Los Angeles has a San Francisco at its heart

[CaliNative]

Believe it or not, the central 49 square miles of Los Angeles (comprising DTLA, the near east, north, west & south sides) have about the same population and density as San Francisco (also 49 square miles). 800,000 people, almost 15,000 people per square mile. Anyone who has walked some of these neighborhoods in L.A., e.g. Koreatown and MacArthur Park, realizes this. Enough with the "low density L.A." myth. The high densities also extend outward. The entire built area of the L.A. basin has greater overall population density than all other American metro areas, including the greater New York metro area (although Manhattan is the local density champ for the U.S.). The reason why this is important is that L.A. transit & other projects have sometimes in the past been denied adequate funding because of the "low density" myth.

[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.

[NativeOrange]

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.

Bus ridership is declining, but rail ridership is increasing. Overall, with such a robust bus system, that leads to overall declines. The new lines that they are building are exceeding ridership estimates and are in fact contributing to higher rail ridership numbers than previous years.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by NativeOrange

Bus ridership is declining, but rail ridership is increasing. Overall, with such a robust bus system, that leads to overall declines. The new lines that they are building are exceeding ridership estimates and are in fact contributing to higher rail ridership numbers than previous years.

What does it matter if the transit riders are on rails or tires? You look at transit ridership overall, obviously, not cherry-picking a small portion of overall transit.

And obviously the rail ridership isn't going to decline, given that it started from a base of 0.

[MolsonExport]

Does San Francisco have Los Angeles at as its extremities?

[emathias]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Does San Francisco have Los Angeles at as its extremities?

Yes.

[tech12]

LA is really dense (for an american city) in the core, and plenty of people fail to realize that...but, there's not a "San Francisco" there. That's all LA, and LA does density in kind of a different style than SF does, or Chicago does, or NYC, etc, etc. LA has less wall-to-wall construction than SF, and the absolute densest parts of LA (measured by census tract) are more scattered (in Westlake, Koreatown, and the historic core too, if i remember right), less dense, and less extensive than the absolute densest parts of SF (which make up a contiguous area stretching through the tenderloin, nob hill and chinatown).

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by tech12

LA is really dense (for an american city) in the core, and plenty of people fail to realize that...but, there's not a "San Francisco" there.

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.

[eschaton]

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).

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by eschaton

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).

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.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by eschaton

LA has 2.84 people per household. San Francisco has 2.3 people. It's a gap, but it's not a yawning one.

Well, I was referring to core comparisons, not citywide comparisons. I wouldn't expect there to be big citywide differences in household size, but I would expect big differences between, say, Rampart in LA and Nob Hill in SF.

I agree with everything else, though.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Does San Francisco have Los Angeles at as its extremities?

The metro does in a way.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by eschaton

Even the use of palm as the street tree of choice sucks (although I know they are being phased out).

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.

[LA21st]

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.

The core of LA is more multi family buidling than houses.

[jd3189]

LA's densest core neighborhoods reminds me of a significant denser form of equivalent neighborhoods in Miami like South Beach and Little Havana. They all have the similar streetcar-suburban apartment buildings and single-family homes close to one another. However, LA is by far more dense and expansive in its layout compared to Miami. The latter is still dense by Sunbelt standards but it didn't develop to the same extent. South Beach can only compete with Santa Monica and the other SoCal beach towns.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Well, I was referring to core comparisons, not citywide comparisons. I wouldn't expect there to be big citywide differences in household size, but I would expect big differences between, say, Rampart in LA and Nob Hill in SF.

You might be surprised about SF. SF's core doesn't just include wealthy areas like Nob Hill, that have smaller household sizes. It also includes very poor areas with larger household sizes (due to more families, and due to extra people getting crammed into units, to afford rent): the tenderloin, chinatown, and parts of SOMA, which have a ton of SRO units, tons of rent-controlled units, and some public housing units too. More areas in core SF are like that too, depending on what your definition of "core SF" is (like the Fillmore projects, much of the mission district, etc).

[tech12]

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.

lol speak for yourself. In my opinion, SF gets plenty of sun, and shade is a good thing (i grew up there and used to work outside all day for a living, so i'm pretty familiar with SF's weather), especially to the east of twin peaks, where the fog is less common...and actual weather stats back me up on that. It may have foggy/windy and cool summers (which confuses a lot of visitors, though even foggy days see warm midday sunshine, much of the time), and it may be one the cloudiest big cities in California or compared to the southwest/a desert climate, but it's a pretty sunny place compared to most of America, europe, canada, etc.

But i agree that palm trees are nice.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Does San Francisco have Los Angeles at as its extremities?

If we ignore city boundaries, actually yes. Incredibly, the overall suburban densities in L.A. metro are higher than that in S.F. metro. Highest in nation in fact.

[pizzaguy]

Density =/= urbanity

Daly City is the second densest city in the state (min. pop., 100,000) and it's hardly an urban paradise.

[chris08876]

LA just needs to work on the transit. Overhaul essentially. The city is ripe to grow and become larger than ever. The boom right now is the biggest I believe since the 80's. I hope it continues. Lots of towers, lots of high quality mid rises compromising of mixed used going up. Lots of potential, and I wish the best of luck to the region. If the transit is set in motion, will really encourage development, especially around light rail nodes.

LA I'd say is one of the few U.S. cities that has several mini-cities within the city limits. Increased density of these will give it a unique, aesthetic look. It's not just centralized in other words.