HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #461  
Old Posted Jan 30, 2018, 8:48 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 7,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
I was thinking that you have to leave not just S.F., but the state entirely -- to a place like Boise or parts of Colorado and Oregon.
I think I notice Idaho is popular.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #462  
Old Posted May 6, 2018, 7:22 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
Drenched in Sun
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The World's Piggy Bank
Posts: 2,460
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #463  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 4:09 AM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,624
[yells] Who keeps bumping this? I'll spare you my typical tirade.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #464  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 4:33 AM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,684
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
When you put it that way, there may be a case for it. How do the population densities compare between them?
__________________
There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
-Aldous Huxley

Continue improving until the end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #465  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 4:50 AM
destroycreate's Avatar
destroycreate destroycreate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
Wow!! LA really does lack green spaces I must say, at least within the urban area.
__________________
**16 years on SSP!**
Previously known as LaJollaCA

https://www.instagram.com/unlifestyled/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #466  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 2:32 PM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,624
Quote:
Originally Posted by destroycreate View Post
Wow!! LA really does lack green spaces I must say, at least within the urban area.
There's plenty of greenery in LA, there's just much more concrete as is the case with any city of any decent size.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #467  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 4:10 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
Drenched in Sun
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The World's Piggy Bank
Posts: 2,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
When you put it that way, there may be a case for it. How do the population densities compare between them?
I framed the picture with both downtowns in the same approx. location [northeast side of the pics] and I never noticed or realized before how the Presidio in S.F. is about the same distance from downtown S.F. as L.A. inner-green leafy historic neighborhood Hancock Park. The greenest parts of both cities are about the same distance from their cores.

Also Koreatown is located in about the same location to DTLA as Pacific Heights is to the financial district S.F.

Even the Baldwin Hills are just out of the western frame, but close to the location to Twin Peaks is in S.F.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #468  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 4:27 PM
destroycreate's Avatar
destroycreate destroycreate is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 View Post
There's plenty of greenery in LA, there's just much more concrete as is the case with any city of any decent size.
I don't really agree to be honest, at least when looking at the two maps. SF clearly has tons more greenery/open space: Golden Gate Park, the Presidio, Twink Peaks etc.
__________________
**16 years on SSP!**
Previously known as LaJollaCA

https://www.instagram.com/unlifestyled/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #469  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 5:49 PM
muertecaza muertecaza is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1,064
Quote:
Originally Posted by destroycreate View Post
I don't really agree to be honest, at least when looking at the two maps. SF clearly has tons more greenery/open space: Golden Gate Park, the Presidio, Twink Peaks etc.
Partly it's just the way the maps happen to be framed, Kenneth Hahn, Elysian Park and Griffith Park are all just outside the borders of the LA map.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #470  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 6:55 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by destroycreate View Post
I don't really agree to be honest, at least when looking at the two maps. SF clearly has tons more greenery/open space: Golden Gate Park, the Presidio, Twink Peaks etc.
If that map was shifted up a mile or 2, there would be several large parks
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #471  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 7:00 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,163
Runyon Canyon and Griffith are awesome city parks. LA is lucky to have both. For whatever reason, they're not as liked on these kinds of forums.
To each their own, I guess.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #472  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 7:05 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 157
Oh come on, LA has a massive shortage of green space. This ranking puts it at 74, while San Francisco is 3rd:
http://parkscore.tpl.org/rankings_ad...etfycsmsnubx40

We have some great parks, but the biggest ones are in the mountains, and are not all that accessible to many people. If you're in the flats and not near the coast, it's pretty hard to find decent parks and open space. It's a definite negative feature for the city, IMO, and I think it comes from the fact that we have such an abundance of tiny private green spaces. This point gets at a major difference between SF and LA. In LA, homeowners have little postage stamp patches of grass in the front and back yards. There are grass strips in the parkways along the streets all over the place, too. SF just doesn't have those things, but they have giant parks and smaller, neighborhood parks scattered around the city. In LA you see greenery and plants all around you in most neighborhoods, but very little of it is public or even big enough to be usable.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #473  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 7:10 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,163
It can be better, but how is Griffith not accessible to most people? One entrance is a few blocks from a subway stop. There's 2-3 busy freeways nearby if you want to drive.
I can see a case for Runyon, but it's always full of people. I honestly dont know how they're all getting there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #474  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 7:43 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
It can be better, but how is Griffith not accessible to most people? One entrance is a few blocks from a subway stop. There's 2-3 busy freeways nearby if you want to drive.
I can see a case for Runyon, but it's always full of people. I honestly dont know how they're all getting there.
I live near Griffith, and I absolutely love it, but it's not accessible to the public in a way that Golden Gate or Central Parks are. It's not a few blocks from a subway station- come on. It's at least 20 'blocks' (and block sizes in LA are huge) to the Vermont entrance of the park from Vermont/Sunset. Even at the entrance, there is nothing really to do on foot in that part of the park. The grassy lawns are mostly on the other side of the mountains, and the trails are up on the hills. I suppose one could take the Observatory shuttle bus from the metro, but that's a hassle. People get to Griffith and Runyon like people in LA get everywhere- they drive. Mountainous parks just aren't going to be accessible to the public the same way a park that's integrated with the fabric of the city is. I would love to see the Hollywood freeway cap park come to fruition for this reason.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #475  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 7:46 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,163
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
I live near Griffith, and I absolutely love it, but it's not accessible to the public in a way that Golden Gate or Central Parks are. It's not a few blocks from a subway station- come on. It's at least 20 'blocks' (and block sizes in LA are huge) to the Vermont entrance of the park from Vermont/Sunset. Even at the entrance, there is nothing really to do on foot in that part of the park. The grassy lawns are mostly on the other side of the mountains, and the trails are up on the hills. I suppose one could take the Observatory shuttle bus from the metro, but that's a hassle. People get to Griffith and Runyon like people in LA get everywhere- they drive. Mountainous parks just aren't going to be accessible to the public the same way a park that's integrated with the fabric of the city is. I would love to see the Hollywood freeway cap park come to fruition for this reason.
I was thinking or Hollywood and Western station. You walk up Western and go up Los Feliz to Ferndale. There's a giant sign that says "Griffith Park" on Los Feliz.
It's a short walk. I've done it.

That part of Griffith Park is pretty amazing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #476  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 7:57 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
Drenched in Sun
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The World's Piggy Bank
Posts: 2,460
I actually thought that a typical L.A. residential street has much more vegetation with mature trees than a typical residential street in S.F.

L.A. example:
https://goo.gl/maps/Br7tDk9mkz72
S.F. example:
https://goo.gl/maps/obpER1M565k
Outer Sunset:
https://goo.gl/maps/zgr3F5cA3us
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #477  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 8:10 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,740
Quote:
Originally Posted by edale View Post
Oh come on, LA has a massive shortage of green space. This ranking puts it at 74, while San Francisco is 3rd:
http://parkscore.tpl.org/rankings_ad...etfycsmsnubx40

We have some great parks, but the biggest ones are in the mountains, and are not all that accessible to many people. If you're in the flats and not near the coast, it's pretty hard to find decent parks and open space. It's a definite negative feature for the city, IMO, and I think it comes from the fact that we have such an abundance of tiny private green spaces. This point gets at a major difference between SF and LA. In LA, homeowners have little postage stamp patches of grass in the front and back yards. There are grass strips in the parkways along the streets all over the place, too. SF just doesn't have those things, but they have giant parks and smaller, neighborhood parks scattered around the city. In LA you see greenery and plants all around you in most neighborhoods, but very little of it is public or even big enough to be usable.
Ya, no doubt that we dont have many, large traditional parks and that having small backyards doesnt require many city parks, but how many cities have several mountain ranges and amazing beaches so close to the city? Parks are cool but when i want to be in nature, which is often, i go to the mountains
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #478  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 9:49 PM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,195
Because LA was largly built on the promise of owning a backyard, residents don’t have an overwhelming need for public parks. But as we see LA rapidly urbanize with more people moving into places like DTLA and Koreatown and into high-density developments, it needs to become more of a priority to have parks throughout these areas. The LA River is maybe the most important large scale public space that can have the greatest impact because it cuts right down the middle of LA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #479  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 10:08 PM
giallo's Avatar
giallo giallo is offline
be nice to the crackheads
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Shanghai/Seoul/Vancouver
Posts: 8,657
LA's mountain parks are great, but the city has a paltry amount of city parks.

My wife and I walked from downtown to Echo Park, and then to Melrose. From Melrose we walked all the way to West Hollywood (yeah, one of the longest walks I've done on recent memory).

Park Count: 1 (Echo Park)

We didn't even see a small corner street park. Nothing. From that walk, it was the one negative thing that really stood out among a lot of positives.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #480  
Old Posted May 7, 2018, 10:50 PM
edale edale is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Posts: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
Ya, no doubt that we dont have many, large traditional parks and that having small backyards doesnt require many city parks, but how many cities have several mountain ranges and amazing beaches so close to the city? Parks are cool but when i want to be in nature, which is often, i go to the mountains
No doubt the mountain parks and beaches are amazing, but it shouldn't be an either or. Most people don't go to city parks to commune with nature, but just to get a break from the urban hustle and bustle, maybe have a picnic, lay out, take a walk, sit and people watch, etc. These spaces are lacking in many parts of LA, I think.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:08 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.