HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 5:36 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 556
Los Angeles has a San Francisco at its heart

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.

Last edited by CaliNative; Jul 18, 2017 at 6:08 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 10:58 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 14,659
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 4:16 PM
NativeOrange's Avatar
NativeOrange NativeOrange is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Westminster/Huntington Beach, CA
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 4:50 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 14,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by NativeOrange View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 5:14 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The Tropic of Sir Galahad
Posts: 30,367
Does San Francisco have Los Angeles at as its extremities?
__________________
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.Elie Wiesel
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 5:37 PM
emathias's Avatar
emathias emathias is offline
Adoptive Chicagoan
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: River North, Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 4,416
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
Does San Francisco have Los Angeles at as its extremities?
Yes.
__________________
I like travel and photography - check out my Flickr page.
My current camera gear: Nikon D750, Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 zoom, Nikon 50mm f1.4 AF, Nikkor 135mm f3.5 manual focus, Nikon PB-4 Bellows
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 7:06 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,118
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).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 7:13 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 14,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by tech12 View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 7:57 PM
eschaton eschaton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 1,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 8:42 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 9:09 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 14,659
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 9:13 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 3,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
Does San Francisco have Los Angeles at as its extremities?
The metro does in a way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 9:18 PM
Pedestrian's Avatar
Pedestrian Pedestrian is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 3,452
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 10:17 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,909
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 11:36 PM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: West Palm Beach/ Stuart, FL
Posts: 3,101
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.
__________________
There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
-Aldous Huxley

Continue improving until the end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted Jul 18, 2017, 11:49 PM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
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).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 12:04 AM
tech12's Avatar
tech12 tech12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Oakland
Posts: 3,118
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 12:59 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 556
Quote:
Originally Posted by MolsonExport View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 1:36 AM
pizzaguy pizzaguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 249
Density =/= urbanity

Daly City is the second densest city in the state (min. pop., 100,000) and it's hardly an urban paradise.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted Jul 19, 2017, 2:10 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
Abiogenesis
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 20,840
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.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:11 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.