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: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
You're talking about a consistency that amounts to a lot or a block or two though because you certainly for a fairly healthy person's walking ability are going to have plenty available which is to me what ultimately matters. The circumference for walkscore isn't miles out--it's blocks that people walk to and on that scale, even if you live in a SFH in LA, what you ultimately have are many more neighbors and businesses within a 10 minute (or 5 or 15 minute) in Koreatown than you would in the vast majority of LA. Once can argue that's a density of amenities which a shopping mall would have as well, but the difference is that this a shopping mall that's dense with shops for a very large area and it's coming hand in hand with a large population and structural density. Conversely, one can argue that a large population density doesn't mean much by itself as you can pack people in with endless housing projects with nothing else, but that's not what's happening either because of the aforementioned large number of shops (retail or commercial density) and other things to walk to that goes along with that population density.
That streetview is of a pretty suburban tract in Central LA (arguably just outside of Central LA by some definitions) and those do exist. The biggest span of them is Hancock Park which has a goddamn country club in it. However, that address within a 10 minute walk has multiple stores, commercial offices, and dense apartment buildings all while being over 5 miles out from Pershing Square in downtown LA. 5 miles out from the center of downtown DC can put you in Southeast DC or the Chevy Chase neighborhood which honestly have parts that aren't all that urban either and which some might not consider DC's core.
We're talking about the most urban parts of these city cores. Everyone is in agreement that Central LA is the "most urban" part of Los Angeles. And since when is that stretch of Wilshire not Central LA? Nonetheless going to other parts of Central LA it that may look more urban than that, it's still not "more" urban than the heights of urbanity (structurally) in what locals call (uptown) NW or NE Washington.
Is 3rd st not Central LA? I'm not saying it's void of urbanity, but it's not the same level as DC's core:
Forget about macro density numbers/walkscore for a second. The urban most core of DC streets are entirely different level of building density than Central LA easily:
LA is a sunbelt mega-city, that over large swaths of land/sq mileage has a solid filled urban density with tons of amenities. Washington DC is a classic built urban core, wide ranging downtown with 12+ story buildings for miles, and neighborhood areas built in very little different form than urban neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Philly, Chicago etc. With higher transit share usage than any city not named NYC. They're complete apples and oranges to attempt to compare. Like I mentioned earlier either LA is the 2nd most urban city in the country after NYC ONLY due to size and scale, or it's no higher than 7th. There's really no inbetween.
Last edited by the resident09; 01-22-2021 at 10:48 AM..
EXACTLY! I think a lot of posters really confuse density with urbanity. They're related but very different concepts. Urbanity is an adjective and describes a place that is set up in an urban and walkable format, usually geared around mass transportation. Yes, urban places tend to be denser ones, on average, but density alone does not a city make.
Like, a garden style apartment complex might be very dense on paper, but that doesn't make it urban. A shopping mall has an extremely high density of amenities, but that does not make it urban. You can have density in a suburban format. Tysons Corner has plenty of job density on paper, but it's far from urban (at least for now).
I think this is the fundamental point that many people from Los Angeles just fundamentally do not get, perhaps a symptom of the city's car-centric format.
Yes, DC is more urban than Los Angeles. Forget the numbers, just use common sense and your eyes. Yes, perceptions are subjective, but the sum of subjectivities starts to look a bit more objective over time. Just because it's not easy to "prove" with numbers doesn't mean perceptions aren't real. Urbanity can speak for itself if it's actually there.
The broader urban core of DC has far more jobs and office space than DTLA, and is almost entirely built in an urban format (very few surface parking lots, much wider sidewalks, slower traffic speeds, more mass transit use, more streetscaping, fewer curb cuts, buildings almost entirely oriented to the public realm (opposite of Bunker Hill where it looks like the buildings are literally afraid of the street), almost entirely mixed use buildings with ground floor retail (Broadway, Spring, and 7th Street in DTLA seem to be the exception for LA though), and just overall an environment far more oriented towards urban life and walking.
Yes, I realize the Colliers stats include office space outside the main urban core, but I have a hunch the vast majority of that number is still in DC's urban core (and I think those numbers don't even include government owned office space or leased space under a certain size, likely meaning DC's urban core is even further away from LA's than the stats show).
I don't know that you aren't talking about me specifically, but if you are, you have misunderstood the point that I have been making.
How urban a place is results from the density of people and amenities. Shopping centers have amenities, but people don't live in shopping centers. Garden apartments have lots of people, but they are often nowhere near amenities. This simple concept of both people and amenities has been repeatedly mischaracterized in this thread, perhaps unintentionally, but I really don't know how to make this point any clearer.
Perceptions are real, but they're biased based on experience. Built form is important in assessing how urban a place is, but it's not as important as the density of people and amenities, because those are what enable an urban lifestyle. Can you walk to get what you need? Or take a quick transit ride. That's what's ultimately important.
I have demonstrated several times in this very thread that sidewalks in DC are not wider than sidewalks in LA and that streets are on average just as wide as LA. Anyone that says otherwise needs to show examples. I've posted actual measurements.
DC has fewer surface parking lots, but it certainly has them. As does Manhattan, as does Brooklyn, etc. LA has more and they do detract from quality of life and amenities, but they are filling in rapidly. In much the same way that DC has. I looked at photos of DC from the 50's and 60's and it was filled with surface parking lots. They got their metro 25 years earlier, but we are catching up.
Office space is irrelevant when determining how urban a place is. It's peripherally important only so far as it increases amenities for the people that live there.
I'm not from LA originally in case anyone was wondering.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
^^^ DC was an urban city before the Metro system. It was just smaller. DC had streetcars in the 1930's. It wasn't built in the last 50 years it was originated in the 1790's.
^^^ DC was an urban city before the Metro system. It was just smaller. DC had streetcars in the 1930's. It wasn't built in the last 50 years it was originated in the 1790's.
Smaller is subjective, too. DC had 803,000 people before the metro system...
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,560,868 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by BostonBornMassMade
Smaller is subjective, too. DC had 803,000 people before the metro system...
Correct. I meant from an urban buildout/core perspective, and even then the city was more dense on paper than it is today booming with cranes and 12-14 story apartments going up.
Which gets back to the exact point I've been making about LA. In the context of DC it was more "dense" than it is today with urbanity. But today DC is "more urban" by buildout then 60 years ago, yet still in population less dense technically than it was at peak. Although I suspect that to change in about 10 years.
^^^ DC was an urban city before the Metro system. It was just smaller. DC had streetcars in the 1930's. It wasn't built in the last 50 years it was originated in the 1790's.
What I meant was that you can look at historic photos from before the metro and DC had parking lots all over. Less, but almost as many as Houston, LA, or any sunbelt city. Lots of what everyone is lauding regarding built form, and it is fantastic, is relatively new infill over the last 60 years. The metro helped accelerate that. The same has been happening in LA, just a few decades later. Parking lots, strip malls, and single story buildings are being rapidly replaced. DC is there and we don't know if LA will get even close, but it's looking promising.
Not that it matters for comparing today, but the 1790's is not really accurate. Your misleading use of "originated" aside, the DC of today is not what originated in the 1790's. DC was planned to be comprised of great lawns and what are now major thoroughfares were originally lawns, not roads. It was anticipated to be very sparsely built. It wasn't until after the civil war that it started becoming what it is now and doubled in population in just 10 years.
Correct. I meant from an urban buildout/core perspective, and even then the city was more dense on paper than it is today booming with cranes and 12-14 story apartments going up.
Which gets back to the exact point I've been making about LA. In the context of DC it was more "dense" than it is today with urbanity. But today DC is "more urban" by buildout then 60 years ago, yet still in population less dense technically than it was at peak. Although I suspect that to change in about 10 years.
It's much more structurally dense now than it was at it's peak. DC has relatively few kids now compared to what it had at it's peak. Back then you might see a family of four or five living in 1,200 square feet and now that's only 1-2 people.
We're talking about the most urban parts of these city cores. Everyone is in agreement that Central LA is the "most urban" part of Los Angeles. And since when is that stretch of Wilshire not Central LA? Nonetheless going to other parts of Central LA it that may look more urban than that, it's still not "more" urban than the heights of urbanity (structurally) in what locals call (uptown) NW or NE Washington.
Is 3rd st not Central LA? I'm not saying it's void of urbanity, but it's not the same level as DC's core:
Forget about macro density numbers/walkscore for a second. The urban most core of DC streets are entirely different level of building density than Central LA easily:
LA is a sunbelt mega-city, that over large swaths of land/sq mileage has a solid filled urban density with tons of amenities. Washington DC is a classic built urban core, wide ranging downtown with 12+ story buildings for miles, and neighborhood areas built in very little different form than urban neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Philly, Chicago etc. With higher transit share usage than any city not named NYC. They're complete apples and oranges to attempt to compare. Like I mentioned earlier either LA is the 2nd most urban city in the country after NYC ONLY due to size and scale, or it's no higher than 7th. There's really no inbetween.
I did state before that I think if you're limiting yourself to a peak few square miles, DC is more urban. However, beyond that LA ends up being more urban. Central LA encompasses as large or slightly larger than the entirety of DC proper, and so yes, Central LA as a whole is more urban than DC as a whole. I'm trying to be somewhat precise in my answers.
3rd street is Central LA for some of it and where you shown is very much in Central LA. That area is three and a half miles out from Pershing Square. Three and a half miles from Pershing Square can get you a block like that, and yea, there is a big blank lot there on one corner, possibly as fallout from the '92 riots but it'll still likely be developed with a 4 to 8 story mixed-use building in the next couple of years. Look around a bit though and you'll notice that within a couple of blocks of there there are many multistory residents and a lot of different shops within walking distance. Catty corner from that empty lot is this former hotel with a restaurant underneath: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0690...7i16384!8i8192
Or you can also choose this spot three and a half miles out from that center of urban DC I picked and it can get you this which is probably more urban than the previous one but less so than your spot on 3rd street: https://www.google.com/maps/@38.9286...7i16384!8i8192
I don't know that you aren't talking about me specifically, but if you are, you have misunderstood the point that I have been making.
How urban a place is results from the density of people and amenities. Shopping centers have amenities, but people don't live in shopping centers. Garden apartments have lots of people, but they are often nowhere near amenities. This simple concept of both people and amenities has been repeatedly mischaracterized in this thread, perhaps unintentionally, but I really don't know how to make this point any clearer.
Perceptions are real, but they're biased based on experience. Built form is important in assessing how urban a place is, but it's not as important as the density of people and amenities, because those are what enable an urban lifestyle. Can you walk to get what you need? Or take a quick transit ride. That's what's ultimately important.
I have demonstrated several times in this very thread that sidewalks in DC are not wider than sidewalks in LA and that streets are on average just as wide as LA. Anyone that says otherwise needs to show examples. I've posted actual measurements.
DC has fewer surface parking lots, but it certainly has them. As does Manhattan, as does Brooklyn, etc. LA has more and they do detract from quality of life and amenities, but they are filling in rapidly. In much the same way that DC has. I looked at photos of DC from the 50's and 60's and it was filled with surface parking lots. They got their metro 25 years earlier, but we are catching up.
Office space is irrelevant when determining how urban a place is. It's peripherally important only so far as it increases amenities for the people that live there.
I'm not from LA originally in case anyone was wondering.
Not sure on sidewalks, I know LA has wide sidewalks on Figueroa, at least the south half in DTLA, but I think most of DC's CBD has wider sidewalks on average than most LA streets.
Urbanity is more than population density and amenities, it's also format. You could have a bunch of parking heavy dingbat apartments a block or two away from small two-story strip malls with narrow sidewalks and lots of curb cuts and parking lots (much of LA is like this). This would have both lots of amenities and population density, but most people would not consider it urban. Format is key to the adjective.
Also, yes DC had more parking back in the 60s and 70s after they destroyed a lot of the city centre (similar to what happened in most American cities during that time period), but today I can think of very very few lots. There's two remaining parking lots near Mt. Vernon Square, and a couple near the Capitol that the federal government owns. Heck, I can't even think of barely any parking garages in the CBD. DTLA is riddled with both. Places like Bunker Hill have tall buildings, but most of them have giant dead plazas that don't really flow with the street, and have their retail hidden away, some in underground food courts like a shopping mall.
So, yes, while the progress being made in DTLA is impressive, it's still nowhere near the CBD of DC in terms of urbanity at scale. I am sure DTLA will continue to grow into a proper urban center (though I would also note DC's CBD is also urbanizing quickly and reaching into new neighborhoods like NoMa, Navy Yard, and Waterfront. So, it's not like DC is standing still either. Mass transit in DC is all heavy rail and the system is quite robust by American standards, so I would expect that fundamental ability to handle a ton more development also will help DC keep pace in the future.
LA just doesn't have that broad based urbanity nor urban lifestyle yet; very few live without cars, very little of the city isn't oriented largely to cars. Even where it is dense, cars reign supreme, you can tell in the details of urban design. LA is less so "polycentric" and more "non-centric," as has been pointed out. None of its urban nodes are all that big, sans DTLA which is still a tiny Downtown relative to LA's size (and much smaller in terms of jobs and structural density than cities like Chicago or DC).
In 20 or 30 years, I may change my mind. But looking at what is on the ground now, and having lived in both cities, DC still takes the true urbanity cake.
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.
