' core infill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KodeBlue
Here we go with public transit sh*t again. It's time to work another angle, folks.
Public transit can play a pretty large roll in the urbanity of a city. Does a city need incredible mass transit to be considered urban? No, but it definitely helps and makes a difference.
They are all more urban than LA. Please, feel free to start a thread with only those cities and see which one gets the least # of votes. I bet you it's LA.
You're probably right. People are adverse to facts around here. Strange since the website is called "city-data".
I think Boston would be considered a far more urban city than Los Angeles. Yes, there are areas of Los Angeles with a higher peak density...but that doesn't necessarily matter in the grand scope of things. When you take into account things like walkability and mass transit, Boston is far ahead of Los Angeles.
What also needs to be taken into account is Los Angeles' sheer size working against it. It does have some very beautiful, urban areas...but the majority of the city is not like that. There are certainly pockets of Los Angeles which are just as urban as Boston, but the city as a whole doesn't work that way.
Also, while the entire city of Boston is considered to be very urban, along with neighboring cities Cambridge, Brookline, Somerville, Everett, and Chelsea--among others--you yourself said the central urban areas of Los Angeles are more/less exclusively for the lower class and (ugh) hipsters. Boston has the wealthy (Beacon Hill, Back Bay, South End), the middle (Southie, North End, parts of Dorchester & JP), the poor (Roxbury, parts of JP and Dorchester), and the students/hipsters/young professionals (Southie, North End, Roxbury, Allston Brighton, Symphony/Back Bay fens) all spread throughout very urban areas.
As much as I loathe hipsters, they are definitely good at refurbishing/integrating neighborhoods, so that's great news for Los Angeles' core infill.
A) Areas like Westwood, WeHo, Pico-Robertson, Fairfax among many others have high density and are hardly working class. Even the flatlands of Beverly Hills, almost exclusively apartments, have crazy density levels. Then you have all those millionaires living in condos on the Wilshire Corridor. LA's got what Boston has too.
B) When you take into account, restaurants/theaters/concert venues/diversity/nightlife/shopping/museums, Los Angeles is far ahead of Boston. These are things that truly make a city a city, more than mass transit. Even uniquely tacky stuff like Hollywood Blvd and the SM pier stuff contributes in this regard. You don't see throngs of tourist hanging out in Chicago's suburbs, do you?
C) The mass transit/walkability arguments would have some merit if Boston was at least as dense as LA at its city limits (48 sq miles). But it isn't.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 11-17-2011 at 07:49 AM..
Location: NY-NJ-Philly looks down at SF and laughs at the hippies
1,144 posts, read 1,295,468 times
Reputation: 432
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
At first I thought you were adverse to facts. Now I'm beginning to realize you don't even have a concept of what the word means.
So, I can get around to all major areas of LA by subway?
Also, answer the question by Cliff Clavin below, it's the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin
If LA is so "urban" and "dense", why is it next to impossible to hail a cab?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
