Los Angeles has a San Francisco at its heart

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think anyone would claim that LA is "low density". It's quite obviously medium-high density for American standards.

But that doesn't mean that LA is similar to SF. LA's core has a very different built form, and shows that density, by itself, isn't enough for solid urbanity. It's one piece of the puzzle, not the entire puzzle.

LA doesn't have low transit share because of low density, but because the city just isn't built for transit. Transit ridership is dropping even as the city builds transit line after transit line. There was higher ridership when the city had nothing but buses.

The Blue Line to Long Beach & the new Expo Line to Santa Monica are among the most heavily used light rail lines in the nation. On the Expo, often SRO.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Does San Francisco have Los Angeles at as its extremities?

Whenever I attempt size parity when comparing LA city to SF, I always use LA city and SF-Oakland Urban Area.
Area in Square Miles
San Francisco-Oakland UA 523.6 sq. mi.
Los Angeles City 468.7 sq. mi.

Population 2010 and Pop. Density
Los Angeles City 3,792,621...8,091 ppsm.
San Francisco-Oakland UA 3,281,212...6,266 ppsm.

Population 2015 and Pop. Density
Los Angeles City 3,971,896...8,474 ppsm.
San Francisco-Oakland UA 3,516,017...6,715 ppsm.

Population Change 2010-2015
Los Angeles City +179,275...+4.72%
San Francisco-Oakland UA +234,805...+7.16%

Not too far off imo.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

This was true up until about 5 years ago. Now, basically every project being built in Los Angeles city and is satellite cities (Long Beach, Glendale, Pasadena, Burbank, WeHo, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica and Culver City) are all mixed use. Most of the new construction is 5 to 7 story and in downtown LA, Koreatown and Hollywood, you are seeing dozens of new mixed use high rises. The LA of yesterday is giving way to a much me urban and pedestrian friendly city of the future.

I realize this is starting to change. But it will take decades to have a major effect in areas which are already pretty dense, because it's not like a 30-unit apartment building is going to get knocked down just to build a structure of the same density which is mixed use.

[mhays]

LA has concentrated retail on major avenues. This allows the avenues to have much better retail than the dispersal method. Densifying the avenue retail and maybe putting the occasional coffee shop and corner store on the other streets is pretty easy as the city grows.

[destroycreate]

I was just in LA two weeks ago and it's amazing just how many walkable commercial corridors there are; tons of distinct neighborhoods. It really isn't strip mall central like so many people make it out to be.

What makes it less SF is that the distances between areas are so vast, but the main factor in my opinion is the width of boulevards and streets and the synced trafficked lights...avenues like Fairfax/La Brea/Olympic/Pico etc are essentially mini highways which ruin the pedestrian experience and detract from the potentially more urban feeling.

That said, LA is way underrated in terms of its density and urbanity for sure.

[Leo the Dog]

What's impressive about the city of LA's high density census tracts (LA's SF within) is that it occurs far from geographical water barriers, in contrast to the SF peninsula. SF's population is contained only 49 sq. miles because that's the only land available.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

What's impressive about the city of LA's high density census tracts (LA's SF within) is that it occurs far from geographical water barriers, in contrast to the SF peninsula. SF's population is contained only 49 sq. miles because that's the only land available.

LA would be quite something to behold had there been about half the land area to build on in the basin. perhaps an art deco/mid century north american buenos aires, who knows.

enforex.com

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

I realize this is starting to change. But it will take decades to have a major effect in areas which are already pretty dense, because it's not like a 30-unit apartment building is going to get knocked down just to build a structure of the same density which is mixed use.

Agreed. It will take a couple decades for most of LA to change, but we are seeing significant changes in areas that were urban wastelands even 10 years ago

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Agreed. It will take a couple decades for most of LA to change, but we are seeing significant changes in areas that were urban wastelands even 10 years ago

Pretty much. LA's a big place (in terms of both population and land area), so incremental changes here and there will take a while to amount to something transformative. But it'll eventually happen, perhaps 30-40 years from now when we're all senior citizens. There will be plenty of exciting changes along the way that will keep us "interested" and not feeling as if we're waiting for something we'll barely get to enjoy. At least that's my view.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Palms are actually great street trees in a place like San Francisco. They don't provide a lot of shade and San Franciscabs crave sun and don't much want to be shaded. They don't heave up pavement and require a very small ball of dirt in which to grow. When of any size they are pretty impervious to vandals and wind which, together, manage to destroy about half the newly planted street trees of other species in SF. They don't generallly need to be watered in California's long, dry summers.

SF's preferred street tree is the London Plane or Sycamore, most of which look as if they are barely clinging to life.

That's a good point, even though they are associated with warmer weather, they will grow just fine in SF. Also they provide landscaping options and vertical greenery that doesn't have to shade.

[ssiguy]

A vibrant street scene isn't just about density but also about connectivity.

LA has some dense areas but the core is crisscrossed by wide freeways so the neighbourhoods of the innercity are disjointed. Downtown LA is completely encircled by wide freeways making pedestrian flow difficult and unpleasant. Freeways are a real phsyhological barrier to constant urban form. SF doesn't have this problem as there are no freeways riping up the urban form.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

A vibrant street scene isn't just about density but also about connectivity.

LA has some dense areas but the core is crisscrossed by wide freeways so the neighbourhoods of the innercity are disjointed. Downtown LA is completely encircled by wide freeways making pedestrian flow difficult and unpleasant. Freeways are a real phsyhological barrier to constant urban form. SF doesn't have this problem as there are no freeways riping up the urban form.

'Cause we (a) blocked them from being built and (b) tore down most of what was built.

California had plans for SF just like LA but the city had a better sense of itself or more power in Sacramento to say, "No."

1948 San Francisco Planning Department Freeway Plan

https://www.cahighways.org/maps-sf-fwy.html

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

'Cause we (a) blocked them from being built and (b) tore down most of what was built.

California had plans for SF just like LA but the city had a better sense of itself or more power in Sacramento to say, "No."

1948 San Francisco Planning Department Freeway Plan

https://www.cahighways.org/maps-sf-fwy.html

Otoh Octavia Bl is busy all day and well into the night. I wish that would be addressed.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

A vibrant street scene isn't just about density but also about connectivity.

LA has some dense areas but the core is crisscrossed by wide freeways so the neighbourhoods of the innercity are disjointed. Downtown LA is completely encircled by wide freeways making pedestrian flow difficult and unpleasant. Freeways are a real phsyhological barrier to constant urban form. SF doesn't have this problem as there are no freeways riping up the urban form.

This is also true for two other places that I think LA can be compared to: Tokyo and Queens, NY. Those are pretty urban locales with more than decent pedestrian activity, no?

Uninterrupted urban flow isn't a deal-breaker, especially if we're talking about a city with an expansive geography (e.g. Los Angeles). Somebody needing to get from Downtown to Koreatown won't deal with crossing the 110 Freeway because the distance between points A and B is too great to traverse by foot.

On the subject of SF, I beg to differ. Look at a map. You have I-80 running through SOMA and I-280, US 101 cutting through the southeast portion of the city.

[ChargerCarl]

Originally Posted by mhays

LA has concentrated retail on major avenues. This allows the avenues to have much better retail than the dispersal method. Densifying the avenue retail and maybe putting the occasional coffee shop and corner store on the other streets is pretty easy as the city grows.

Biggest problem here IMO is how damn wide our streets are. It makes walking really unpleasant even in places with high commercial density.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

A vibrant street scene isn't just about density but also about connectivity.

LA has some dense areas but the core is crisscrossed by wide freeways so the neighbourhoods of the innercity are disjointed. Downtown LA is completely encircled by wide freeways making pedestrian flow difficult and unpleasant. Freeways are a real phsyhological barrier to constant urban form. SF doesn't have this problem as there are no freeways riping up the urban form.

I consider the core going all the way out towards Beverly Hills. Outside of the freeways ringing downtown, the rest of the core doesn't have that many freeways running through it.

It's really just the 10 and the 101. Maybe the 110.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Quixote

This is also true for two other places that I think LA can be compared to: Tokyo and Queens, NY. Those are pretty urban locales with more than decent pedestrian activity, no?

Uninterrupted urban flow isn't a deal-breaker, especially if we're talking about a city with an expansive geography (e.g. Los Angeles). Somebody needing to get from Downtown to Koreatown won't deal with crossing the 110 Freeway because the distance between points A and B is too great to traverse by foot.

On the subject of SF, I beg to differ. Look at a map. You have I-80 running through SOMA and I-280, US 101 cutting through the southeast portion of the city.

Crossing over the 110 isn't that bad either. It might feel odd, but I see quite a few pedestrians doing it.

The 101 between the Civic Center/Chinatown seems more terrifying.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Otoh Octavia Bl is busy all day and well into the night. I wish that would be addressed.

I went to one of the early "community meetings" on Octavia Blvd and stated all the traffic management plans for "if the freeway comes down" were crazy optimistic and wouldn't work.

I can't deny the neighborhood is a much more beautiful place now than with the freeway but both Octavia Blvd and also Gough street have much heavier traffic than before and the traffic on Oak backs up way more.

Now, of course, having had a bite of the apple, the anti-car folks want more--they want to tear down the freeway stump many blocks deeper into SOMA from Market St. In a way, that might improve things at least in Hayes Valley since getting to the freeway from north and west would probably involve more diverse routes beyond Gough and Oak to Octavia Blvd. But it would be a tougher slog on congested city streets.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

A vibrant street scene isn't just about density but also about connectivity.

LA has some dense areas but the core is crisscrossed by wide freeways so the neighbourhoods of the innercity are disjointed. Downtown LA is completely encircled by wide freeways making pedestrian flow difficult and unpleasant. Freeways are a real phsyhological barrier to constant urban form. SF doesn't have this problem as there are no freeways riping up the urban form.

Hopefully some of those freeways, especially encircling the downtown area, can be covered over and be made into linear parks. Most of the freeways are below street level, so it seems possible. Sort of an L.A. "High Line" linear park like in Manhattan. The traffic flows out of sight. And then we have the L.A. River. All kinds of beautification ideas seem doable. How about a "town lake" like what they have along the Salt River in the Phoenix area near A.S.U.? Apartment & condo buildings could line the lake. Or a riverwalk/lake walk like San Antonio? Also, I'd like to see much more condo/apt buildings north of downtown, in the Chinatown/Olvera Street/Plaza/Dodger Stadium area. Multistory, mixed use.

"Make no little plans"- Burnham.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by ChargerCarl

Biggest problem here IMO is how damn wide our streets are. It makes walking really unpleasant even in places with high commercial density.

Agreed. The huge avenues are gridded all over town and pretty inescapable. They're not good for retail, despite that being where retail is often focused.

Sometimes that scenario means one side of the street is in your neighborhood and the other is only when it's worth the trouble.