Los Angeles has a San Francisco at its heart

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by ocman

It could probably decimate the populations of LA and SF. Everyone would move further out to lower cost cities. But California overall would see a housing explosion. San Bernardino would populate quickly.

Edit: Well, assuming Hyperloop tickets are cheap.

Not me. I would not be taking the hyperloop for an Acme sourdough batard or a Thai or Indian curry fix. In DTSF (I live on Van Ness which is labeled in the density maps) I can walk a few blocks for these things and so much more, and the Symphony, Opera and Main Library are within 3 blocks. No hyperlooping for Wagner's Ring although I'd do it--just a 2 block walk (alas, LA's San Franciscan heart does not contain an equally good opera, Placido Domingo notwithstanding).

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Not me. I would not be taking the hyperloop for an Acme sourdough batard or a Thai or Indian curry fix. In DTSF (I live on Van Ness which is labeled in the density maps) I can walk a few blocks for these things and so much more, and the Symphony, Opera and Main Library are within 3 blocks. No hyperlooping for Wagner's Ring although I'd do it--just a 2 block walk (alas, LA's San Franciscan heart does not contain an equally good opera, Placido Domingo notwithstanding).

Yeah people in The City probably dont need it.

It could however greatly alleviate inbound traffic at our fringe suburbs. The Bay Area has the highest percentage of 'megacommuters'(90 mins+) in the nation

https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2013/03/05...megacommuting/

[Leo the Dog]

What about suburban LA - Does anybody know if OC has an SF in it? Somewhere in the Buena Park - Santa Ana area?

Or how close does the coastal corridor from Santa Monica to South Bay communities (excluding LAX) come to SF type density?

That's what's amazing about LA is that the density levels don't dramatically drop off away from the core.

[ChargerCarl]

The most walkable place in the OC is probably the Newport Peninsula and boardwalk area.

Also maybe downtown Orange and Fullerton plus some of the surrounding neighborhoods.

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

What about suburban LA - Does anybody know if OC has an SF in it? Somewhere in the Buena Park - Santa Ana area?

Or how close does the coastal corridor from Santa Monica to South Bay communities (excluding LAX) come to SF type density?

That's what's amazing about LA is that the density levels don't dramatically drop off away from the core.

No it doesn't have a San Francisco and neither does LA. LA is LA and there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't know what it is with everyone feeling they're inadequate unless their city is wall-to-wall packed like Manhattan. And LA has come a long way, although it'll never be a Manhattan or San Francisco outside a few isolated pockets.

[ChargerCarl]

Santa Ana is dense and built more like LA, but not its most walkable parts.

[ChargerCarl]

Also, by far the most SF like place in LA is San Pedro.

It's basically a smaller SF with LA buildings.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

No it doesn't have a San Francisco and neither does LA. LA is LA and there's nothing wrong with that.

I don't know what it is with everyone feeling they're inadequate unless their city is wall-to-wall packed like Manhattan. And LA has come a long way, although it'll never be a Manhattan or San Francisco outside a few isolated pockets.

Basically. Ive been there countless times and have never seen a random day in DT LA like this:
• Video Link

But who cares? LA is awesome in other ways.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

No it doesn't have a San Francisco and neither does LA. LA is LA and there's nothing wrong with that.

I'm not talking about walkability or any other physical similarity to the city of SF. I was curious as to whether OC had anywhere near the same level of pop. density levels as SF. i.e.: Are there 50 continuous sq. miles of similar density in OC, or coastal LA county as to SF?

Maybe, maybe not, but it wouldn't surprise me if we found it to be close of the high density settlement patterns of greater LA.

And I agree, LA is LA.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I'm not talking about walkability or any other physical similarity to the city of SF. I was curious as to whether OC had anywhere near the same level of pop. density levels as SF. i.e.: Are there 50 continuous sq. miles of similar density in OC, or coastal LA county as to SF?

OC is high density for suburban American standards, but has nothing comparable to core LA density.

Santa Ana probably has the highest density in OC, but, even there, it isn't really traditionally urban. Basically any Mexican or Vietnamese area in OC will have higher density.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Basically. Ive been there countless times and have never seen a random day in DT LA like this . . . .

I live here and I'm getting on in years. I don't go downtown much after dark. But recently I played tour guide to 2 sets of out-of-town relatives who stayed near Union Square. I have to say I was shocked at how crowded and busy Union Square is long into the night these days: Literally Times Square busy--can't make a whole in the crowds on the sidewalk to pass through busy.

I assume a high percentage of those people are also tourists. There's not even that much night life other than bars (there's at least 4 or 5 Irish bars) around there. But that's certainly also true in Times Square--that everybody's a tourist.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by Crawford

OC is high density for suburban American standards, but has nothing comparable to core LA density.

Santa Ana probably has the highest density in OC, but, even there, it isn't really traditionally urban. Basically any Mexican or Vietnamese area in OC will have higher density.

You're the census guy for sure, do you know how many sq. miles it would take to meet the pop. of SF? Is it 55, 60 or 80+?

[NativeOrange]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

You're the census guy for sure, do you know how many sq. miles it would take to meet the pop. of SF? Is it 55, 60 or 80+?

The 97 contiguous sq miles of Westminster, Garden Grove, Santa Ana, Orange and Costa Mesa make up 828k people, for a density of 8,448 ppsm. I'm sure you might be able to nitpick a slightly smaller area, but I'm sure that's as close as you're going to get.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by ocman

Here’s Koreatown looking Southeast with DTLA in the background. Low level skyline view.

Los Angeles Skyline from Koreatown by Bill Cobb, on Flickr

Ah, I can see one of the worse-reviewed K-spas in K-town.

Wi Spa has become my standard.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by ocman

Edit: Well, assuming Hyperloop tickets are cheap.

Tesla's (A fancier Prius) are overpriced for lackluster looks, and a disappointing interior, so I'd imagine the hyperloop tickets will be gargantuanly expensive and the cost to build it. Anything Elon Musk touches becomes expensive.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Tesla's (A fancier Prius) are overpriced for lackluster looks, and a disappointing interior, so I'd imagine the hyperloop tickets will be gargantuanly expensive and the cost to build it. Anything Elon Musk touches becomes expensive.

Well, to deviate momentarily into transit, it hyperloop would probably be cheaper and 3-5 times faster than Jerry's choo choo. As far as trains go, instead of Jerry's choo choo, improve tracks and electrify the AMTRAK line between SD/LA/OAK/SF. 120-130 mph just fine. Run it through the central valley. Lots of commuters would use it to live in cheaper housing & work & play in SF & LA. Then build the hyperloop for a really fast transit that could replace planes. I don't think hyperloop tickets would be significantly more expensive than plane tickets. Advantage is city center to city center.

[Leo the Dog]

Originally Posted by chris08876

Anything Elon Musk touches becomes expensive.

Or requires big gov't subsidies.

[chris08876]

With LA, was watching this the other day, and the fashion district looks very active and alive. Watched in 2.0x speed to make it seem like a drivelapse. I swear this has a very Jamaica, Queen's vibe to it.

• Video Link

Places like Korea Town, Historic downtown (with its prewars) are awesome. I love the pedestrian density.

What I adore about LA are the various nodes that it has. Not just centralized in one area, but the action is spread all over. AND its good that developments aren't all concentrated downtown, but spread all over.

Originally Posted by CaliNative

Well, to deviate momentarily into transit, it hyperloop would probably be cheaper and 3-5 times faster than Jerry's choo choo. As far as trains go, instead of Jerry's choo choo, improve tracks and electrify the AMTRAK line between SD/LA/OAK/SF. 120-130 mph just fine. Run it through the central valley. Lots of commuters would use it to live in cheaper housing & work & play in SF & LA. Then build the hyperloop for a really fast transit that could replace planes. I don't think hyperloop tickets would be significantly more expensive than plane tickets. Advantage is city center to city center.

Yeah something needs to be done to reduce commute times. I read an article yesterday on SF regarding prices, and how some people have to live 80 miles away just to afford it. And these are good jobs, like nurses for example. Improving commuting time would be great. Transit (high speed rail) can make 60+ miles seem really quick if done right and with limited stops).

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Yeah people in The City probably dont need it.

It could however greatly alleviate inbound traffic at our fringe suburbs. The Bay Area has the highest percentage of 'megacommuters'(90 mins+) in the nation

Was a good article. Yeah just typing in San Francisco commute on google news will reveal a lot of stories. Its sad, but its getting so pricey that hour or two hour commutes can become the norm. That's why people who think cities should remain museums are selfish in nature IMO. Because they do not think of the community as a whole, but themselves only. NIMBY's hurt people through their anti-development policies and their actions really do cause an impact. That and San Francisco's bullcrap propositions that reduce the amount of office space that can be built. In my view, if you turn SF into a Monaco, it will lose a lot of its culture and character. Residents of all wealth classes need to be intermingled together. The starbucks and baby stroller crowd with limited makeup gets old pretty quickly.

SF should be a melting pot. That's what makes a city great, its people! And we need more housing, increased density to keep rents at bay and provide affordable housing to the masses.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

I live here and I'm getting on in years. I don't go downtown much after dark. But recently I played tour guide to 2 sets of out-of-town relatives who stayed near Union Square. I have to say I was shocked at how crowded and busy Union Square is long into the night these days: Literally Times Square busy--can't make a whole in the crowds on the sidewalk to pass through busy

Today around 11am I drove into The City and was annoyed by the crowds and traffic

Why didnt I take Lyft?

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Today around 11am I drove into The City and was annoyed by the crowds and traffic

Moraga's nice.

Just kidding (it IS nice but . . . .)