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.
Again, I agree you could do this for LA, but I think it's contrived, and could be done for basically any city.
You can just draw a line around the major jobs centers, to create an area as small as possible that encompasses most of the traditional activity centers. I could do this for Atlanta, or Phoenix, or Houston. They all have the linear job centers like Wilshire, and the highrise satellites, like Century City. It doesn't really function like a unified regional core.
A contiguous area of land...full of job centers...contrived. Dont be like Bajan, let the stereotypes go. Wilshire Boulevard connects DT, mid city, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, and passes right at the foot of Century City. That's basically your southern border. DTLA to the West, the pacific ocean to the West, the Hollywood Hills to the North.
A contiguous area of land...full of job centers...contrived. Dont be like Bajan, let the stereotypes go. Wilshire Boulevard connects DT, mid city, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Santa Monica, and passes right at the foot of Century City. That's basically your southern border. DTLA to the West, the pacific ocean to the West, the Hollywood Hills to the North.
Right, I know this, but how is this any different than any other Sunbelt city? You could do the same with Atlanta (along Peachtree), Phoenix (along Central Ave.), Houston (along Westheimer).
It's contrived because you could do this with any major U.S. city. You could probably do this for any major city on earth. The fact is that most of the built form within this "core" isn't very different from the built form outside the "core".
You might as well add small fingers out to Pasadena, up Ventura Boulevard, and down to Venice. It's just contrived, and not a true regional core. There are strip malls right on Wilshire just outside of downtown, and the West Side, while dense, is autotopia.
Of course I'm not going to argue that LA's downtown is big compared to Chicago's downtown. Everyone knows that LA has a very small downtown relative to overall size. It's much smaller than that of Chicago, DC, or even SF.
But LA, as a whole, feels much bigger than Chicago, as a whole, because LA actually is much bigger than Chicago. 4 million compared to 2.7 million; 18 million compared to 9 million. LA just goes on and on and on, with fairly high density over a vast area.
LA's true "core" isn't even downtown. It's basically the area from Westwood to Hollywood. This area has no rail, no city-subsidized mega-redevelopment, nothing. It's what people around the world think of, though, when they think LA. Palm trees, celebrities, glamour, etc. That's a better equivalent to downtown Chicago, if you're looking for the iconic heart of the region.
Framed in this context, I would agree with this assessment.
Los Angeles looks more decentralized than the other 3 from those maps. The other 3 have one core high-density district and the next large districts are a good distance away. LA has several high-density districts but there isn't much of a centralization pattern of job districts throughout the metro, they appear to be close to evenly spaced.
Los Angeles looks more decentralized than the other 3 from those maps. The other 3 have one core high-density district and the next large districts are a good distance away. LA has several high-density districts but there isn't much of a centralization pattern of job districts throughout the metro, they appear to be close to evenly spaced.
Here's an interesting quote from the article:
Quote:
The next new theory of urban form came from the
proponents of the “Los Angeles School,†who claim that Los Angeles and cities like it represent
not an exception to modern models of city structure, but rather a new paradigm of urban form
wherein the traditional city center no longer controls the hinterland – in fact, the reverse is true,
resulting in a kind of “keno capitalism†wherein different land uses are scattered across a metro
area (Dear 2002).
Right, I know this, but how is this any different than any other Sunbelt city? You could do the same with Atlanta (along Peachtree), Phoenix (along Central Ave.), Houston (along Westheimer).
It's contrived because you could do this with any major U.S. city. You could probably do this for any major city on earth. The fact is that most of the built form within this "core" isn't very different from the built form outside the "core".
You might as well add small fingers out to Pasadena, up Ventura Boulevard, and down to Venice. It's just contrived, and not a true regional core. There are strip malls right on Wilshire just outside of downtown, and the West Side, while dense, is autotopia.
The size (smaller), density (much higher), and concentration of amenities (much higher) are what separates the L.A. "core" from the others Sunbelt cores. We're talking about an area of land that is 40% higher than DC, even with the strip malls and autopia. Youre essentially accusing us of cherry-picking. Hopping across the massive Hollywood Hilld to include Ventura Boulevard is cherry-picking. Pointing out that L.Acontiguous area of land comparable in size to the city of Boston with several nodes is not. It isn't Manhattan v2.0 either (in before someone accuses me of making that claim).
The size (smaller), density (much higher), and concentration of amenities (much higher) are what separates the L.A. "core" from the others Sunbelt cores.
But none of these factors are different.
The relative size isn't different. Atlanta has its four largest job centers along a narrow corridor on Peachtree Street. Very small area.
The relative density isn't different. There's very little difference between a random side street near Cedars Sinai and, say, a random street in Encino off Ventura. Same goes for Atlanta, with a random street in Midtown and a random street anywhere else in the metro.
And the relative concentration of amenities isn't different. The relative difference between Wilshire and Ventura isn't greater than the relative difference between Peachtree and any random Atlanta corridor.
The relative size isn't different. Atlanta has its four largest job centers along a narrow corridor on Peachtree Street. Very small area.
The relative density isn't different. There's very little difference between a random side street near Cedars Sinai and, say, a random street in Encino off Ventura. Same goes for Atlanta, with a random street in Midtown and a random street anywhere else in the metro.
And the relative concentration of amenities isn't different. The relative difference between Wilshire and Ventura isn't greater than the relative difference between Peachtree and any random Atlanta corridor.
this is a serious reach here. Ventura is on the other side of a large mountain range. It is the main business arterial of the Valley.
How is its relationship in any way similar to DtLa and the Westside similar to Wilshire Blvd? with Wilshire/of Wilshire Boulevard acts as a business corridor. It's begins in DTLA, for chrissakes.
You yourself said that Hollywood and the Westside were L.A.'s true core. Why the change of heart?
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 08-29-2012 at 02:52 PM..
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.
