Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford
The biggest difference is that core LA density is achieved by large household sizes, while in SF it's the built density. This is why core LA can have a vaguely suburban-esque feel yet have similar human density.
|
LA has 2.84 people per household. San Francisco has 2.3 people. It's a gap, but it's not a yawning one.
LA's higher-density building typologies just aren't very urban. They tend to be apartment buildings set back from the street, as opposed to San Francisco, where they are either on the sidewalk or close to it.
Probably the biggest issue is the lack of mixed use in LA. LA added density to its old streetcar suburbs, but didn't change the strict separation of residential and commercial. So you just have block after block of midrise apartment buildings with no ground floor retail or street engagement. The commercial corridors are also still basically streetcar suburban in their layout, with autocentric elements like front-facing parking lots and two-story mini malls mixed in. Few structures are more than 1-2 stories tall, and very few (except for very modern developments) have apartments above.
Really, the most amazing thing about LA is despite having some of the best weather for walking in the country, it has such horrendous pedestrian neighborhood infrastructure - in the sense it isn't a pleasant place to walk on the whole. Even the use of palm as the street tree of choice sucks (although I know they are being phased out).