Quote:
Originally Posted by caligrad
LA is an interesting monster. I live here so I know exactly what you're asking.
I know chargercarl said "there isn't really one for LA"
Well that's true and false. In a sense, there's more than one.
For all of LA county, I think the genuine consensus for "The City" when Angelenos say they are going "downtown" or "to the city", they are referring to everything
North of the 10, west of the LA river and south of the Santa Monica mountains/Hollywood hills.
That specific area is arguably the densest and most urban (city like) area of all of LA county and arguably the densest and most urban area of Southern California with.
Now, everything outside of that area I mentioned is the reverse. Suburbia with dense downtown clusters (Long Beach, Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank, Warner center (developing), LAX (yes LAX has its own midrise cluster around it), Universal City, Torrance (mid rise cluster of about 6-7 buildings) and etc.
Now Orange County and the Inland Empire are 2 separate monsters that are sadly being designed the same way.
|
I fully agree with you on Orange County and the Inland Empire being the suburbs, no doubt about that.
But I wouldn't say that all areas north of the 10, south of the hills/mountains and west of the LA river are urban, or have an "urban" form in that American sense.
Pico, Olympic, Washington Boulevards... west of downtown, I see nothing "urban" about them at all; actually quite suburban, just miles of extended storefronts, punctuated with some mini-malls, and maybe a few highrises, with many single family homes or small apartment buildings on the side streets. I wouldn't doubt these streets decades ago gave LA that nickname of "100 (or whatever number) suburbs in search of a city." Melrose Avenue is definitely not an "urban" street in terms of how people on these boards define "urban."
Much of the San Fernando Valley, particularly the older parts, look like they could be parts of Washington and Venice Boulevards; so why would those Valley thoroughfares be "suburban" but Washington and Pico Boulevards are somehow more urban?
LA definitely is its own unique animal. Hard to define in terms of "suburban" vs. "city."
In my experiences in other metro areas, like Chicago, you can definitely tell where the city ends and where the suburbs begin. And Chicago suburbs, to me, even feel semi-rural. LA suburbs somehow seem more populated and busy and crowded, and even look somehow denser than Chicago suburbs. I know someone who lives in a place called Mt. Prospect; it's a suburb of Chicago, but it felt like and looked like its very own small town.