So how does LA's lack of true urban vibe compared to Chicago and NYC make you feel?

[Chicano3000X]

I loved Chicago. I was there for a long time. I also admired NYC.

L.A. is my original home and I'm proud I'm from there. Comming back though made me realize what it could have been if it wasn't for the fools that decided on dismantling the trollys. Or the idea of creating huge suburbs. I know urban doesn't necessarily mean giant sky scrapers. But sucks that people refer to L.A. as "A giant suburb in search of a city".

And it also saddens me how neglected downtown has been until recently. If it was more cared for, it would have been the #1 spot to go in L.A.

[Kingofthehill]

The extensive streetcar (yellow and redcars) network was the precise reason why the city is as sprawled as it is today. You had redcars going all the way out to Redlands. With that said, it is worth mentioning that even during LA's pre-war heydey, transit ridership lagged behind comparable East Coast cities, the city embraced the automobile (and built the necessary infrastructure to accommodate it) before many other cities, and the bulk of LA's nabes were of the bungalow/cottage and duplex variety. Furthermore, LA's streetcars had long been in decline by the time suburbanization and white flight was in full effect.

While there are a few truly functionally urban nodes with significant multistory development (mainly in the triangle bounded by Downtown-Hollywood-Miracle Mile, which includes Koreatown, Westlake, and Pico-Union, among other nabes), such places were and are the exception, and not the norm. Curiously enough, alot of LA has densified following the dissolution of its streetcar system; Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Palms, Westwood/Brentwood, the lower Valley, and Mid-City sections, to make no mention of the adjacent South Bay, had thousands of dense, multifamily units (primarily in the form of Dingbats) created in the absence of mass transit.

Finally, I don't feel LA lacks an urban vibe at all. Perhaps if you are strictly speaking about aesthetics and build form, but LA's cultural offerings and amenities are the envy of many cities.

[hudkina]

While it may not have the skyscraper density that you find in New York or Chicago, downtown L.A. does have a classic urban density that few other cities have. The problem is that downtown L.A. has a dichotomy of sorts between the historic eastern portion of downtown and the taller, but more bland, sunbelt-oriented western portion of downtown. People often don't realize just how large a collection of historic early 20th century architecture exists in downtown Los Angeles, because most people think of Downtown as being over by the freeway.

If more development focus were given to the urban fabric along Hill, Broadway, Spring, Main, etc., Los Angeles would easily earn its place among the top downtowns in the U.S.

[Reverberation]

What about Miracle Mile?

[dimondpark]

I dont go to Los Angeles in order to compare it to other cities. I go to LA because I want to be in LA and partake in what LA has to offer, which is more than I can ever hope to accomplish btw.

lol

[BrandonJXN]

People love to compare Los Angeles to other cities and I'll never understand why.

'Well..New York does this THIS way and Chicago does things THAT way but LA does things differently than those two cities. Tiny skyline and it's too big and so on and so fourth.'

Well..yeah. LA is LA just like NYC is NYC and Chicago is Chicago. It might not be one's first choice when asked what's a urban city in the US but LA is very much so.

[M II A II R II K]

L.A. could have what Shanghai or Hong Kong has with some skyscrapers but not so much skyscraper density with endless canyons on the streets.

[10023]

In before the lock.

[antinimby]

^ I'd give it three pages max.

[the urban politician]

Originally Posted by 10023

In before the lock.

Me too!

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

People love to compare Los Angeles to other cities and I'll never understand why.

'Well..New York does this THIS way and Chicago does things THAT way but LA does things differently than those two cities. Tiny skyline and it's too big and so on and so fourth.'

Well..yeah. LA is LA just like NYC is NYC and Chicago is Chicago. It might not be one's first choice when asked what's a urban city in the US but LA is very much so.

seems about right

[krudmonk]

you mean lack of Eastern U.S urban vibe?

[IconRPCV]

I happen to live downtown in a loft in a 1919 commercial building, as do thousands of other Los Angelenos. There is a thriving vibrant community downtown that is only expanding.

What can I say other than LA is LA and trying to compare it to NYC or Chicago is silly and kinda fruitless.

[mt_climber13]

LA will never, ever, neverever be a dense urban city, ever. The damage is done.

[Quixote]

That's probably the most politically incorrect question you could ask in the City Discussions forum.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

LA will never, ever, neverever be a dense urban city, ever. The damage is done.

Is it really? That's too bad then.

[mhays]

You can always retrofit and densify. LA has done quite a bit of that. I bet a lot of multifamily districts weren't built as first generation greenfield development.

That said, hopefully they'll do more highrise zoning, and lower the parking requirements, which I've heard are absurdly high.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by wakamesalad

LA will never, ever, neverever be a dense urban city, ever. The damage is done.

But it is dense. The problem (from an urban perspective) is that it lacks the really high, centralized peak densities & employment centre of a place like Chicago, which makes transit service much harder to implement.

Right now I think the two biggest problems facing Los Angeles' urban environment are the lack of adequate rail service and the unimpressive retail strips (most of them look like this - I'd like to see these buildings gradually replaced by say, 5-10 storey ones with retail at grade and apartments above, with LRT/streetcars running on the street).

Thankfully, LA seems to be one of the few American cities growing inward instead of outwards, and actively expanding its rail transit. In a few decades Los Angeles should start to resemble something of a North American Tokyo. Uniformly moderate to high density residential areas spread evenly over a vast area intersected by bustling retail & transit corridors, and multiple high-density commercial centres all connected by subway, LRT, and commuter rail.

[BnaBreaker]

I disliked Los Angeles for a long, long time. Then, I actually visited there.

LA is far more dense, dynamic, and urban than most people, even many Los Angelinos, realize.

[Illithid Dude]

I dunno, I think it is urban. There's downtown Santa Monica, DT, Beverly Hills, Hollywood, West Hollywood, Pasadena. All of those places are just as three dimensional and urban as any other city. Then, the interesting thing with L.A., is you have these linear urban paths, these retail streets that you see all through the city. For example, Wilshire, or Fairfax, or Sunset. All of those streets are urban in a linear way. They are dense, have condos, retails, but only down that street. Once you branch of the street it becomes less urban, though this is changing rapidly. Frankly, if the urban form of L.A. continues along the path it is walking now for the next five years, it will be just as good, if not better, as any other city in the U.S.