What do you like/appreciate about the urban experience of Los Angeles?

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by LA21st

"Throughout the region".

So like every other city in America? And LA has more walkable areas in it's suburbs than most and likely far more than people realize. Again, many LA suburbs were built around the street car, so there's intact , walkable "villages" everywhere. Even in the Inland Empire.

I say throughout the region, so that I include areas immediately adjacent to or enclaved by the city limits, including Beverly Hills, Compton and many more areas.

And I actually agree whole heartedly with what you said, Pasadena and Pomona for example would certainly be cities in their right if they weren’t overshadowed by and so close to LA. But LA still is not much different than any other Sun Belt place when it comes to its overall city layout, even if certain areas are dense and walkable.

[dc_denizen]

Unnecessarily reviled for many years

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

I say throughout the region, so that I include areas immediately adjacent to or enclaved by the city limits, including Beverly Hills, Compton and many more areas.

And I actually agree whole heartedly with what you said, Pasadena and Pomona for example would certainly be cities in their right if they weren’t overshadowed by and so close to LA. But LA still is not much different than any other Sun Belt place when it comes to its overall city layout, even if certain areas are dense and walkable.

naw, LA has significantly more walkable areas than sunbelt cities.

[ThePhun1]

Yeah, because it's bigger and grew into a big city earlier. It's still far from a village. I can walk normal speed tip-to-tip in Manhattan back and forth in less than a day (when I was in New York, I walked and didn't take the subway and even did so while stopping at a place or five).

Don't confuse walkability with lack of sprawl. Houston has numerous walkable places (in other words, places where it is realistic to live without a car) but that doesn't make it any less sprawly overall.

I don't know why that's such a touchy issue with LA people, it's not a traditionally laid out/pedestrian friendly city overall.

[LA21st]

Because it's on a different level than the other sunbelt cities for density and walkability. It was a major city in the 1920s and 1930s. No other sunbelt city can say that. It has 320,000 in 1910. It's just not the same.
Los Angeles County had 2.2 million by 1930 and 4.1 by 1950.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Unnecessarily reviled for many years

I grow tired of the LA “feeling sorry for itself” syndrome.

Give me a break. I don’t see it being largely reviled. To the contrary.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

I grow tired of the LA “feeling sorry for itself” syndrome.

Give me a break. I don’t see it being largely reviled. To the contrary.

i don't want to speak for DC denizen, but i think he's referring to the past, not the present day.

in decades gone by, LA was often derided and reviled by outsiders. remember the whole "100 suburbs in search of a city" thing?

my mom used to go on an annual business trip to LA when i was child in the 80s, and she always came back complaining about how bad LA was. "there's no "there" there" was a common complaint.

these days, LA is definitely coming into its own, urbanizing, large transit infrastructure investment, and while it's always been quite diverse, it's gone crazy hyper-drive diverse over the past 30 years.

it's a bit different in its arrangement and organization than the other US urban heavy weights, but it seems like LA gets more and more appreciated all the time for the unique form of urbanism it does have.

LA really can't be disregarded or made the butt of jokes anymore.

it's a beast of a city.

and growing larger.

[the urban politician]

But is LA really centralizing?

I don't see evidence of that. I think it continues to grow outward

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But is LA really centralizing?

yes.

large investment in transit infrastructure.

large skyscraper building boom downtown.

LA will never be like manhattan (no american city ever will), but it's doing a lot of things right these days.

and getting the respect it deserves after decades of mockery.

[Crawford]

I don't think LA is centralizing. It isn't adding transit share, and it isn't (relative to other cities) building more core housing or adding core employment.

But I do think it's better than ever.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yes.

large investment in transit infrastructure.

large skyscraper building boom downtown.

LA will never be like manhattan (no american city ever will), but it's doing a lot of things right these days.

and getting the respect it deserves after decades of mockery.

None of this indicates centralization of the region, either demographic or by employment

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't think LA is centralizing. It isn't adding transit share, and it isn't (relative to other cities) building more core housing or adding core employment.

But I do think it's better than ever.

I wouldn't say it's centralizing either, but that's not really a problem for a city like L.A. It's not a hub and spoke city where everything in the entire MSA is concentrated in a small area. There is stuff and things to do everywhere. It is filling in all over the place and downtown is growing by the day, but the most explosive growth has been and will continue to be in places like Riverside County.

L.A. City
1990 3,485,398 17.4%
2000 3,694,820 6.0%
2010 3,792,621 2.6%
2016 3,976,322 4.8%

Riverside County
1990 1,170,413 76.5%
2000 1,545,387 32.0%
2010 2,189,641 41.7%
2016 2,387,741 9.0%

In 25 years, L.A. has grown by 490,924 people, while Riverside County has grown by 1.2 million and the CSA has grown by 4.2 million.

L.A. CSA
1990 14,531,529 26.4%
2000 16,373,645 12.7%
2010 17,877,006 9.2%
2015 18,679,763 4.5%

[the urban politician]

Of the top ten metros that gained the most $100k households from 2010-2016:

Core city population as a percentage of metro population:

NYC 42%
LA 30%
Chicago 28%
Dallas 30%
SF 19%
Houston 34%
Seattle 19%
DC 11%
Boston 14%
Atlanta 8%

Percentage of growth of $100k households from 2010-2016 that occurred within the core city:

NYC 41%
LA 31% (1% gain)
Chicago 33% (5% gain)
Dallas 13%
SF 26% (7% gain)
Houston 28%
Seattle 30% (11% gain)
DC 19% (8% gain)
Boston 17% (3% gain)
Atlanta 11% (3% gain)

I bolded the regions where the higher income household growth in the core city is greater in proportion than the metro region. I put together these numbers using data retrieved from the ACS by the forumer Marothisu.

As you can see, among the top 5 only Chicago and SF are substantially outgaining their metros in higher income households.

[COtoOC]

I love the mountains, the beaches, the palm trees and tropical vegetation. I love the laid-back vibe (you don't need to own a suit in L.A.!), the massive freeways, the downtown skyline, the urban areas and the old Spanish homes and neighborhoods. I've even come to appreciate all the areas built up in the 60s and 70s that many people would consider tacky, but it's just part of LA and the entire metro area. It also has a sort of excitement with it being the entertainment capital of the world and so many "starts" living there.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

But is LA really centralizing?

I don't see evidence of that. I think it continues to grow outward

LMAO, what? 99% of development happening is happening in the area between Downtown LA, Koreatown, Hollywood, Century City and Santa Monica

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

LMAO, what? 99% of development happening is happening in the area between Downtown LA, Koreatown, Hollywood, Century City and Santa Monica

metro los angeles is increasingly locked in multiple but BUILT OUT AF valleys. it's one thing to accuse metro los angeles of continuing decentralization habits (spread out infill, etc), but it's not growing vastly outward in the midwestern sense...

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

LMAO, what? 99% of development happening is happening in the area between Downtown LA, Koreatown, Hollywood, Century City and Santa Monica

I think the U.S. Census building permits office would find your claims pretty outlandish.

Putting aside the fact that Santa Monica/Century City are not remotely close to downtown LA, probably 95% of the region's growth occurs outside the core.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think the U.S. Census building permits office would find your claims pretty outlandish.

Putting aside the fact that Santa Monica/Century City are not remotely close to downtown LA, probably 95% of the region's growth occurs outside the core.

LA is built differently.
Downtown is just part of LA's core. To me, it's the Wilshire Corridor from dowtnown to Santa Monica. Or at least, to Century City/Beverly Hills.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Exactly. LA's core is Downtown LA to Santa Monica Along Wilshire up to Hollywood and back to Downtown LA along the 101 and everything in between, and thats where a majority of development is happening.

[LA21st]

I'm sure some won't agree with it, and that's fine. I count West Hollywood/Beverly Center in that as well.