HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 3:23 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 3,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by caligrad View Post
The question wasn't whats dense and whats not. it was basically asking wheres the outline of your urban core (city Center) and suburbia. And as I said before, LA has more than one, but the most centrally located area that everyone flocks to is the area I outlined.
Point taken. And you're right, people do flock to that area of LA County that you've outlined; that basically is our "downtown"/city center, in essence.

Obviously LA has an official/historical downtown, and in recent years it has seen a renaissance with more residents, more restaurants, more bars, etc. But Angelenos still don't really depend on LA's downtown as much as residents of other cities depend on theirs. Downtown LA is just one of many nodes.
__________________
Patriotism is an inflated assertion of imaginary superiority.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 4:00 AM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 700
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
Point taken. And you're right, people do flock to that area of LA County that you've outlined; that basically is our "downtown"/city center, in essence.

Obviously LA has an official/historical downtown, and in recent years it has seen a renaissance with more residents, more restaurants, more bars, etc. But Angelenos still don't really depend on LA's downtown as much as residents of other cities depend on theirs. Downtown LA is just one of many nodes.
But, but, but, but I thought Downtown LA was clearly the center of region?

This is not necessarily to you but in particular to one poster in a previous thread who chided me for saying Downtown LA is not the clearly defined center of the area as I told him no such thing existed. He said I was a complete outsider that knew nothing about LA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 6:04 AM
the urban politician the urban politician is offline
The City
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 12,825
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
What are you talking about?

There is nothing suburban about Edgewater. Strip malls and large surface lots exist all over Chicago, even downtown. Also, Broadway is no more auto-centric than Wabash or Grand or whatever. The only "suburban" (which is a silly description btw) parts of Chicago are along the city's edge: the neighborhoods of Forest Glen, Mount Greenwood... place like that... but it's still "the city" (a term suburban people use, which I fucking despise)

This thread is really silly. The City of Chicago is just that. The suburbs are the suburbs. Pretty cut and dry.
I think he was referring more to prevailing patterns of development. You will see a strip mall in a core neighborhood of Chicago, but auto oriented development clearly becomes more predominant the further you are from the downtown core.

Certainly you recognize that an outer neighborhood of Chicago has more in common, by look and feel, to an older inner ring suburb than it would to, say, Lakeview?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 6:10 AM
PhilliesPhan's Avatar
PhilliesPhan PhilliesPhan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Philadelphia Area
Posts: 468
In Philadelphia's case, the only thing I would do is change the city's southwestern border with Delaware County. The first step would be to annex all of Essington and Tinicum, placing Philadelphia International Airport completely within the City of Philadelphia. After that, I would replace Cobbs Creek with the Darby Creek as the southwestern border. This would bring Upper Darby, Darby, Lansdowne, East Lansdowne, and Yeadon into the City of Philadelphia. One could also push for Clifton Heights, Aldan, Colwyn, and Collingdale to be included due to their urban character and public transit access.
__________________
"'Cause I live and breathe this Philadelphia Freedom
From the day that I was born, I've waved the flag"
-Elton John, "Philadelphia Freedom"

Cardinal O'Hara Class of 2013--->Temple University '18
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 2:24 PM
Tom Servo's Avatar
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 3,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by the urban politician View Post
I think he was referring more to prevailing patterns of development. You will see a strip mall in a core neighborhood of Chicago, but auto oriented development clearly becomes more predominant the further you are from the downtown core.

Certainly you recognize that an outer neighborhood of Chicago has more in common, by look and feel, to an older inner ring suburb than it would to, say, Lakeview?
Edgewater is in no way an "outer neighborhood".
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 4:26 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 3,125
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 View Post
But, but, but, but I thought Downtown LA was clearly the center of region?

This is not necessarily to you but in particular to one poster in a previous thread who chided me for saying Downtown LA is not the clearly defined center of the area as I told him no such thing existed. He said I was a complete outsider that knew nothing about LA.
It might sound paradoxical, but downtown LA is indeed the "heart" of LA, but unlike in other big cities, many LA residents don't depend on downtown like residents of other big cities depend on their downtowns. Take San Francisco; the big museums are downtown; in LA, they have some museums downtown, and of course The Broad opened recently there, but the big museums of LA like LACMA and The Getty are in the Miracle Mile and Brentwood respectively. In San Francisco, for high-end shopping, you go downtown. In LA, you go to Beverly Hills.

Downtown LA, though, still is the center of LA County. It's the hub for public transportation; it contains specialized business districts, like the Financial District, Fashion District, Toy District, Flower District, Jewelry District (which is slowly shrinking), Wholesale/Warehouse District... It's definitely the center of government for LA. I don't know if this fact still stands, but I've read that the LA Civic Center contains the highest concentration of government buildings outside of Washington, DC, by virtue of LA being the 2nd largest city in the US and by its being the county seat of the most populous county in the US. So, you have many city, county, state and federal buildings in the LA Civic Center. Many people do their jury duty in downtown LA, but oddly enough, even though I've lived in LA County all my life, I have yet to be assigned to downtown LA for jury duty. LA County has many other courthouses scattered throughout the county, I assume because of its large population; I think in most places, the courthouse is located in the county seat. I could be wrong, but I think even Orange County has few courthouses outside of Santa Ana. Incidentally, I've also read somewhere that LA County's court system is the busiest in the US, by virtue of LA County being the most populous county.

So yeah, downtown LA is the "center" of LA in many ways, but at least for the last several decades, it hasn't been *THE* center of LA.
__________________
Patriotism is an inflated assertion of imaginary superiority.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 5:38 PM
ChrisLA's Avatar
ChrisLA ChrisLA is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Woodland Hills Warner Center
Posts: 6,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
It might sound paradoxical, but downtown LA is indeed the "heart" of LA, but unlike in other big cities, many LA residents don't depend on downtown like residents of other big cities depend on their downtowns........................................
Downtown LA, though, still is the center of LA County. [B]It's the hub for public transportation; it contains specialized business districts, like the Financial District, Fashion District, Toy District, Flower District, Jewelry District (which is slowly shrinking), Wholesale/Warehouse District... It's definitely the center of government for LA.......................So yeah, downtown LA is the "center" of LA in many ways, but at least for the last several decades, it hasn't been *THE* center of LA.
You beat me to the punch, I was about to respond to the comment as well. It also depends on who you ask this question to, and where a person lives in the LA area.

Being that LA is so massive, and the fact you have hills that separate part of the city, some people will have no reason to go downtown. I now live in the San Fernando Valley in Woodland Hills. I have everything I need within a few miles of me. In fact I can walk to high end shopping at both the Topanga Plaza and The Village. The movie theater is also in walking distance, and we have the Warner Center Park less than a block away that offer up all types of entertainment.

I also have access to Ventura Blvd, which is the major commercial thoroughfare that runs miles and is the urban spine of the San Fernando Valley, and its full of retail shops and even high end restaurants from the east valley all to way up to Woodland Hills which is the very edge of the west valley. Plus for me since I'm live very close to the corridor of Ventura Blvd, I have good access to public transportation (Orange Line) that will take me to North Hollywood, and the Red Line subway heading to Hollywood Universal City, and Downtown LA.

With this being said, a lot of people in the SFV will only go over the hill to work, or for Entertainment that is only offered in which many valley folks consider the city or LA, and that is usually West LA, Santa Monica, and Downtown LA. As another former mentioned this is where the museums, are, Hollywood, West Hollywood, beaches, which of course the SFV lacks.

For me I grew up in south central LA, and downtown LA was always considered the urban center of LA for us. Most adults in my neighborhood worked downtown LA, or Hollywood, and many in my hood actually took the bus. The buses headed to downtown during rush hour were always pack like sardines. Even before the mutiplex theaters in the suburbs, we took the bus the see movies (yes in English) in downtown LA. There were no local theaters in our neighborhood so downtown LA was the only option.

It's true living in LA, one can live a life for the most part without having to visit downtown LA, but at the same time downtown LA acts a major and central part of the city. I honestly don't believe we could survive without it's existence.

Just to add that talking with relatives in the San Francisco Bay area, none of those who live across the bay in Oakland, and Castro Valley say they never go to San Francisco to shop, or anything else for the most part. I know when I first started visiting them back in the early 80's I had to get them to give me a tour of the city. They wouldn't even take BART, but would drive over the bridge.

One cousin of mine worked in the banking industry in downtown SF for years, but after she left that job, she once said she see no reason to go downtown or to the city when everything she needs is either near by or at the mall, or Walnut Creek. Not everyone depends on downtown, even in San Francisco.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 5:58 PM
ByTheBay ByTheBay is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 102
LA is pretty unique in this regard, correct me if I'm wrong but I feel like Downtown LA is the center of LA the metro whereas the Westside I feel is the center of LA the city. I think geography played a role in this, DTLA is at the eastern edge of the city limits but quite centered in the entire region. Everytime I visit LA I normally gravitate to areas close to Hollywood, West Hollywood, Fairfax District/Melrose, BH, CC, Westwood, etc. so when I think of LA as an outsider that is my primary thought.

If I were to give an outline of LA the city I would outline it with Sunset Blvd to the north, I-10 to the south, 405 to the west, and LA River to the east and this area does includes the "suburbs" of West Hollywood and Beverly Hills. Unfortunately I excluded Santa Monica because it acts more of a tourist destination like Miami Beach rather than a Brooklyn, but to include it wouldn't be a mistake either.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 6:15 PM
ChrisLA's Avatar
ChrisLA ChrisLA is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Woodland Hills Warner Center
Posts: 6,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByTheBay View Post
If I were to give an outline of LA the city I would outline it with Sunset Blvd to the north, I-10 to the south, 405 to the west, and LA River to the east and this area does includes the "suburbs" of West Hollywood and Beverly Hills. Unfortunately I excluded Santa Monica because it acts more of a tourist destination like Miami Beach rather than a Brooklyn, but to include it wouldn't be a mistake either.
LA is different things to different people. For me I would extend further south all way to the 105 Freeway, east to Alameda and west all the way to the beach. I would also include all of the east/west corridor of the San Fernando Valley from Ventura Blvd up to about Sherman Way, and I feel all of Van Nuys should be included.

Getting back over the hill, South Central does have a lot of single family homes, but they are tightly packed in. Within this area (South Central) of the city, you have what residents would refer to as The East side and other parts as The West Side. The east side is much older and you will usually find wood frame homes instead of stucco. You would also notice is has smaller streets and the commercial corridors are actually quite urban, and very gritty. The west side of south central has better looking neighborhoods, and is a bit more suburban in nature and is definitely more expensive. Yet IMO both would qualify as a functional part of the city.

Last edited by ChrisLA; Jun 25, 2016 at 6:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 6:45 PM
dktshb's Avatar
dktshb dktshb is offline
Environmental Sabotage
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by ByTheBay View Post
LA is pretty unique in this regard, correct me if I'm wrong but I feel like Downtown LA is the center of LA the metro whereas the Westside I feel is the center of LA the city. I think geography played a role in this, DTLA is at the eastern edge of the city limits but quite centered in the entire region. Everytime I visit LA I normally gravitate to areas close to Hollywood, West Hollywood, Fairfax District/Melrose, BH, CC, Westwood, etc. so when I think of LA as an outsider that is my primary thought.

If I were to give an outline of LA the city I would outline it with Sunset Blvd to the north, I-10 to the south, 405 to the west, and LA River to the east and this area does includes the "suburbs" of West Hollywood and Beverly Hills. Unfortunately I excluded Santa Monica because it acts more of a tourist destination like Miami Beach rather than a Brooklyn, but to include it wouldn't be a mistake either.

It is difficult to categorize West Hollywood as a suburb, even in quotes with a population density of around or over 18,000 people per square mile. I also wouldn't consider Santa Monica as just a tourist town or suburb with a pretty good diverse economy with a robust tech industry and a dense population of well over 10 thousand people per square mile.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 7:35 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by dktshb View Post
It is difficult to categorize West Hollywood as a suburb, even in quotes with a population density of around or over 18,000 people per square mile. I also wouldn't consider Santa Monica as just a tourist town or suburb with a pretty good diverse economy with a robust tech industry and a dense population of well over 10 thousand people per square mile.
Yea, Santa Monica is a beach town that's also has a lot off companies/office buildings.
It's kind of unique in that regard.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 7:37 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisLA View Post
LA is different things to different people. For me I would extend further south all way to the 105 Freeway, east to Alameda and west all the way to the beach. I would also include all of the east/west corridor of the San Fernando Valley from Ventura Blvd up to about Sherman Way, and I feel all of Van Nuys should be included.

Getting back over the hill, South Central does have a lot of single family homes, but they are tightly packed in. Within this area (South Central) of the city, you have what residents would refer to as The East side and other parts as The West Side. The east side is much older and you will usually find wood frame homes instead of stucco. You would also notice is has smaller streets and the commercial corridors are actually quite urban, and very gritty. The west side of south central has better looking neighborhoods, and is a bit more suburban in nature and is definitely more expensive. Yet IMO both would qualify as a functional part of the city.
I think Ventura Blvd should be included. It's such a major throughfare. It's one of the most impressive commercial streets I've seen honestly. It never ends.
North Hollywood should be included as well.

I'd say Burbank or Victory Blvd is a good dividing line for the north.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 7:41 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,785
Yea, the northen side of South Central is more older/urban than some give it credit for.

Boyle Heights is a important neighborhood, so I wouldn't say the LA river is the eastern boundary.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Jun 25, 2016, 9:16 PM
ardecila's Avatar
ardecila ardecila is offline
atomic
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: the city o'wind
Posts: 12,414
For Chicago, the western boundary is quite clearly the Des Plaines River and associated greenbelt/forest preserves. The north and south boundaries are a little trickier... On the north, roughly Touhy as a boundary but with a finger reaching up along the North Shore Channel to include Evanston. On the south, probably the Calumet River/Cal-Sag channel with clearly suburban places like Oak Lawn and Alsip cut out. Somewhat similar to the central mass of the 1900 map below, with a few 1910s/1920s additions.

If you want a more precise definition of "walkable places", you probably want to look at the urbanized area map from 1950... Which did not form a very coherent footprint, with a large core that corresponded to the streetcar network and then large tentacles of urbanity along the C&NW, Burlington, IC, and South Shore railroad lines.

Culturally speaking, city limits definitely matter. Suburban residents can often craft laws and policies to ensure a homogenous mix of people and income, whereas the City of Chicago is the only polity that has consistently had to grapple with a diverse mix of races, cultures and incomes and the problems therein. The American definition of urbanity usually includes a strong focus on diversity, so I think it's fair to note this.


Src:Chicago Planning History
__________________
la forme d'une ville change plus vite, hélas! que le coeur d'un mortel...

Last edited by ardecila; Jun 25, 2016 at 9:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2016, 1:12 PM
tayser's Avatar
tayser tayser is offline
Vires acquirit eundo
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,047
The North American classification doesn't apply to the language or the geography we use in Australia.

In short: the city = the urban heart/centre of a city (which in turn = metropolitan area), suburb: everything that is part of the metro but not the urban heart/centre.

"Suburban" is an adjective that would correlate loosely with the intense/strict city versus suburbs classification that's throughout North America, but that's about as close as it gets.

If you want to refer specific to the local council area, you generally must use its proper name to make it clear - City of Melbourne, City of Yarra, City of Moreland etc. When you talk about "Melbourne", you're talking about the metro area, "the city" refers to the centre of town (a.k.a the CBD) and Southbank - the area just on the other side of the river from the CBD and where the tallest buildings in the city area - is a suburb.
__________________
Real man drives a manual, smart man takes Public Transport
"America gave the world George Bush, France gave the world the ménage à trois... Game Over."

Editor/Admin at Urban Melbourne
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2016, 4:47 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila View Post
For Chicago, the western boundary is quite clearly the Des Plaines River and associated greenbelt/forest preserves. The north and south boundaries are a little trickier... On the north, roughly Touhy as a boundary but with a finger reaching up along the North Shore Channel to include Evanston. On the south, probably the Calumet River/Cal-Sag channel with clearly suburban places like Oak Lawn and Alsip cut out. Somewhat similar to the central mass of the 1900 map below, with a few 1910s/1920s additions.

If you want a more precise definition of "walkable places", you probably want to look at the urbanized area map from 1950... Which did not form a very coherent footprint, with a large core that corresponded to the streetcar network and then large tentacles of urbanity along the C&NW, Burlington, IC, and South Shore railroad lines.

Culturally speaking, city limits definitely matter. Suburban residents can often craft laws and policies to ensure a homogenous mix of people and income, whereas the City of Chicago is the only polity that has consistently had to grapple with a diverse mix of races, cultures and incomes and the problems therein. The American definition of urbanity usually includes a strong focus on diversity, so I think it's fair to note this.


Src:Chicago Planning History
Id agree with touhy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Jun 26, 2016, 4:54 PM
ChiMIchael ChiMIchael is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 191
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
What are you talking about?

There is nothing suburban about Edgewater. Strip malls and large surface lots exist all over Chicago, even downtown. Also, Broadway is no more auto-centric than Wabash or Grand or whatever. The only "suburban" (which is a silly description btw) parts of Chicago are along the city's edge: the neighborhoods of Forest Glen, Mount Greenwood... place like that... but it's still "the city" (a term suburban people use, which I fucking despise)

This thread is really silly. The City of Chicago is just that. The suburbs are the suburbs. Pretty cut and dry.
I'd say South Deering is suburban too, but that's pretty much the boondocks of the city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2016, 7:33 AM
Swede's Avatar
Swede Swede is offline
YIMBY co-founder
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: sol.III.eu.se.08
Posts: 6,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
BTW, I created a publicly-editable google map. If you want to map your city, ADD IT HERE.

Please do not remove other people's additions. Add your own but don't delete.
I added three for Stockholm.
One for what I tihnk most people mean when they say "Stan" or "Innerstan" i.e. the city or the inner city.
One for a stricter definition that's clearly based on being pre-modernist planning; Stenstaden i.e. the Stone City (as in buildings built with bricks and stone, not with steel and conrete.
One for what we in Stockholm actually do call "City". Which when translated basically means downtown/CBD.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tayser View Post
The North American classification doesn't apply to the language or the geography we use in Australia.

In short: the city = the urban heart/centre of a city (which in turn = metropolitan area), suburb: everything that is part of the metro but not the urban heart/centre.

"Suburban" is an adjective that would correlate loosely with the intense/strict city versus suburbs classification that's throughout North America, but that's about as close as it gets.

If you want to refer specific to the local council area, you generally must use its proper name to make it clear - City of Melbourne, City of Yarra, City of Moreland etc. When you talk about "Melbourne", you're talking about the metro area, "the city" refers to the centre of town (a.k.a the CBD) and Southbank - the area just on the other side of the river from the CBD and where the tallest buildings in the city area - is a suburb.
Word. What tayser wrote also applies to Sweden.
__________________
Forumers met so far:
Huopa, Nightsky, Jo, wolkenkrabber, ThisSideofSteinway, jacksom, New Jack City, LeCom, Ellatur, Jan, Dennis, Ace, Bardamu, AtlanticaC5, Ringil, Dysfunctional, stacey, karakhal, ch1le, Hviid, staff, kjetilab, Þróndeimr, queetz, FREKI, sander, Blue Viking, nomels, Mantas, ristov, Rafal_T, khaan, Chilenofuturista, Jonte Myra, safta20, AW, Pas, Jarmo K, IceCheese, Sideshow_Bob, sk, Ingenioren, Ayreonaut, Silver Creations, Hasse78, Svartmetall
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Jun 27, 2016, 10:30 AM
mousquet's Avatar
mousquet mousquet is offline
that prick
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Nimbyland Paris, Museum France
Posts: 2,452
It'd still be interesting to try this for Paris, but it's not an easy thing to draw accurately at all.

I think the term of city here would simply refer to all contiguous dense areas of the core of the metro. Say the entire set of districts properly served by the mass transit network and where all dwellers live in apartment buildings, or possibly in row houses, but of course that latter kind of housing is much less in use than condominiums or rental apartments over the actual dense core.

So, that would comprise the entire central city bounded by the périphérique, the beltway physically segregating Central Paris proper, and some suburban municipalities adjacent to it. A bunch of them, but not all yet.

To try to understand what follows, you need to know the inner metro area sprawls over 4 administrative territories called départements. Let's roughly take those as the counterparts of what a county is in the US to make it simpler.
Those 4 central départements are:
1 - Central Paris, that's both a municipality and a so-called département on its own.
2 - Hauts-de-Seine, west of it.
3 - Seine-Saint-Denis, north and northeast.
4 - Val-de-Marne, south and southeast.

Wait, here's the Paris region.


https://aghg.wordpress.com/2011/12/0...france-schema/

Now you can recognize them more easily.

In fact, the real dense urban fabric of the core mainly expands to the west, over Hauts-de-Seine. Municipalities like Boulogne-Billancourt, Neuilly-sur-Seine, Levallois-Perret and just about all those of Hauts-de-Seine literally neighboring Central Paris are obviously some parts of the very 'city'. The dense fabric there is actually continuous, so in many cases over these areas, you don't realize whether you stand on the territory of Central Paris or in an adajacent town whose density is just the same. Most these Hauts-de-Seine so-called suburbs feel that way, fairly comfortable, if not desirable. Neuilly-sur-Seine I just mentioned is even downright a serious bit of a pretty large billionaire mile to the west of the city.

Things are very different and rougher to the east where most municipalities of the inner ring are still in the need of massive urban upgrades. Montreuil for instance, as pretty much everything in Seine-Saint-Denis.

Val-de-Marne is midway between Hauts-de-Seine and Seine-Saint-Denis. You could certainly call Vincennes and Saint-Mandé, maybe even Charenton-le-Pont the city proper, but not Ivry-sur-Seine or Gentilly in my opinion, cause they don't feel dense enough and are still a bit messy in their urban forms.

Um, bon, in a nutshell, you're only supposed to understand that the urban environment of Central Paris, hence of the city is expanding over the adjacent municipalities still called some suburbs, and that this process is yet much more advanced to the west side than it is to the east.
__________________
psst... A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. (John 13:34)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Jul 4, 2016, 10:27 PM
caligrad's Avatar
caligrad caligrad is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 1,030
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
Point taken. And you're right, people do flock to that area of LA County that you've outlined; that basically is our "downtown"/city center, in essence.

Obviously LA has an official/historical downtown, and in recent years it has seen a renaissance with more residents, more restaurants, more bars, etc. But Angelenos still don't really depend on LA's downtown as much as residents of other cities depend on theirs. Downtown LA is just one of many nodes.
Yeah you're right about that. With the boom in residential construction downtown and adaptive reuse. Besides having the tallest towers, downtown will finally become the solid center it should be.
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 4:43 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.