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.
I personally think it could handle it, especially once the first set of Measure R projects are finished. Obviously LA could not handle NYC's population if it all came tomorrow, but really no US city could.
When your density doesn't reach 40,000-70,000 people per mile barely anywhere in the city, that is very true. Now the next question you need to ask, how would you move those people. Buses can't move millions of people in a small area. All your light rails would have to be torn down and replaced with massive 8-10 car subway trains running every 3-5 minutes at rush hour like DC and NYC. L.A. doesnt even come close to the infrastructure to accommodate that amount of people.
When your density doesn't reach 40,000-70,000 people per mile barely anywhere in the city, that is very true. Now the next question you need to ask, how would you move those people. Buses can't move millions of people in a small area. All your light rails would have to be torn down and replaced with massive 8-10 car subway trains running every 3-5 minutes at rush hour like DC and NYC. L.A. doesnt even come close to the infrastructure to accommodate that amount of people.
LA has more of those areas than DC - check any of the numerous charts floating around these boards. The point is LA is very dense for the US and still has almost endless infill potential.
When your density doesn't reach 40,000-70,000 people per mile barely anywhere in the city, that is very true. Now the next question you need to ask, how would you move those people. Buses can't move millions of people in a small area. All your light rails would have to be torn down and replaced with massive 8-10 car subway trains running every 3-5 minutes at rush hour like DC and NYC. L.A. doesnt even come close to the infrastructure to accommodate that amount of people.
Another way of looking at it is taking NYC's population and spreading it out over 500 sq. miles. If NYC were built like LA, it would be completely unsustainable. The smog would be even worse than it already is.
So what? Most cities in this country look like sh*t. Certainly nothing to emulate. As I said, if you want to live in a city where you can drive everywhere then you must live in something that looks like a Houston or LA. Thanks, but no thanks.
No, wait, that really looks like sh*t. Certainly nothing to emulate, which is why nobody has (the super dense model). You and the other "2 sq miles of fun" crowd can keep that, while continually telling yourself that this the only way to live. the rest of the country doesn't want this.
Hills are not ideal for an urban environment especially visually. As a planner so you claim, you should know that. It's the reason developers have to be creative when building on inclines and slopes. A flat environment is the best suitable mold for urbanity. That's for all cities. The hills may add a unique aspect to San Francisco, but they diminish the cities urbanity. Look how far the doors have to be from the street on a hill. Come on man, you learned this in your urban design classes.
In most cases they're really not set any farther back than your typical brownstone in NY or DC rowhouse.
I don't think the hills detract from SF's urbanity overall and I don't care what some text book tells you. The urbanity isn't any better in a flat city like DC than it is in SF imo.
To answer the question you'll get the big city feeling in NYC and Chicago. LA you'll feel like you're in a big area but it won't ever feel like a urban big city.
The OP is fooling himself if he thinks Chicago feels like a big town and not a city.
The point is LA is very dense for the US and still has almost endless infill potential.
The same could be said for a lot of cities. You can't fill in 90% of the parking lots, pull buildings up to the street, build residences over 50% of existing strip malls, and raze 40% of the existing SFH home neighborhoods. You can't change a city's DNA in 20 or even 50 years. NYC, Boston and Philly are the products of centuries of city building and urban planning. Much of their urban structure is here to stay, just like much of LA's urban structure is here to stay. It's not so simple as fill in some parking lots here and there and get to 1,000,000 subway riders per day.
LA has more of those areas than DC - check any of the numerous charts floating around these boards. The point is LA is very dense for the US and still has almost endless infill potential.
L.A. barely has any census tracts that high. L.A. has more moderate density tracts at 20,000-30,000 but barely any over that. Check the New York Times census tracker.
No, wait, that really looks like sh*t. You and the other "2 sq miles of fun" saps can keep that, while continually telling yourself that this the only way to live. the rest of the country doesn't want this.
Ooh aah... garbage! why dont you also show me our dirty subway or some homeless people while you are at it. Pathetic.
I don't think the hills detract from SF's urbanity overall and I don't care what some text book tells you. The urbanity isn't any better in a flat city like DC than it is in SF imo.
I think the world would disagree. DC, NYC, Paris, London etc. would all lose urbanity if built on hilly terrain like San Francisco. Think about this, how much pedestrian traffic do those hills get on a consistent basis through the day? Where did you get your planning degree again? Are you really saying that having hills is an advantage and not a disadvantage?
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.
