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 think the best way to explain this lies with lifestyle. L.A doesn't offer any neighborhoods that DC and San Fran offer. There is no equivalent in L.A. to the most urban neighborhoods in DC and San Fran. DC and San Fran offer rich, expensive, safe, and amenity high urban neighborhoods with high transit usage. L.A. can't offer the equivalent. That is the biggest difference.
That is true, but for me it does not make them more "urban", which is a subjective term. Its different and LA will continue to grow which will create new urban lifestyles. Roughly 20 years ago LA had no transit. From downtown to the westside will see tremendous growth in urban options over the next 20 years.
Besides the fact that San Francisco is significantly denser in its core than DC, it's urban area is also more dense and compact as well. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
DC urban area: 1300 sq miles, population: 4.6 million
San Francisco: 528 sq miles, population: 3.3 million
Now, add San Jose's UA to San Francisco to form what is commonly known as The Bay Area:
San Francisco + San Jose UAs: 800 sq miles, population: 4.9 million
"The Bay Area" crams more people in far less space than Washington D.C. The Census Burueu can fool you into thinking DC is larger than San Francisco and environs, but not I, and anyone else who has been to both places. San Francisco feels larger (and more vibrant than anywhere outside Manhattan, though admittedly, I have not been to Philly).
And what does this have to do with FEEL? You guys really can't be this clueless. All those people and it still isn't urban. There is a clear difference walking the streets in DC than walking the streets in L.A. Unless you blow LA up and start over, that will never change. You seem to not understand what urban is. It's doesn't matter how many people that live in a city. The city has to be built to a certain code. Now San Fran, that's different, San Fran is built much closer to a NE city than LA will ever be. Walking around LA feels like you are in the suburbs when you are from the NE cities period. This is pretty widely known.
That is true, but for me it does not make them more "urban", which is a subjective term. Its different and LA will continue to grow which will create new urban lifestyles. Roughly 20 years ago LA had no transit. From downtown to the westside will see tremendous growth in urban options over the next 20 years.
The same thing is happening in DC. No city stands still. L.A. has a long way to go. If they concentrated about 50 projects in a 20 block area downtown, maybe we could see progress. Problem is, that development will be spread all over the city. DC is building more than L.A. right now and it's about 1/10 the land area. About 50 cranes in the sky in a city 61 square miles. That's what L.A. needs, not 50 cranes spread over 500 miles.
And what does this have to do with FEEL? You guys really can't be this clueless. All those people and it still isn't urban. There is a clear difference walking the streets in DC than walking the streets in L.A. Unless you blow LA up and start over, that will never change. You seem to not understand what urban is. It's doesn't matter how many people that live in a city. The city has to be built to a certain code. Now San Fran, that's different. San Fran is built much closer to a NE city than LA will ever be. Walking around LA feels like you are in the suburbs when you are from the NE cities period. This is pretty widely known.
FEEL can mean different things to different people. Washington DC feels significantly smaller than Los Angeles. I've always wondered why. Then I figured it out. Washington DC IS signifantly smaller than Los Angeles. Amazing, huhh? In its core, in its near suburbs, in its far flung suburbs, L.A. is the larger city. Boston feels smaller for the same reason. Maybe its because I don't associate "big" with tall buildings and a few square miles of vibrancy. When I think big, I think vast. Los Angeles is vast, and has tons of dense neighborhoods, more dense than DC's, and vibrant in their own unique way. It is, objectively speaking, larger than our nation's capital in every possible way.
The same thing is happening in DC. No city stands still. L.A. has a long way to go. If they concentrated about 50 projects in a 20 block area downtown, maybe we could see progress. Problem is, that development will be spread all over the city. DC is building more than L.A. right now and it's about 1/10 the land area. About 50 cranes in the sky in a city 61 square miles. That's what L.A. needs, not 50 cranes spread over 500 miles.
It's not spread over 500 miles. Seems like most of the growth is in Downtown, Mid-City West (LaBrea / Fairfax area) and Hollywood. Not sure on the number of cranes in the air but there is lots of development in LA.
FEEL can mean different things to different people. Washington DC feels significantly smaller than Los Angeles. I've always wondered why. Then I figured it out. Washington DC IS signifantly smaller than Los Angeles. Amazing, huhh? In its core, in its near suburbs, in its far flung suburbs, L.A. is the larger city. Boston feels smaller for the same reason. Maybe its because I don't associate "big" with tall buildings and a few square miles of vibrancy. When I think big, I think vast. Los Angeles is vast, and has tons of dense neighborhoods, more dense than DC's, and vibrant in their own unique way. It is, objectively speaking, larger than our nation's capital in every possible way.
My only gripe with L.A. is it's flatness.. Curse those height restrictions and not finding a better way to build until after the art deco era. And to add salt on the would we got a skyscraper boom during the time of the helicopter so we're alittle flat on the top..
My only gripe with L.A. is it's flatness.. Curse those height restrictions and not finding a better way to build until after the art deco era. And to add salt on the would we got a skyscraper boom during the time of the helicopter so we're alittle flat on the top..
Some east coast cities have less high rises than L.A. Boston for example has little above 5 or 6 stories, with one or two smallish skyscraper districts.
My only gripe with L.A. is it's flatness.. Curse those height restrictions and not finding a better way to build until after the art deco era. And to add salt on the would we got a skyscraper boom during the time of the helicopter so we're alittle flat on the top..
Your only gripe is that Los Angeles doesn't look exactly like Chicago.
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.
