Los Angeles has a San Francisco at its heart

[a very long weekend]

downtown SD has a slower vide more for families, visiting bros/military types, and sububarns enjoying a ball game.

DTLA is a hardcore place unlike anywhere else this side of san fransisco or tijuana. secret bars, wild drug use, finish at house parties. no real comparison.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

I don't agree with your assessment of DTSD though. Surely you don't believe this? Do you imagine it this way, or have you spent any considerable time in DTSD? I'm trying to figure out how DTSD is in any way suburban.

Some of the run-of-the-mill amenities off the top of my head:
Balboa Park - historic sites, museums and a world class Zoo
San Diego Bay - USS Midway, Star of India, Soviet Sub, cruise liners, Horneblower and Flagship, ferry to Coronado.
The symphony/opera
Gaslamp Quarter with preservation of historic buildings (read the plaques on the walls, cool stuff!)
Little Italy
New public parks in Downtown - Horton Plaza - Lane Field - Waterfront Park - and parks planned in the East Village.
Padres - PetCo Park and all the other concerts/attractions that brings with it
Top 5 convention center in America
Santa Fe Depot, historic, with direct rail access to OC/DTLA, commuter rail to North County and 3 LRT lines ($2.1 billion extension to UCSD/La Jolla UTC under construction now), connecting inner suburban SD to the core.

Is Balboa Park considered in or part of downtown San Diego? I love Balboa Park, it's one of my favorite areas of San Diego, but I never considered it to be part of downtown. I know it's adjacent to downtown...

I've been lurking off and on in this thread, and I think it's funny that now San Diego is being compared to LA; the cities have completely different histories and have played different roles in the history of California, so in my opinion they don't compare. Both have very different vibes from each other, too. There are some physical similarities, sure, but there are definitely differences. I'm old enough now to remember when the Gaslamp was a totally rundown area with a lot of homeless and drug addicts and you didn't want to walk around there at night, and this was back when all of San Diego still used those ugly yellow streetlamps that seemed really dim. As a teen in the 1980s, downtown San Diego to me felt like downtown Long Beach... in other words, both downtowns back then felt like the downtowns of a medium-sized city. When I was in my 20s in the 1990s, I knew a few people from LA who went to UCSD, and I asked them how they liked it, and they both said that they liked San Diego, that it feels like "an overgrown small town." To me it still kinda feels that way, and I think that's fine. Again, it goes along with its history. For the first half of the 20th century, San Diego basically was a relatively small city. It used to be a bawdy navy town, with the industries that supported that, like prostitution in the Gaslamp...

LA's downtown has more grittier sections because it's still a "working" downtown, in the sense that there's still industry and manufacturing there. There's the Fashion District (which used to be called the Garment District), the Toy District, the Wholesale Flower District...

OK I'm rambling and there seems to be no cohesion to what I'm typing, my apologies, I'm still waking up.

I was gonna make a point, but now I've lost my train of thought. I think what I was going to lead up to was that if downtown San Diego seems "suburban" to some, as some have said, it's because for the longest time, it was the downtown of a small city. I think that was the point I was trying to make; downtown San Diego never had the industry that LA had/has. It was basically a Navy town, and of course San Diego is continuing to evolve.

To go on another tangent, this is why I think it's funny that San Jose boosters try to make it out that their downtown is evolving and becoming more highly urban. I'm like, "is it?" San Jose may now have a million people, but for the longest time, San Jose was a small city and the county seat of what used to be a very agricultural county. This is why Orange County is the way it is, Orange County well into the 1970s was still very undeveloped and agricultural; I remember when they still had strawberry fields near South Coast Plaza. Santa Ana is the county seat and will be the only city in OC that has anything remotely "urban" in the whole county. It will never be more urban because most of Orange County developed after WWII.

OK I'm rambling again.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

downtown SD has a slower vide more for families, visiting bros/military types, and sububarns enjoying a ball game.

DTLA is a hardcore place unlike anywhere else this side of san fransisco or tijuana. secret bars, wild drug use, finish at house parties. no real comparison.

The skid row district really is the shining example. Not many places like it in the U.S.. One minute you're in a well to do area, and just a few blocks, you transition into a 3rd world vibe.

My point is, sometimes extreme transitions across the wealth spectrum can occur, and a block or two can make all the difference. Some cities exhibit this characteristic.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by chris08876

The skid row district really is the shining example. Not many places like it in the U.S.. One minute you're in a well to do area, and just a few blocks, you transition into a 3rd world vibe.

My point is, sometimes extreme transitions across the wealth spectrum can occur, and a block or two can make all the difference. Some cities exhibit this characteristic.

Well when one examines socio economic data, it's clear to see that there is a vast difference between SF and LA regardless as to population density similarities.

Density alone does not suddenly make that part of LA an equivalent of SF. Laughable.

Downtown LA Zip Codes
by Average Household Income:
90026 $71,459
90015 $56,573
90031 $50,597
90013 $53,527
90012 $52,569
90014 $51,769
90023 $44,934
90017 $43,541
90006 $39,123
90033 $38,778
90011 $38,870
90021 $37,432
90007 $33,382

Downtown SF Zip Codes
by Average Household Income:
94105 $247,624
94107 $151,928
94111 $146,520
94104 $143,978
94109 $106,099
94133 $97,367
94103 $90,489
94108 $86,638
94102 $56,397

94105 in the heart of Downtown SF where Salesforce Tower is nearing completion is apparently as affluent as 90077( Bel Air) $251,632

That's beasty

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Well when one examines socio economic data, it's clear to see that there is a vast difference between SF and LA regardless as to population density similarities.

Density alone does not suddenly make that part of LA an equivalent of SF. Laughable.

Downtown LA Zip Codes
by Average Household Income:
90026 $71,459
90015 $56,573
90031 $50,597
90013 $53,527
90012 $52,569
90014 $51,769
90023 $44,934
90017 $43,541
90006 $39,123
90033 $38,778
90011 $38,870
90021 $37,432
90007 $33,382

Downtown SF Zip Codes
by Average Household Income:
94105 $247,624
94107 $151,928
94111 $146,520
94104 $143,978
94109 $106,099
94133 $97,367
94103 $90,489
94108 $86,638
94102 $56,397

94105 in the heart of Downtown SF where Salesforce Tower is nearing completion is apparently as affluent as 90077( Bel Air) $251,632

That's beasty

But wealth wasn't the point of the original post. It was about density and "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."

Not wealth, which you seem to be very obsessed with, because you constantly post about it.

[badrunner]

Wealth distribution is obviously very different between the two cities, and it's not a new trend. As early as a hundred years ago DTLA was losing wealthy residents fleeing for the suburbs and beaches and hills (Hancock Park was considered a suburb back then). Maybe a foreshadowing of national trends in the coming decades.

Until recently DTLA wasn't even considered a residential neighborhood. We're fortunate that there was enough industry and commercial activity to keep downtown from being completely hollowed out. Even with the current renaissance I don't expect the wealthy residents of LA to give up their hillside mansions and beach houses to go live in a downtown condo.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

But wealth wasn't the point of the original post. It was about density and "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."

Or maybe it's the fact that less than 10% of LA workers commute by public transportation?

Los Angeles City
Means of Transportation
For Commuters, 2015:
Drive Alone 70.3%
Public Transit 9.4%
Carpooled 8.7%

San Francisco City
Means of Transportation
For Commuters, 2015:
Public Transit 40.2%
Drove Alone 33.5%
Carpooled 8.5%

Not wealth, which you seem to be very obsessed with, because you constantly post about it.

Oh really? I wasnt aware that all those glistening condo buildings under construction in DT LA were for the poor and middle class.

Y'all deserve a nobel peace prize.

Furthermore I was responding to a post about wealth. Get over it.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

Is Balboa Park considered in or part of downtown San Diego? I love Balboa Park, it's one of my favorite areas of San Diego, but I never considered it to be part of downtown. I know it's adjacent to downtown...

No it's not considered part of downtown. It's more like the San Diego version of Exposition park or Griffith park. While I enjoy downtown San Diego I agree with the poster who said it doesn't do a good job of engaging the waterfront. It's basically a concrete lined deep water harbor. The location isn't ideal. A sandy beach, a pier, a boardwalk could have done wonders for the waterfront. Everything you associate with the classic Southern California beach lifestyle is miles away.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Or maybe it's the fact that less than 10% of LA workers commute by public transportation?

Los Angeles City
Means of Transportation
For Commuters, 2015:
Drive Alone 70.3%
Public Transit 9.4%
Carpooled 8.7%

San Francisco City
Means of Transportation
For Commuters, 2015:
Public Transit 40.2%
Drove Alone 33.5%
Carpooled 8.5%

That's a really dumb stat. 500 square miles vs 49 square miles...

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by badrunner

That's a really dumb stat. 500 square miles vs 49 square miles...

No because even by sheer number SF(870,000) tops LA(4,000,000)

Workers who commute by public transit, 2015:
San Francisco City 287,346
Los Angeles City 198,036

Good luck explaining that.

[badrunner]

Your numbers don't add up.

9.4% of 4,000,000 is not 198,036

Anyway, to bring this full circle, the numbers can partially be explained by what this whole thread was originally about:

Originally Posted by 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
...
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]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

downtown SD has a slower vide more for families, visiting bros/military types, and sububarns enjoying a ball game.

DTLA is a hardcore place unlike anywhere else this side of san fransisco or tijuana. secret bars, wild drug use, finish at house parties. no real comparison.

Yeah, the appeal is very different.

I can see people preferring downtown SD, it's almost like a Century City-type environment in parts. Clean, modern, landscaped.

[the urban politician]

Wow, a little SF vs LA spat brewing here? Very interesting, let's see more!

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Your numbers don't add up.

9.4% of 4,000,000 is not 198,036

Right so let me clarify. 9.4% of the 2.050 million employed persons age 16+ in the city LA is 198,036.

Anyway, to bring this full circle, the numbers can partially be explained by what this whole thread was originally about:

The premise that transportation funding is denied due to perceptions of low population density of a city is quite frankly, bizzare.

Isnt LA expaning it's Metro as we speak?

Furthermore whose denying funding? Dont most projects begin at city level?

[badrunner]

So, by that measure you're saying that 718,364 of 870,000 people in San Francisco are employed persons age 16+? (40% of 718,364 is 287,346)

That seems highly unlikely. I don't know where you're getting the numbers but it's not adding up.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by a very long weekend

downtown SD has a slower vide more for families, visiting bros/military types, and sububarns enjoying a ball game.

DTLA is a hardcore place unlike anywhere else this side of san fransisco or tijuana. secret bars, wild drug use, finish at house parties. no real comparison.

Yeah, DTLA is filled with many interesting and eclectic scenes, lifestyles and countercultures, that all collide in a pretty remarkable eclectic way.

Additionally, there is an abundance of stunning century-old architecture and distinct and ethnic enclaves throughout. And yeah, a hardcore untamed element that good or bad adds to the distinct feel of the place.

Furthermore, It seems to have become the choice place to stay for many of the international tourists that come to LA every day, which could be why DTLA (with Broadway being its epicenter) appears to be going thru a retail renaissance. It seems like weekly we get announcements of flagship stores and/or original first in the nation retail stores being developed Downtown.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

But wealth wasn't the point of the original post. It was about density and "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."

Not wealth, which you seem to be very obsessed with, because you constantly post about it.

Funny, I was just thinking how this person always posts about the wealth in SF as if we are all unaware that there is a lot of wealthy people who work and reside there. Certainly it is worth noting and interesting but it certainly isn't on my radar regarding what makes SF or any city interesting. I love LA's immigrant, ethnic, working class bones and I couldn't care less if we have a smaller percentage of the wealthiest in our overall population demographic.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by badrunner

So, by that measure you're saying that 718,364 of 870,000 people in San Francisco are employed persons age 16+? (40% of 718,364 is 287,346)

That seems highly unlikely. I don't know where you're getting the numbers but it's not adding up.

Hey take it up with the Census Bureau.

Here's a screenshot from factfinder.census.gov


The Bureau says there are 713,409 workers in SF ages 16+--they dont all necessarily reside in SF.

Likewise 2,095,249 persons ages 16+ work in the city of LA--they dont all necessarily live there.

Speaking of which, that means SF has 15,000 jobs per sq mile whilst LA has about 4,000 jobs per sq mile. Interesting.

[pizzaguy]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Or maybe it's the fact that less than 10% of LA workers commute by public transportation?

Los Angeles City
Means of Transportation
For Commuters, 2015:
Drive Alone 70.3%
Public Transit 9.4%
Carpooled 8.7%

San Francisco City
Means of Transportation
For Commuters, 2015:
Public Transit 40.2%
Drove Alone 33.5%
Carpooled 8.5%

Source?

edit: source above

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by dktshb

Funny, I was just thinking how this person always posts about the wealth in SF as if we are all unaware that there is a lot of wealthy people who work and reside there. Certainly it is worth noting and interesting but it certainly isn't on my radar regarding what makes SF or any city interesting. I love LA's immigrant, ethnic, working class bones and I couldn't care less if we have a smaller percentage of the wealthiest in our overall population demographic.

No but you need to care because amenities and investment dont follow poor people. Sorry.

LA can never and will never have a world class downtown at a street level so long as the westside is LAs Manhattan while downtown is an outer borough.

ijs