^^I agree, we're not too different than a lot of places. Most other places have "urban districts" like we do.

I wouldn't even label D.C.'s ring cities as suburbs, they're far too dense, a better term to describe them would be Urban Districts. So if you're talking about suburbia and sprawl then yes L.A. wins.

Have you ever been to LA? Santa Monica, Pasadena, West Hollywood, and Beverly Hills are probably more dense than Bethesda, Silver Spring, or Arlington. I know because I've lived in both places. If anything, the DC area epitomizes modern suburban sprawl more than LA. Places like Santa Monica, Long Beach, and Pasadena were originally and still are separate cities that grew not as suburbs of Los Angeles, but independent communities. The reason the LA area is so vast is because it's really many small to mid sized cities that all came together over time, rather than just suburbs sprawling out from one central core. There is no one single center point of LA today because there never really was one.

You're telling me that Northern Virginia and Montgomery County aren't prime examples of suburban sprawl? Please.

In terms of wealth, activities, urban culture, climate, natural beauty, no one can touch Malibu, Calabassas, Santa Monica (an inner burb), Marina Del Rey (an inner burb), Culver City (an inner burb and one of the hottest art gallery districts in the world), Beverly Hills (an inner inner burb) pasadena (if you don't believe me, just turn on the tv on Jan 1), Palm Springs (on the fringe of the "sprawl"),
Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach, Torrance, Palos Verdes, Dana Point, Laguna Beach, Newport Beach, Anaheim

It's insane!!!!!!!:banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana::banana:

People from all over the world pay 7-8 figures to live in many of the burbs of LA. THey must be the best

Have you ever been to LA? Santa Monica, Pasadena, West Hollywood, and Beverly Hills are probably more dense than Bethesda, Silver Spring, or Arlington. I know because I've lived in both places. If anything, the DC area epitomizes modern suburban sprawl more than LA. Places like Santa Monica, Long Beach, and Pasadena were originally and still are separate cities that grew not as suburbs of Los Angeles, but independent communities. The reason the LA area is so vast is because it's really many small to mid sized cities that all came together over time, rather than just suburbs sprawling out from one central core. There is no one single center point of LA today because there never really was one.

You're telling me that Northern Virginia and Montgomery County aren't prime examples of suburban sprawl? Please.

Been there done that, I even mapped the places for a living. There are many low rise structures and it sprawls on that way. Not having a central core doesn't make the place better Jane Jacobs can attest to that. I'm not sure why that's often touted as a positive.

If I wanted to mention all of Montgomery and Arlington Counties I would have specifically said so but I did not and if you want to mention LA County you could too but you didn't so I don't even know why you went there.

Comparing the designated Urban District (and yes they do have boundaries that's why they are called CBD zones) in Montgomery County I see more high-rises in a similar geographical size area.

I think the problem is that when people say Silver Spring, Arlignton, Bethesda etc they are confused. There is a downtown Silver Spring and Bethesda, which are the places of origin and actually have CBD boundaries, you could not build the same density if you were on the other side of these boundaries because they do not have the same zoning.

Arlington Corridor, Crystal City, and Pentagon City, you will be hard pressed to find something less than 6 stories.

If you compared core to core, D.C. is more urban looking IMO.

Also as far as diversity, we already went into that and it's pretty damn diverse here particularly Silver Spring I would bet my money that it's just as diverse as those places mentioned.

Montgomery County has one of the highest ratio of preserved land in the nation which has been a model across the country.

Been there done that, I even mapped the places for a living. There are many low rise structures and it sprawls on that way. Not having a central core doesn't make the place better Jane Jacobs can attest to that. I'm not sure why that's often touted as a positive.

If I wanted to mention all of Montgomery and Arlington Counties I would have specifically said so but I did not and if you want to mention LA County you could too but you didn't so I don't even know why you went there.

Comparing the designated Urban District (and yes they do have boundaries that's why they are called CBD zones) in Montgomery County I see more high-rises in a similar geographical size area.

I think the problem is that when people say Silver Spring, Arlignton, Bethesda etc they are confused. There is a downtown Silver Spring and Bethesda, which are the places of origin and actually have CBD boundaries, you could not build the same density if you were on the other side of these boundaries because they do not have the same zoning.

Arlington Corridor, Crystal City, and Pentagon City, you will be hard pressed to find something less than 6 stories.

If you compared core to core, D.C. is more urban looking IMO.

Also as far as diversity, we already went into that and it's pretty damn diverse here particularly Silver Spring I would bet my money that it's just as diverse as those places mentioned.

Montgomery County has one of the highest ratio of preserved land in the nation which has been a model across the country.

You know, this idea that LA doesn't have a center isn't entirely accurate.

Did you know that over 4,000,000 people within 10 miles of downtown LA (for a population desnity higher than Chicago) and that 1.5 million live within 5 miles (for a population density higher than San Francisco).

Maryland has all of 5-5.5 million people living over the damn state. LA has 4,000,000 living in 314 sq miles. So who is sprawling? And that 314 sq miles includes a sparesly populated moutain range. Maryland would have to add another 14,000,000 people to be as populated as the mighty Los Angeles area. So don't go comparing Maryland or po dunk Silver Springs to one of the world's great alpha cities.

Los Angeles is probably the most misunderstood city as far as density is concerned. Just because it doesn't have Manhattan doesn't mean it isn't extremely dense in its own right. There are 14 million people living in an area that is less than 2,500 sq. mi. in area.

In comparison, the Washington MSA has a little over 5 million people in in over 5,600 sq. mi.

At first, I thought this was just another stupid poll, but it made me think about these and other cities. Of course, I wonder why Dallas was not included. Seattle has some damn nice 'burbs too. If I were to vote from the list, I'd go with Chicago followed by DC. Of course, it's hard to beat Beverly Hills and Bel Air on just about all levels. So if you're looking for the nicest of the nice, then LA, but if you're looking for a full range of attractive 'burbs, then Chicago gets my vote. Dallas would be second tho if it were on the list (Park Cities, Lakewood, M'streets, Richardson, Plano, Frisco, etc. all have everything you need and the variety of housing is great).

The DC area isn't as dense as LA but it has many walkable(or waddling for fatties) cores.
A Brookings Institution study reveals that New York is a great place for walking, with 21 out of 21 walkable urban places. But Washington D.C. is the most walkable on a per capita basis while New York is ranked 10th, because New York is measured as the NYC metro area, including NJ, Pennsylvania and Connecticut.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22097393/
Some people mentioned Arlington, which has 7 of these walkable spots. Here's the ranking:
1. Washington
2. Boston
3. San Francisco
4. Denver
5. Portland, Ore.
6. Seattle
7. Chicago
8. Miami
9. Pittsburgh
10. New York
11. San Diego
12. Los Angeles
13. Philadelphia
14. Atlanta
15. Baltimore
16. St. Louis
17. Minneapolis
18. Detroit
19. Columbus, Ohio
20. Las Vegas

You know, this idea that LA doesn't have a center isn't entirely accurate.

Did you know that over 4,000,000 people within 10 miles of downtown LA (for a population desnity higher than Chicago) and that 1.5 million live within 5 miles (for a population density higher than San Francisco).

Maryland has all of 5-5.5 million people living over the damn state. LA has 4,000,000 living in 314 sq miles. So who is sprawling? And that 314 sq miles includes a sparesly populated moutain range. Maryland would have to add another 14,000,000 people to be as populated as the mighty Los Angeles area. So don't go comparing Maryland or po dunk Silver Springs to one of the world's great alpha cities.

I’ll try to decipher your code. The “damn state” of Maryland is one of the densest in the Country, a greater population per square mile than California so yes Cali sprawls more especially with places like Riverside. The vast majority of the population is contained within the Baltimore-Washington area. Western and Eastern Maryland are very serene, Also portions of the North and South. That’s why the state is often referred to as ‘America in Miniature’, the contrasts are striking.

Pasadena (which was the comparison at hand, I'm not sure why you brought LA City up) was referred to as a favorite by a few here but if you want to make a comparison…the closest I can compare it to is Rockville Pike within the boundaries of the City of Rockville than Bethesda, Rosslyn or Silver Spring in highrise urbanity.

Pasadena looks dense in the sense but it comprised of mostly low rise structures of 1-4 stories, While Bethesda, Silver Spring and Arlington Corridor are mostly comprised of high-rises at least 8 stories and many 200+ footers.

Holy Shit! This thread has been here longer than I have! :lol:

I know Silverlake brought it up, but looking at state-wide density is useless. There's nothing wrong if a state only has medium density b/c it has dense cities and a lot of preserved nature. NJ is one of the densest states, but it's not like it's one urban vibrant city after the other. It has many little townships of varying size and charm and less preserved land compared to some other places. I think Maryland has a good balance, but I personally don't know how much good looking at state-wide density is.

I think another thing that has to be looked at w/ LA is the atmosphere. The 'burbs of Chicago, DC, Detroit, and basically every other city out there doesn't offer that laid-back west coast vibe that people like, especially people who have never spent a significant amount of time. They have the nice beaches and weather and cool architecture and mansions. That's not to say that they don't have lots of dumpy areas but I don't know if looking at density and urbanity is the entire story when looking at these 'burbs.

Miami's suburbs offer that in large numbers but the inner city doesn't compare to LA though. San Fran's kind of, but that stretch of the Pacific isn't exactly the warmest and a number of their cities are inland.

Having lived in the Baltimore-Washington Metro area and now a resident of the LA area, I can profess that overall, the LA Metro area is much denser than the Baltimore-DC area. Other than the central city cores, nothing in Maryland can match the constant density of LA. In the Maryland suburbs, you have acres and acres of undeveloped woods scattered between housing communities to create sort of a "buffer zone" from one development to the next. You won't see anything like that in the LA basin or the SFV. Every square inch of available land has been used simply because open land is a much more limited resource out here. Those mountains have created a huge natural barrier to development.

When friends from LA would visit me in Maryland, I frequently heard them say things like, "Wow you guys have really big yards here." You won't see too many homes in LA with much more than 1/4 acre of land, unless of course you live in a place like Beverly Hills. But even Beverly Hills has a very dense and walkable downtown area. I can't say the same thing for Potomac, MD. And LA probably has just as many, if not more skyscrapers than the Baltimore/DC area. Remember, downtown isn't the only skyline LA has. There's also Century City, the Wilshire Corridor near UCLA, Koreatown, Mid-Wilshire, a few highrises in Santa Monica, the highrises near LAX, a few in Burbank.

^ Hey mike, I completely forgot about your plans to relocate to the LA area. May I ask where you've decided to settle down?

Having lived in the Baltimore-Washington Metro area and now a resident of the LA area, I can profess that overall, the LA Metro area is much denser than the Baltimore-DC area. Other than the central city cores, nothing in Maryland can match the constant density of LA. In the Maryland suburbs, you have acres and acres of undeveloped woods scattered between housing communities to create sort of a "buffer zone" from one development to the next. You won't see anything like that in the LA basin or the SFV. Every square inch of available land has been used simply because open land is a much more limited resource out here. Those mountains have created a huge natural barrier to development.

When friends from LA would visit me in Maryland, I frequently heard them say things like, "Wow you guys have really big yards here." You won't see too many homes in LA with much more than 1/4 acre of land, unless of course you live in a place like Beverly Hills. But even Beverly Hills has a very dense and walkable downtown area. I can't say the same thing for Potomac, MD. And LA probably has just as many, if not more skyscrapers than the Baltimore/DC area. Remember, downtown isn't the only skyline LA has. There's also Century City, the Wilshire Corridor near UCLA, Koreatown, Mid-Wilshire, a few highrises in Santa Monica, the highrises near LAX, a few in Burbank.

And that’s what’s so great about Baltimore-Washington as opposed to LA area. I like the fact that we have green buffer zones and preserved land interrupting what could be one wide sprawling unending swath of development; this is a factor as why the pollution is so bad in LA too. We call it “Wedges and Corridors” in Montgomery County and it makes perfect sense. Baltimore County has done a wonderful job containing growth close to and around the City of Baltimore, it would seem nearly 60 percent of it is preserved in one way or another.

I prefer contained growth over endless sprawl development, only interrupted because of large natural barriers like mountains. Also if I’m going to pay $500,000 for a home you better believe I want some land to go with it or it better be one very large condo with great amenities attached! Your friends should be envious as they are paying out their ass over in Cali for no reason really. Not that it's that much better here but like you said the you seem to get a little more for what you pay. If you’re going to have such small tracts for SFD it defeats the purpose really, you might as well go townhome or condo. Also the density of such small SFD tracts allows it to fall into the one of those “in-between” places which can become nothing but trouble.

Even with the mountain ranges, why are there so many 1-2 story structures in the LA area, in places like Pasadena? Seems to me if you stacked those (built more high-rises) by which would increase the height and density you would be able to accommodate a lot more people and have more preserved green space.

But lets try to stick to the topic. Century City is a district of City of LA, further displaying the haphazard development pattern of the city. Another district that would have greatly added to the core of LA instead of standing on the skirts. Are there some sort of restrictions around the core that spawned places like Century City? Downtown LA’s skyline drops off pretty dramatically for such a large city it should be a lot bigger!

If it was not for height restriction in D.C. proper I am sure there would be highrises everywhere, it is after all the third largest office market in the country ahead of LA.

I’m sorry but if LA has run out of land it is mostly because of the inefficient use of it. Do not blame it all on the mountain (no pun intended).

Buffers inside the sprawl mean the sprawl will extend further out. I'd rather see the West Coast model with dense suburbia, and a tight growth boundary around the metro, with towns outside it each having their own tight boundary. (Whether the boundary is mountains, water, or a mandated line on a map.)

Buffers inside the sprawl mean the sprawl will extend further out. I'd rather see the West Coast model with dense suburbia, and a tight growth boundary around the metro, with towns outside it each having their own tight boundary. (Whether the boundary is mountains, water, or a mandated line on a map.)

Development would just skip across the boundary to the other side and you would be in almost the same situation.

"And if Ballston's sparkling new buildings seem a little too sparkling and new, well, that is bound to change, too, he said."

What exactly did this website ( http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22097393/ ) mean by that?^^ I'm just curious.

The buildings there are fairly new and look similar to other 90's and 00's style with glass and red brick. When everything looks new, it can be a bit stale. There is still a fair amount of architectural diversity in the area, though. It's very walkable, but with time, there will be new styles of buildings and the neighborhood will age and hopefully get even better and more eclectic.

Development would just skip across the boundary to the other side and you would be in almost the same situation.

Not if the other area had a similar growth line.

When everything looks new, it can be a bit stale.

What?! I don't think so. I prefer newer stuff.


Oh, and that website said that the Ballston Commons Mall is suburban-style. I went to maps.live and it didn't look suburban to me. But it was an enclosed mall. Are those considered suburban-style malls?

Yeah, it's a suburban style in the sense that it's enclosed as opposed to being on the first floor of buildings facing the sidewalk and street.

But the newness does contribute to the staleness. That's what they mean by "too new". Rowhomes being built today don't give the same effect of older rowhomes, not simply b/c of the design itself, but b/c it doesn't look aged and weathered a bit that adds character.

Yeah, it's a suburban style in the sense that it's enclosed as opposed to being on the first floor of buildings facing the sidewalk and street.

Well, that's pretty much the definition of a mall, so I guess it's redundant to say a "suburban style mall." But I would consider it urban in the sense that it isn't surrounded by a sea of asphalt and is actually built into the urban fabric.

But the newness does contribute to the staleness. That's what they mean by "too new". Rowhomes being built today don't give the same effect of older rowhomes, not simply b/c of the design itself, but b/c it doesn't look aged and weathered a bit that adds character.

True. That's something that can only come with time. However, I will say some of the newer ones that have been built in existing residential areas with older trees and sidewalks do kind of give the "well-worn" impression.

L.A in my opinion has the best burbs....It's more interesting and has a greater variety.

I really like the suburbs in DC, especially the areas around Bethesda. I think its also nice to know that while you can live surburbs like Bethesda you can easily choose to live in a more wooded area like Mclean within the same distance outside of the city.

But the newness does contribute to the staleness. That's what they mean by "too new". Rowhomes being built today don't give the same effect of older rowhomes, not simply b/c of the design itself, but b/c it doesn't look aged and weathered a bit that adds character.
True. That's something that can only come with time. However, I will say some of the newer ones that have been built in existing residential areas with older trees and sidewalks do kind of give the "well-worn" impression.
So you guys don't like brand-spankin'-new stuff??

^^It depends.

I like new stuff. I just like it mixed in with older stuff as well.

And that’s what’s so great about Baltimore-Washington as opposed to LA area. I like the fact that we have green buffer zones and preserved land interrupting what could be one wide sprawling unending swath of development; Even with the mountain ranges, why are there so many 1-2 story structures in the LA area, in places like Pasadena? Seems to me if you stacked those (built more high-rises) by which would increase the height and density you would be able to accommodate a lot more people and have more preserved green space.

But lets try to stick to the topic. Century City is a district of City of LA, further displaying the haphazard development pattern of the city. Another district that would have greatly added to the core of LA instead of standing on the skirts. Are there some sort of restrictions around the core that spawned places like Century City?

I’m sorry but if LA has run out of land it is mostly because of the inefficient use of it. Do not blame it all on the mountain (no pun intended).

I love this! Because of the natural beauty of LA and really because of the sunlight, building too high has always been traditionally discouraged. As we begin to run out of land developers with the push of City Hall have been proposing denser and taller buildings especially residential and yes, there is alot of pushback with this new direction and changes in zoning. But just when you've pegged the city as a low rise fortress out of the ground and in the middle of a seemingly residential district rises Century City with a skyline that could go toe to toe with most moderatly sized US cities. Glendale and Burbank also have their own skylines and so does Long Beach.
But do the LA suburbs even qualify as suburbs really? Long Beach is about the size of Austin, TX! And Glendale and Pasadena both top out at over 300k+ and 100k+ respectively. So in one instance I can see how a provincial East Coaster could look at LA and call it all one big suburb because of the lack of a stronger mother. But unfortunately what is being missed is that more than any other area in the US LA defines the oft futuristic fantasies of a megalopolis.

I’m sorry but if LA has run out of land it is mostly because of the inefficient use of it. Do not blame it all on the mountain (no pun intended).

L.A.'s metro is the densest in the country so how can they be using it insufficiently? Just as DC has height restrictions, L.A has them as well obviously do to the threat of earthquakes. They also have among the highest population growth in the country, mountains or no mountains they will run out of land eventually.

Imho,

Though the city of L.A. does not fit my idea of what a typical city should resemble, many of the suburbs of Los Angeles are quite independent, energetic, and also very attractive.

Though the city of L.A. does not fit my idea of what a typical city should resemble, many of the suburbs of Los Angeles are quite independent, energetic, and also very attractive.

ANd how does LA not fit your idea of a typical city??????????????


It is more densely populated than Chicago over any given equal area. It has greater total population. It has a far better climate. The rents are higher. The real estate is higher. It is the most culturally influential city in the world at the moment. It has industries that are unique in the world. It's population is increasing (unlike Chicago). It is far more diverse culturally and racially. So what the fuck is wrong with mother fucking LA that it doesn't fit your idea of a mother fucking typical city.


So Chicago is barely more dense than LA in 1% of its area, but after that LA routs Chicago in density. So I guess if you like low dense sprawling cities, chicago is where it's at over LA.

http://www.demographia.com/db-dens20por.htm

I think Silverlake must be a big emo fan.

ANd how does LA not fit your idea of a typical city??????????????

Man, you are such a knucklehead....

I was referring to the way the two cities are design.

Basically three reasons:

1#center oriented (The Loop smokes DT L.A. and I met so many people living in OC, who said they never go into L.A. because the have no need to. I've met people in San Bernardino who've only been to the city of L.A a few times in their life.) I'll add that there are people who live in Chicago's outer ring suburbs like Elgin, Aurora, Joliet, and Kankakee that don't venture into the cit often, but remember suburban Alngelinos are MUCH more independent of L.A. city proper than suburban Chicagoans are to Chicago city proper.

2# Grid structure (L.A. is hard to navigate of course in part do to it's geography). Again, what I AM USED TO is the stereotypical flat grid style city that you find in the Midwest and on the East Coast.

2#mass mass transit that reaches most part of the city (From my experience most of L.A. rail doesn't really take you anywhere, although major improvements have been happening so this point of mine may become moot in the very near future)


It is more densely populated than Chicago over any given equal area.

Like I said L.A. is the densest metro in the US.


It has greater total population.

Lagos Nigeria has a greater population than L.A I guess it most be a better place:lol:
And Chicago has a higher population over every other US city except NYC and L.A. How is this relevant to what I said?:dunno:


It has a far better climate.

True it's climate is quite stable, and mostly sunny year round with little bouts of extreme heat, and no real cold..... Last time I was in L.A. last August it was 85F with 15% humidity and back in Chicago it was 90F with 80% humidity. This winter we had over 5ft of snow, while L.A. was quite mild in comparison. :applause:

As for it being better, that is your opinion, because some people actually like to experience seasonal change. I would personally get bore with the same weather over and over again. I am now looking forward to Spring and Summer.:cheers: But that's just me.:)


The rents are higher. The real estate is higher.

And this is a good thing?
Take a look at how rosy the real estate situation is in L.A and California.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=a_IN0W3.lFV0&refer=home



It is the most culturally influential city in the world at the moment.
Arguably so. I guess....


It has industries that are unique in the world.
Hollywood. Any other that I'm not aware of?


It's population is increasing (unlike Chicago).

Chicago's population is stable, and is gentrifying which means it's household per capita income is on the rise. Chicago's metropolitan area is among the 10 fastest growing in the US.

Btw, look closely at L.A's population estimates. It looks as if the growth rate is slowed considerably since 2000. Probably as a result of the outrageous housing prices.


It is far more diverse culturally and racially.

The L.A. metro does have a diverse population, currently probably the most diverse, but it becoming increasingly dominated by Hispanics. Particularly Mexicans. By 2030, the Los Angeles area will be more than 60% Mexican (already around 40% of the metro area). To me there is no difference when a given area is 60% Mexican or 60% German. That is not culturally diverse imo.

Los Angeles (city):
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=ChangeGeoContext&geo_id=16000US0644000&_geoContext=&_street=&_county=los+angeles&_cityTown=los+angeles&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=010&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2006_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=

Hispanic:49%
African American: 10%
Asian: 10%
White/Other: 19%

Chicago (city)
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ACSSAFFFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=16000US0644000&_geoContext=01000US%7C04000US06%7C16000US0644000&_street=&_county=chicago&_cityTown=chicago&_state=&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=fph&pgsl=160&_submenuId=factsheet_1&ds_name=ACS_2006_SAFF&_ci_nbr=null&qr_name=null&reg=null%3Anull&_keyword=&_industry=

Hispanic:28%
African American:35%
Asian:5%
White/Other:32%


So what the fuck is wrong with mother fucking LA that it doesn't fit your idea of a mother fucking typical city.

Do you know how immature you sound when you swear. :lol:

Anyway, I laid it out for you above.



So Chicago is barely more dense than LA in 1% of its area, but after that LA routs Chicago in density. So I guess if you like low dense sprawling cities, chicago is where it's at over LA.

http://www.demographia.com/db-dens20por.htm

As I said, L.A's metro area is more dense than any other in the U.S. Did you miss that? However, when you just measure the density of just the two cities, Chicago is a bit more dense. As the title of this thread states (and what I've pointed out) L.A. has the best suburbs in the US because many function as independent cities, with relatively high densities (mostly higher than Chicago's).

Geez I was complementing L.A. and you still find a need to yap your mouth about something....:ohno:

Silverlake after a two year absence, you are still a flake. I guess college hasn't taught you much.:lol:

Detroit should be on there.
I think distressed cities lead to very affluent suburbs.

hahah..u right...i thought so...

i think detroit has.

Hollywood. Any other that I'm not aware of?




Hispanic:49%
African American: 10%
Asian: 10%
White/Other: 19%

:

Uh, George besides the "unique" Hollywood industry you forgot about the equally unique Van Nuys porn industry.

And on the matter of diverse ethnicities, including Hispanic is a bit of a misnomer. I mean truly "Hispanic" culture outside of shared language is a very loose federation of diverse cultures and different races. Whereinwhich "White" usually includes persons of European background that pretty much all consider themselves racially "white", within the Hispanic culture that just isn't so. You have Hispanics of Asian descent, African descent, European descent, Native American descent as well as the unidentified and unidentifiable. So LA retains its diversity even if the pop was 90% Hispanic since the city has a tradition of not just pulling in immigrants from Mexico but throughout Central and South America.

Note: LA has the highest Persian as well as Armenian populations living outside of their respective regions. Both of these groups are considered white according to the US census bureau. LA tends to have "whites" outside of the traditional German/English stock but Eastern Europeans and the newly crowned "whites" such as the Persians, Northern Africans and Indians. LA as one of the most diverse places on the planet is intact.

2# Grid structure (L.A. is hard to navigate of course in part do to it's geography). Again, what I AM USED TO is the stereotypical flat grid style city that you find in the Midwest and on the East Coast.

NYC (outside of Manhattan) is not really on a grid; neither is Boston.

2#mass mass transit that reaches most part of the city (From my experience most of L.A. rail doesn't really take you anywhere, although major improvements have been happening so this point of mine may become moot in the very near future)


The Chicago L doesn't reach most parts of the city either. The only Cities that could say this would be NYC and DC. Don't forget that LA has a HUGE bus system, much bigger than the CTA Bus system in Chicago.

NYC (outside of Manhattan) is not really on a grid; neither is Boston..

Even in the outer boroughs New York is much more in a grid pattern than not. Much more so than Los Angeles. Boston is definitely not on a grid system, but is a much smaller city. Overall, cities in the Midwest and on the east coast have more of a grid system than west coast cities.

Chicago is the role model for this grid pattern.


.
The Chicago L doesn't reach most parts of the city either. The only Cities that could say this would be NYC and DC. Don't forget that LA has a HUGE bus system, much bigger than the CTA Bus system in Chicago.

You are right, you do have to catch the bus to get on the L in many parts of Chicago, but it's not as inconvenient, or time consuming as it is in L.A. (from my experience). Plus the L covers more ground than L.A.'s system in terms of percent of city covered.

L.A. is WAY ahead in bringing it's rail system up to 21st century standards than Chicago. We can barely secure financing to keep the status quo.....:bash:

As for L.A.'s extensive bus system, it is the largest in the country

Here is what Klamedia posted several months back.

This is going to be my quarterly ridership totals thread, examining how LA is doing on its own and up against other transit agencies in the US. I'll do this as long as I feel like I want to, to be honest. Also the information on here is open to vetting, debating and clarification, it's all fine by me. So let's get started

4th Quarter Totals:(all are based on average daily rides)
Heavy Rail:
1)NYC-6,228 phenomenal!
2)DC-902.2
3)Chicago-628.8-- Boston-? no #'s this quarter. Guess they didn't report.
4)SF-352.0
5)Phili-317.5
6)Atlanta-253.3
7)NJ-234.8
8)LA-122.6 c'mon LA, we can do better than this!

Light Rail:
--Boston-? Usually Boston is #1
1)SF-129.9
2)LA-123.4 Expect LA to immediately go to #1 once Expo and EGLEx is done.
3)SD-105.1-Very very healthy #'s for our friend to the south!
4)Portland-100.4-Also very good #'s for a city much smaller than LA and SD.

Autobus Totals:
1)NYC-2,414.4
2)LA-1,303.4-I've said it before and I'll say it again, LA has probably the best bus system in the country; if it's not yet it will be after all of the Rapids and busways are put into service. Note: I'm not even tallying all of the interagencies.
3)Chicago-979.2
4)Phili-577.1
5)DC-442.0
6)Houston-306.1-This is in a city w/ only 1 light rail line and a pop of 2 mil, you would think its bus ridership would be higher at least. But yet LA is picked on the world over as the car dependant capital of the Earth yet its bus #'s are not to be sneezed at.......LA has a bus dominant system at the time.
7)SF-283.7
8)Seattle-274.5

Commuter rail
1)NYC-634.5-2 agencies Metro North and Long Island
2)Chicago-300.1
3)Boston-141.5-At least they reported their commuter rail
4)Phili-115.4
5)LA-39.5-I don't like this #. I think it's pathetic!
6)DC-13.7-With such a robust heavy rail ridership you would think........this is embarrassing.

Agency Totals: Heavy and light rail and autobus
(Excluding commuter rail since it can traverse through different metro areas, also the ATPA counts it seperate as well)
of course,
1)New York City-8,659.8 Quite amazing for the US!! Hats off!!
2)Chicago-1608
3)LA-1549.4-This is excluding the interagency service that falls w/thin and services the same county that Metro does. And the way that people talk about LA being car-dominant you would think that only 100 people rode all the busses and trains combined in LA. *
4)DC-1344.2
--Boston-usually goes here
5)Phili-1089.3
6)SF-1001.2-I combined 2 agencies for SF because it was just necessary and fair.

All data is found here:
http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/

*LA County MTA posted a percentage gain of 6.5%. The CTA(Chicago Transit Authority)posted an agency gain of 0.54%. If these #'s were to stay the same into next year LA will have eclipsed Chicago's CTA ridership #'s by 41.2 thousand riders a day, making LA County Metro #2 in overall transit ridership in the US. Question: Would LA still be considered car dependant then? And if so, what is the magic # that pushes you over into the much ballyhooed 'Transit Town Club'?

Uh, George besides the "unique" Hollywood industry you forgot about the equally unique Van Nuys porn industry..

That is pretty unique, and I thank L.A. for this industry :bow:

.
And on the matter of diverse ethnicities, including Hispanic is a bit of a misnomer. I mean truly "Hispanic" culture outside of shared language is a very loose federation of diverse cultures and different races. Whereinwhich "White" usually includes persons of European background that pretty much all consider themselves racially "white", within the Hispanic culture that just isn't so. You have Hispanics of Asian descent, African descent, European descent, Native American descent as well as the unidentified and unidentifiable. So LA retains its diversity even if the pop was 90% Hispanic since the city has a tradition of not just pulling in immigrants from Mexico but throughout Central and South America..

L.A does have a wide range of Latin American cultures, but the the Mexican culture dominates and will continue to dominate even more so in the coming decades. It's a matter of raw numbers....

.
Note: LA has the highest Persian as well as Armenian populations living outside of their respective regions. Both of these groups are considered white according to the US census bureau. LA tends to have "whites" outside of the traditional German/English stock but Eastern Europeans and the newly crowned "whites" such as the Persians, Northern Africans and Indians. LA as one of the most diverse places on the planet is intact.

L.A. is one of the most diverse urban centers on earth. I and nobody else can deny this. I'm just saying that it is becoming more and more dominated by the Mexican culture. This isn't a bad thing, but it will change L.A.'s image of extreme diversity. This is undeniable as well.

L.A. County in the 2000 census was 35% Mexican ancestry. At the current growth rate, L.A County will be over 65% Mexican by 2030.

US Census Mexican ancestry for the rest of Greater L.A. in 2000:

San Bernardino County: 31%
Riverside County: 30%
Orange County: 25%
Ventura County: 28%

It makes sense since the region borders Mexico :)

Btw, in 2000, Cook County's population was 15% Mexican and 26% African American, however the Mexican population is growing by leaps and bounds, and will be make up more than 33% of Cook County's population by 2030, and a significant percentage of several other collar counties in the Chicago metropolitan area.

Thanx "chigeorge" for posting my nerdy ridership totals, as if. Reading over my comments I hope none of my footnotes came across as overly critical of the CTA heavy rail system. I want the CTA and the state of Illinois to protect and ultimately overhaul this national treasure! Everytime I look around their is talk about not meeting funding and the result would be to shut the system down. This isn't even a shame that Chicago or Illinois should bear alone, it's a national disgrace really that one of our premiere transit systems is routinely threatened into inoperation less money is scraped up from somewhere??? Just to think that one month of bombing Baghdad could put this system comfortably in the black.

Thanx "chigeorge" for posting my nerdy ridership totals, as if.

Actually, I want to thank you for digging up all that information....:cheers:


Reading over my comments I hope none of my footnotes came across as overly critical of the CTA heavy rail system.

I don't think you were critical enough..... and you were probably over critical of L.A.'s.


I want the CTA and the state of Illinois to protect and ultimately overhaul this national treasure! Everytime I look around their is talk about not meeting funding and the result would be to shut the system down. This isn't even a shame that Chicago or Illinois should bear alone, it's a national disgrace really that one of our premiere transit systems is routinely threatened into inoperation less money is scraped up from somewhere??? Just to think that one month of bombing Baghdad could put this system comfortably in the black.

It's really a joke. I highly doubt the situation with the CTA is unique in being under funded, but as you noted, the CTA is a national treasure, yet the idiots in the Illinois General Assembly look at it as some kind of albatross.:bash:

I guess the good news is that at the 11th hour funding was secured for the time being. As for moving forward on some of the major projects such as the CTA Circle Line, I have a feeling that the only way we will see the CTA speed up this initiative is with the hope that Chicago lands the Olympics. If the Olympics don't come to Chicago, the Circle Line will take a lot longer to be completed.

On a brighter note Metra is doing quite well, and their proposed suburban 55 mile "Star Line" will become reality in the near future.

http://metraconnects.metrarail.com/images/star_map.jpg

Uh, George besides the "unique" Hollywood industry you forgot about the equally unique Van Nuys porn industry.

And on the matter of diverse ethnicities, including Hispanic is a bit of a misnomer. I mean truly "Hispanic" culture outside of shared language is a very loose federation of diverse cultures and different races. Whereinwhich "White" usually includes persons of European background that pretty much all consider themselves racially "white", within the Hispanic culture that just isn't so. You have Hispanics of Asian descent, African descent, European descent, Native American descent as well as the unidentified and unidentifiable. So LA retains its diversity even if the pop was 90% Hispanic since the city has a tradition of not just pulling in immigrants from Mexico but throughout Central and South America.

Note: LA has the highest Persian as well as Armenian populations living outside of their respective regions. Both of these groups are considered white according to the US census bureau. LA tends to have "whites" outside of the traditional German/English stock but Eastern Europeans and the newly crowned "whites" such as the Persians, Northern Africans and Indians. LA as one of the most diverse places on the planet is intact.

[/I]

lol Indians are considered white now??? yes i have seen it before. I applied to an oc gov job and clicked on white. I do know the reasoning behind it. although I can't wrap my head around it. I'm dark brown after all, like most Indians I think. think apu from the simpsons when u think of me.

On a brighter note Metra is doing quite well, and their proposed suburban 55 mile "Star Line" will become reality in the near future.

http://metraconnects.metrarail.com/images/star_map.jpg

Metra should take over the CTA. Let's face it, METRA is the shit!

^^

Well, the CTA and Metra are technically under one organization (not fiscally) called the RTA which is the regional transit authority. There are two reasons why Metra is so successful.

A) They are run like a business and are very profitable
B) The Chicago metropolitan area has an old inadequate expressway/tollway system that cannot sufficiently provie mass tranist. Suburbanites have a hard enough time getting into the city as it is.

In these days, lots of companies who sell Rs gold use auto, bots. Some customers' account has been banded.So take care of your account. And our company don’t use the bots and autos at all,we get farmers for making Rs gold,Rs powerleveling.so dont worry if you buy Rs money or Rs powerleveling from our website.

Runescape gold
We offer you runescape gold and runescape gold farming. The trade is quite safe . You just need to provide your account ID, Password and Bank Pin. if any problem happens when you Buy RS Gold(Cheap RS Gold (http://www.gobuycheaprsgold.com)) during the process, we will do our best to help and it will be satisfied for you.
Runescape accounts
With sevaral years of experience of selling Cheap RS Gold(Buy WOW Gold (http://www.zyy.com)) is more than prepared to make sure of 100% customer satisfaction, all the RS accounts on sale are from people who have already quit RuneScape, and if anything happens to the account you buy, we will refund your payment.

Runescape items
We offer(RuneScape Gold (http://www.storeingame.com)) many items to you; you can make use of our website's search function to find the one you are interested in. If no match result that you need, please contact us via live chat or eMail, we will add it to our website in 5 minutes.

Thanks for bumping this thread goldman even though you will get banned... I forgot about this tread.

Well, it's done ^^... LOs ANgeles is the winner.

I voted for Boston because of Brookline. Easily accessible by the Green Line's B, C and D branches and very little sprawl. Central Newton is also easily accessible by the Green Line's D branch.

Well, it's done ^^... LOs ANgeles is the winner.

And truly the only reason that it is the winner is because of its rise in a unique period in US urban planning. LA reached the magic million in the late '20's - 30's a time when planners had already started pointing towards a suburban utopia though a good portion of the city had already been built up by the elder model mixed use planning with streetcars. So it missed the City Beautiful movement that both NYC, Philly, Baltimore and at the time a baby Chicago enjoyed but it's not part of the post WWII pack of brethren (and sisteren) of Phoenix, Dallas, Houston and Atlanta who all came into their own after WWII. But imo LA took cues from Chicago and Detroit as far as planning and then wildly expanded on it.

Los Angeles and Detroit were sister cities of that era. The difference is that Los Angeles was near the Mexican border and Detroit was near the Canadian border.;) It's not surprising that Detroit isn't on this poll, but I would say Detroit's suburbs would definitely make a Top 5 list.

Which cities are above Detroit?

I couldn't tell you. I was just saying I think it would be safe to say that the variety of suburbs in the Detroit area would easily put it in a Top 5 list.

Los Angeles and Detroit were sister cities of that era. The difference is that Los Angeles was near the Mexican border and Detroit was near the Canadian border.;) It's not surprising that Detroit isn't on this poll, but I would say Detroit's suburbs would definitely make a Top 5 list.
I'm reluctant to group Detroit and Los Angeles in the same family. Looking at the arc of Detroit's growth along with Los Angeles seems similar yes, but then Detroit does something sometime after WWII that all of the older and colder cities do as well......it starts to lose population. LA and the rest of the sunbelt cities do exactly the opposite they continue to grow. This leads me to believe that Detroit was at the tail end possibly just inhaling the fumes of the grand golden age of American cities while LA was at the very beginning if not the progenitor of the age of the American sun cities and the rise of the suburb.

Or like I said, Los Angeles was near the Mexican border and Detroit was near the Canadian border. If it wasn't for the large influx of Mexican immigrants, Los Angeles could have seen a very similar fate to Detroit, or if it were the Canadians who were streaming across the border...;)

The reason I compare the two is that they were both well known for a single major industry, which were both "born" around the same time. Both industries and in many respects, both cities, had their "golden age" in the 40's and 50's. Both cities are primarily multinodal with a relatively strong downtown core, but not as dominating as the likes of Chicago or New York. They were one of the few cities that primarily developed after the "rowhouse era" of the 19th century (New York, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Chicago, Boston, etc.) but before the "ranch era" of the post-war 20th century (Dallas, Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston, Miami, etc.) They both had relatively large streetcar systems, but with the advent of the freeway have since become dominated by the automobile. (Both were early adopters of the freeway system, and diverted most of their transit dollars to freeway construction.)

While the two obviously took divergent paths in the 1960's and 70's, during the first 60 years of the 20th century, they were far more similar than you would think.

BTW, while New York's suburbs are easily overshadowed by the city, I think they are by far #1 on the list. While Los Angeles is clearly #2, I would say it's a distant second. New York's suburban landscape has gritty inner-city Newark, ultra-exclusive Greenwich and everything in between. And really, the Hudson County suburbs (Jersey City, Union City, Hoboken, etc.) are more urban than most inner-city neighborhoods including cities like Boston and San Francisco. Of all the "6th boroughs", Hudson County has the most legitimacy. Further out you have places like White Plains, Englewood, Hackensack, Yonkers, Stamford, Passaic, New Rochelle, Mt. Vernon, Elizabeth, etc. that offer a truer urban experience than most American central cities.

As far as #3, #4, and #5 it gets tougher. Chicago would probably have a spot by virtue of its size.

L. A. has the most suburbs by far and they range from the ultra ultra exclusive Beverly Hills and Bel Air, to the ultra gritty envelope pushing Hollywood district to the downright unsurvivables like Compton and Lynwood, over to the upper middle class of Santa Monica and Pasadena and San Marino, and the downright famous Burbank and Malibu. And all within the area at large, not in other States. L. A. is often made fun of for this, but has the best Suburban area overall. . Uh, what's this 6th Borough? :)

Or like I said, Los Angeles was near the Mexican border and Detroit was near the Canadian border. If it wasn't for the large influx of Mexican immigrants, Los Angeles could have seen a very similar fate to Detroit, or if it were the Canadians who were streaming across the border...;)

The reason I compare the two is that they were both well known for a single major industry

Los Angeles's most well known industry doesn't account for the majority of the jobs in Los Angeles. On top of that, Los Angeles weather and topography makes it an infinitely more desirable place to live than Detroit. Because of this, Los Angeles was never in danger of suffering a similar fate to Detroit, and it never will, even if there were no Mexican immigrants.

Or like I said, Los Angeles was near the Mexican border and Detroit was near the Canadian border. If it wasn't for the large influx of Mexican immigrants, Los Angeles could have seen a very similar fate to Detroit, or if it were the Canadians who were streaming across the border...;)

The reason I compare the two is that they were both well known for a single major industry, (Both were early adopters of the freeway system, and diverted most of their transit dollars to freeway construction.)

While the two obviously took divergent paths in the 1960's and 70's, during the first 60 years of the 20th century, they were far more similar than you would think.

I would have to disagree with you on this one "hud". LA didn't reach the golden million in the 20's and 30's because of Mexicans. LA reached those numbers when the city was seeing 100-200% population growth per decade largely by white people. In fact it was considered up until the 50's as the "whitest" big city in the US. And the older and colder cities were losing population as a direct result of the emergence of the West and the sun cities, namely Southern California. Mexicans though always part of the fabric of this region really began to shake things up in the 70's and 80's when LA was well over the million mark.
Rather it was the in-migration from the East that really built LA pre WWII and immediately post and I can't stress this enough of white folks.
This leads me to believe that Detroit and LA were on different trajectories from jump. And LA didn't have just one industry. The film industry can't sustain millions of people streaming in wanting to live a middle class detached family home ideal. I'm sure that "milqee" can comment on this much more than I since he was actually living here at the time but aerospace and the ports was just a few of the industries that were in existence in LA then. LA didn't have and doesn't have just one industry like Detroit(well 2 if you count Motown) which is why I feel strongly that Detroit was at the end of a grand era in US history and LA was at the beginning if not was the beginning of a new one.

Los Angeles's most well known industry doesn't account for the majority of the jobs in Los Angeles. On top of that, Los Angeles weather and topography makes it an infinitely more desirable place to live than Detroit. Because of this, Los Angeles was never in danger of suffering a similar fate to Detroit, and it never will, even if there were no Mexican immigrants.

Detroit's most well known industry doesn't account for the majority of jobs in Detroit. In fact, manufacturing as a whole accounts for only about 12% of the jobs in metro Detroit, and I would bet that only half of those jobs involve building cars. So... I'm not sure where you were trying to go with that... Even then, in the way that supposedly "everyone" in Detroit knows someone who works in the auto industry, "everyone" in Los Angeles knows someone who works in the entertainment industry. That doesn't mean that either city is completely dominated by either industry. It just means that both cities are famous for one particular industry.

I would have to disagree with you on this one "hud". LA didn't reach the golden million in the 20's and 30's because of Mexicans. LA reached those numbers when the city was seeing 100-200% population growth per decade largely by white people. In fact it was considered up until the 50's as the "whitest" big city in the US. And the older and colder cities were losing population as a direct result of the emergence of the West and the sun cities, namely Southern California. Mexicans though always part of the fabric of this region really began to shake things up in the 70's and 80's when LA was well over the million mark.

I never said Los Angeles reached its golden age due to Mexicans. What I implied was that the reason Los Angeles ballooned to a population of 18 million is largely due to the influx of Mexican immigrants in the post-war era. Contrary to what many people think, Los Angeles isn't in the same boat as Atlanta, Dallas, or many other sunbelt cities in that it isn't gaining due to midwestern/northeastern whites moving to the sunbelt, but rather Mexicans moving to el norte. The Los Angeles metro area has seen it's non-hispanic white population shrink for decades as those people moved to Las Vegas, Phoenix, the Northwest, Texas, and other areas with lower taxes and lower costs of living.

Rather it was the in-migration from the East that really built LA pre WWII and immediately post and I can't stress this enough of white folks.

The same thing happened to Detroit. Up until the 1950's and 60's, Detroit's white population dominated the city and it too was one of the whitest cities in America.

This leads me to believe that Detroit and LA were on different trajectories from jump. And LA didn't have just one industry. The film industry can't sustain millions of people streaming in wanting to live a middle class detached family home ideal. I'm sure that "milqee" can comment on this much more than I since he was actually living here at the time but aerospace and the ports was just a few of the industries that were in existence in LA then. LA didn't have and doesn't have just one industry like Detroit(well 2 if you count Motown) which is why I feel strongly that Detroit was at the end of a grand era in US history and LA was at the beginning if not was the beginning of a new one.

Again, I didn't say that Los Angeles had ONE industry, I said that both cities were WELL KNOWN for a single major industry! Los Angeles was KNOWN for the film industry the same way that Detroit was KNOWN for the auto industry. Obviously it wasn't the only industry in either city. They both had ports. They both had other industries.

In 1900, when Los Angeles first passed the 100,000 mark, Detroit was at a little over 285,000. By 1910, they weren't that far apart with Detroit at 465,000 and Los Angeles at 320,000. Detroit and Los Angeles were the only cities to reach the 1 million mark in the 80 year stretch between the 1880's (when Philadelphia and Chicago did it) and the 1960's (when Houston did it) both doing it in the 1920's. In other words, they were really the only major cities to "mature" in the stretch between the American Industrial Revolution of the late 19th century and the Post War Sunbelt Migration of the late 20th century... Because of this, they share a lot in common. Neither city has the dense rowhouses of New York, Philadelphia, Boston, etc.) but they also don't have the auto-dominated sprawling neighborhoods of the sunbelt. They are both dominated by neighborhoods of bungalows off of "main streets" often with single-floor retail. They both really experimented with urban freeways. They were two of the first cities to experiment with large regional shopping centers geared towards shoppers with automobiles.

I think it's hilarious that you get offended being compared to the Detroit of that era... LOL.

Glendale = Armenian
West Hollywood = Russian
Beverly Hills = Persian
Santa Monica = British
East Los Angeles = Mexican
Torrance = Japanese
Monterey Park = Chinese
Cerritos = Korean

If people from all over the world flock to LA's suburbs, then there must be something great about them.

Detroit's most well known industry doesn't account for the majority of jobs in Detroit. In fact, manufacturing as a whole accounts for only about 12% of the jobs in metro Detroit, and I would bet that only half of those jobs involve building cars. So... I'm not sure where you were trying to go with that

Where I was going with that should be obvious to anyone not living on planet Detroit. Los Angeles has a much more diverse economy than Detroit.

Is it any coincidence that the auto industry's decline parallels Detroit's decline? It's not a coincidence to anyone with common sense. The auto industry's impact isn't just manufacturing.

I can't wait to hear your argument debating that. :lol:

BTW, Minneapolis has a "port" too, just like Los Angeles! :lol:

Last time I checked, Metro Los Angeles and California had unemployment rates similar to Metro Detroit and Michigan, and last time I checked the non-hispanic white population of both metropolitan areas is shrinking... The big difference is that Los Angeles has had a constant stream of hispanic immigrants over the last fifty years, while Detroit didn't have the benefit of sitting adjacent to the Mexican border...;)

Also, if you want to talk about diversified economies:

Mining, Logging, and Construction
Los Angeles - N/A (though, I guess it's 3.4%)
Detroit - 3.0%

Manufacturing
Los Angeles - 10.3%
Detroit - 10.5%

Trade, Transport, and Utilities
Los Angeles - 19.1%
Detroit - 18.7%

Information
Los Angeles - 4.7%
Detroit - 1.5%

Financial Activities
Los Angeles - 6.3%
Detroit - 5.5%

Professional and Business Services
Los Angeles - 14.7%
Detroit - 17.3%

Education and Health Services
Los Angeles - 12.8%
Detroit - 16.7%

Leisure and Hospitality
Los Angeles - 11.2%
Detroit - 10.1%

Government
Los Angeles - 14.0%
Detroit - 11.5%

Other Services
Los Angeles - 3.5%
Detroit - 5.0%

So basically, Los Angeles is stronger in Goverment and Information, while Detroit is stronger in Education/Health Care and Professional/Business Services. In everything else, they're relatively the same. Including Trade/Transport (e.g. the "ports").

So, let me see... Snide "anecdotal" evidence from you... Actual evidence from me... sounds about right...;)

Last time I checked, Metro Los Angeles and California had unemployment rates similar to Metro Detroit and Michigan, and last time I checked the non-hispanic white population of both metropolitan areas is shrinking... The big difference is that Los Angeles has had a constant stream of hispanic immigrants over the last fifty years, while Detroit didn't have the benefit of sitting adjacent to the Mexican border...;)

Also, if you want to talk about diversified economies:

Mining, Logging, and Construction
Los Angeles - N/A (though, I guess it's 3.4%)
Detroit - 3.0%

Manufacturing
Los Angeles - 10.3%
Detroit - 10.5%

Trade, Transport, and Utilities
Los Angeles - 19.1%
Detroit - 18.7%

Information
Los Angeles - 4.7%
Detroit - 1.5%

Financial Activities
Los Angeles - 6.3%
Detroit - 5.5%

Professional and Business Services
Los Angeles - 14.7%
Detroit - 17.3%

Education and Health Services
Los Angeles - 12.8%
Detroit - 16.7%

Leisure and Hospitality
Los Angeles - 11.2%
Detroit - 10.1%

Government
Los Angeles - 14.0%
Detroit - 11.5%

Other Services
Los Angeles - 3.5%
Detroit - 5.0%

So basically, Los Angeles is stronger in Goverment and Information, while Detroit is stronger in Education/Health Care and Professional/Business Services. In everything else, they're relatively the same. Including Trade/Transport (e.g. the "ports").

So, let me see... Snide "anecdotal" evidence from you... Actual evidence from me... sounds about right...;)

Actual evidence that doesn't mean anything.

This is a classic example of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Who are the top 3 employers in metro Detroit?

ALL of those categories you list are in one way or another at least partially connected with the auto industry!

The auto industry suffers, Detroit construction firms suffer, accounting/audit firms suffer, law firms suffer, hospitality suffers, etc. etc.

I can't believe I have to point this out.

Hollywood does not have the same impact on Los Angeles that the auto industry does on Detroit.

BTW, if Detroit was on the Mexican border, people would leave Detroit and go to Mexico, not the other way around. ;)

I think it's hilarious that you get offended being compared to the Detroit of that era... LOL.

And I didn't even know that I was getting offended....thanks for pointing that out for me.
The crux of your argument is that Detroit and LA share similarities but the path that LA took would have been the same as Detroit had Detroit sat as close to the Mexican border. Hadn't LA always sat closer to the Mexican border? Or did it decide to get up and move one day? Although think this is an interesting discussion and having visited Detroit a summer ago I would have to say that I enjoyed myself but I'd rather not get into numbers and stats since this is not a Detroit/LA thread and mine was merely a passing observation.

Unfortunately I do believe that the stats that you dragged onboard are highly selective and still doesn't prove in my mind that Detroit and LA are "sister cities". The population of the two cities were neck and neck for nearly 50 years and I'm still not convinced that these cities were "sisters". Yes there are similarities in infrastructure and urban form which I noted a few pages ago but that doesn't set any correlation between the two cities. And what's up with Mexicans? Many large cities grew because of specific influx of a specific group of immigrant(s) [Chicago, NYC, Baltimore] but do we constantly run around bandying that stat around? And we've already established that LA didn't grow only because of Mexicans it grew at an outstanding rate because of in-migration from other parts of the US.
But we are severely off topic at this point.

Actual evidence that doesn't mean anything.

This is a classic example of not seeing the forest for the trees.

Who are the top 3 employers in metro Detroit?

1. Ford Motor Company
2. The University of Michigan
3. General Motors

The Big 3 employ barely 80,000 people in the region, with half of those being Ford Motor workers. Far more people work for local universities and hospitals. Far more people work in tourism and hospitality. The Big 3 employ less than 4% of the Metro Detroit workforce. GM only employees about 20,000 people in Metro Detroit, compared to the 26,000 people employed by the University of Michigan. Even the 8,000+ people who work in the three Detroit casinos isn't all that far behind GM. And while obviously the entertainment industry isn't as dominant in Los Angeles, it is true that the Walt Disney Company employs well over 30,000 people. Not only that, but there are only three major American automotive manufacturers. There are dozens of major media/entertainment companies based in the Los Angeles area. Even though Disney has the most employees, I wouldn't doubt that there are just as many people working for the various studios and media giants as there are people working for the Big 3.

I make one statement about how Detroit and Los Angeles were sister cities in the period between 1900 and 1960, and you and klamedia go apeshit. If Detroit and Los Angeles weren't relatively similar during that period than who was?

What is that 6th borough, Hud?

People always talk about New York's "6th borough", with Miami, Philadelphia, etc. all being referred to the "6th borough" at one point or another.

I make one statement about how Detroit and Los Angeles were sister cities in the period between 1900 and 1960, and you and klamedia go apeshit. If Detroit and Los Angeles weren't relatively similar during that period than who was?

Ahh c'mon "hud"! As someone who has praised your posts in the past and who appreciates your research and stats, I think you could cut me some slack in this rare event where I don't agree with you.:master:

1. Ford Motor Company
2. The University of Michigan
3. General Motors

The Big 3 employ barely 80,000 people in the region, with half of those being Ford Motor workers. Far more people work for local universities and hospitals. Far more people work in tourism and hospitality. The Big 3 employ less than 4% of the Metro Detroit workforce. GM only employees about 20,000 people in Metro Detroit, compared to the 26,000 people employed by the University of Michigan. Even the 8,000+ people who work in the three Detroit casinos isn't all that far behind GM. And while obviously the entertainment industry isn't as dominant in Los Angeles, it is true that the Walt Disney Company employs well over 30,000 people. Not only that, but there are only three major American automotive manufacturers. There are dozens of major media/entertainment companies based in the Los Angeles area. Even though Disney has the most employees, I wouldn't doubt that there are just as many people working for the various studios and media giants as there are people working for the Big 3.

I make one statement about how Detroit and Los Angeles were sister cities in the period between 1900 and 1960, and you and klamedia go apeshit. If Detroit and Los Angeles weren't relatively similar during that period than who was?

Much of that Disney employment is tourism, not media.

80,000 is still a lot, even if it's much smaller than what used to be. This is similar to Boeing's ratio of jobs in the Seattle area. In both cases, the big manufacturers pull money from other regions, unlike jobs that simply trade money between locals. At the standard (old standard) union wages, let's guess that each car job has a multiplier around +2. If the 80,000 were at those wages (not sure how many are), that would be 240,000 jobs attributable to the 80,000. Presumably there are additional jobs that belong to suppliers, shippers, consultants, etc. related to the car industry, so maybe the 240,000 goes up to 300,000 or 400,000. Factor in a household size of 2.5 each and assume the 300,000 figure, and you have 750,000 dependents of the car industry, even if some are spouses with other jobs. Not counting dealers, gas stations, etc.

Of course, the 80,000 figure is only today's number. Didn't it used to be multiples of that?

1. Ford Motor Company
2. The University of Michigan
3. General Motors

The Big 3 employ barely 80,000 people in the region, with half of those being Ford Motor workers. Far more people work for local universities and hospitals. Far more people work in tourism and hospitality. The Big 3 employ less than 4% of the Metro Detroit workforce. GM only employees about 20,000 people in Metro Detroit, compared to the 26,000 people employed by the University of Michigan.

You still don't get it.

What about all of the other jobs that are dependent on the big 3 for business?

Do GM, Ford, and Chrysler have all of their accounting needs taken care of in house and have no need for independent audits?

Do GM, Ford, and Chrysler have no need for outside legal counsel, or technology consultants?

Do GM, Ford, and Chrysler build the housing for their employees? Provide and cook their food? Provide lodging for out of town business associates? Provide clothing?

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc?

Do you honestly believe that if the Big 3 up and left Detroit that only 4% of the workforce would be affected?

Or is that 4% of the workforce figure totally meaningless, like much of the "actual evidence" that you cite on this website?

If Detroit's decline can't be attributed to the domestic auto industry's decline, then what did it, Hudkina?

Ahh c'mon "hud"! As someone who has praised your posts in the past and who appreciates your research and stats, I think you could cut me some slack in this rare event where I don't agree with you.:master:

I'm just playing around. Granted, I think if you looked into the history of either city in the period between 1900 and 1960, you'd find that they have a lot more in common than you'd expect. While obviously they took extremely divergent paths in the last 50 years, that still doesn't change their similarities in the first half of the 20th century.

Much of that Disney employment is tourism, not media.

80,000 is still a lot, even if it's much smaller than what used to be. This is similar to Boeing's ratio of jobs in the Seattle area. In both cases, the big manufacturers pull money from other regions, unlike jobs that simply trade money between locals. At the standard (old standard) union wages, let's guess that each car job has a multiplier around +2. If the 80,000 were at those wages (not sure how many are), that would be 240,000 jobs attributable to the 80,000. Presumably there are additional jobs that belong to suppliers, shippers, consultants, etc. related to the car industry, so maybe the 240,000 goes up to 300,000 or 400,000. Factor in a household size of 2.5 each and assume the 300,000 figure, and you have 750,000 dependents of the car industry, even if some are spouses with other jobs. Not counting dealers, gas stations, etc.

Of course, the 80,000 figure is only today's number. Didn't it used to be multiples of that?

It used to be, back when the cars were built here, but for the most part the Big 3 have spread their assembly plants across North America. The majority of the 80,000 people who work for the Big 3 in the Metro Area don't actually build cars. They work in corporate jobs as well as engineering and design.

For example, Ford only has three assembly plants in the region that employ 8,376 people. GM has two assembly plants in the region that employ 2,815 (though a third idle plant will likely build the next generation Aveo). Chrysler has three assembly plants in the region that employ 6,632. So, altogether, about 18,000 people are employed by the Big 3 in assembling cars. Another 20,000 are employed in the region at stamping plants, engine plants, transmission plants, etc. So about 38,000 people in the region are employed by the Big 3 in the actual production of automobiles. About 17,000 by Ford, 12,000 by Chrysler and about 9,000 by GM. The other 42,000 work at mostly high-paying white-collar jobs in the various corporate and technical centers.

Now when you get down to the "auto parts" world with third-party companies like Visteon, Federal-Mogul, TRW, Lear, Delphi, ArvinMeritor, etc., I'm sure you can add several more thousand people to the equation.

BTW, every city has dealers, car washes, gas stations, etc. So I think that point is irrelevent. The U.S. economy in general is highly dependent on automobiles in some form or another.;)

You still don't get it.

What about all of the other jobs that are dependent on the big 3 for business?

Do GM, Ford, and Chrysler have all of their accounting needs taken care of in house and have no need for independent audits?

Do GM, Ford, and Chrysler have no need for outside legal counsel, or technology consultants?

Do GM, Ford, and Chrysler build the housing for their employees? Provide and cook their food? Provide lodging for out of town business associates? Provide clothing?

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc?

You can say the same thing about the economy in every city. What would happen to Minneapolis if all the agribusinesses suddenly went away? What would happen to Washington if the federal government suddenly went away? What would happen to Houston if the demand for oil suddenly went away? What would happen to the Pacific ports if the demand for cheap Asian labor suddenly went away? Would the ad and law agencies close up shop? Would the construction workers be out of the job? Would hundreds of restaurants and shops close?

Etc, etc, etc, etc, etc?

Obviously taking a way a significant chunk of any city's economy is going to wreak havoc on that economy, and yes in Detroit, taking away the auto industry would have such an effect. Let me quote your original statement, so we can see where this started:Los Angeles's most well known industry doesn't account for the majority of the jobs in Los Angeles.Your original statement implied that the auto industry accounts for the majority of jobs in Detroit. That's not true. The auto industry certainly accounts for a significant number of jobs in Detroit, and like in every other city taking away a significant chunk of the economy would likely be disasterous, but NO the majority of jobs in Detroit are not accounted for by the auto industry.

Do you honestly believe that if the Big 3 up and left Detroit that only 4% of the workforce would be affected?

Or is that 4% of the workforce figure totally meaningless, like much of the "actual evidence" that you cite on this website?

If Detroit's decline can't be attributed to the domestic auto industry's decline, then what did it, Hudkina?
I'm sorry, where did I say that Detroit's decline wasn't attributed to the domestic auto industry? Granted, if we're talking about the decline of the central city, that's a different story. If we're talking about the relative stagnation of the metropolitan region, then many things have been factored in. NAFTA, cheap foreign labor, the decline of American manufacturing, local politics, tax policies, etc. all played a role alongside the story of the domestic auto industry.

You can say the same thing about the economy in every city. What would happen to Minneapolis if all the agribusinesses suddenly went away?

There'd still be Target, US Bank, a good chunk of Wells Fargo, Medtronic, 3M, Ameriprise Financial, Piper Jaffray, Best Buy, United Health Group, a significant Delta hub, etc.

LMAO @ you trying to compare the Twin Cities to Detroit in terms of economic diversity.

You CAN'T say the same thing about most cities, that's my point.

However you want to look at it, a significant number of jobs in metro Detroit are directly dependent on the auto industry, and many, many more are indirectly dependent on the auto industry.

Bottom line, if the auto industry's presence was insignificant (you said 4%, right?), Detroit wouldn't have declined along with the auto industry.

So, the majority of the people don't work for the big 3. You're right.

I'm sorry, where did I say that Detroit's decline wasn't attributed to the domestic auto industry?

Well, for starters, you posted figures showing that 4% of the workforce work for the big 3, implying that the % was insignificant and the only thing to consider when considering the impact of the auto industry on Detroit.

You ignored all of the suppliers, all of the other auto companies that have a presence, all of the law firms, accounting firms, consulting firms, hospitality, construction, etc. that do business that's related to the auto industry.

There'd still be Target, US Bank, a good chunk of Wells Fargo, Medtronic, 3M, Ameriprise Financial, Piper Jaffray, Best Buy, United Health Group, a significant Delta hub, etc.

Yes, and Detroit would still have Masco, Ally Financial, Penske, Pulte, Kelly Services, Borders, Compuware, Valassis, Quicken, Domino's, La-Z-Boy, Guardian, Comerica, an even more significant Delta hub, etc.

LMAO @ you trying to compare the Twin Cities to Detroit in terms of economic diversity.

I only said that Minneapolis would be affected if all of the agribusinesses suddenly disappeared. Anything else was your own assumption. Any city would be affected by the absence of a significant portion of its economy.

However you want to look at it, a significant number of jobs in metro Detroit are directly dependent on the auto industry, and many, many more are indirectly dependent on the auto industry.

Exactly. I never said otherwise. The only thing I did was correct you when you implied that a majority of jobs in the region were dependent upon the Auto Industry. And just like in any other city, where there are plenty of jobs dependent upon the ongoing success of one or two major economic concerns, the same goes for Detroit...

Bottom line, if the auto industry's presence was insignificant (you said 4%, right?), Detroit wouldn't have declined along with the auto industry.

I never said 4% was insignificant. My intention was to show you the difference between 4% and a "majority".

So, the majority of the people don't work for the big 3. You're right.

Wow! You finally admit you made a superfluous statement! That's a first! Congratulations!

Well, for starters, you posted figures showing that 4% of the workforce work for the big 3, implying that the % was insignificant and the only thing to consider when considering the impact of the auto industry on Detroit.

No I said that only 4% of the workforce works for the Big 3, which is a far cry from the "majority". I never said nor implied that 4% was insignificant, and I'm sorry if you assumed that. Anybody would realize that the auto industry plays a significant role in the Detroit regional economy. My only problem was with your "majority" statement...

You ignored all of the suppliers, all of the other auto companies that have a presence, all of the law firms, accounting firms, consulting firms, hospitality, construction, etc. that do business that's related to the auto industry.

All of the suppliers with employment in the region probably wouldn't even double the 80,000 that work for the Big 3, and even if they did it would still only be in the 8%-10% range of all jobs in the region, again a far cry from the majority. Also, you're creating a double standard with the accounting firms, consulting firms, hospitality, construction, etc. The same thing is true for the "service" industries for any city. Of course, it would be no different in Detroit. BTW, many of the major suppliers are branching out from the auto industry. While the vast majority of their business is still with the Big 3 (as well as the other major auto manufacturers) in recent years they have entered non-automotive sectors for an increasing share of their revenue.

It's all a conspiracy theory people...Detroit is actually the healthiest city in America and it should be emulated by all of the lesser cities of the US

Yes, because that's exactly what I said and meant when I corrected yet another one of the anti-cheesehead's superfluous statements... I mean the very fact that someone incorrectly implies that the majority of jobs in Detroit are dependent upon the auto industry is irrelevent. What's relevent is that I'm supposedly boosting the city by showing that the majority of jobs aren't dependent upon the auto industry...

Right.

In other news, despite all evidence to the contrary it is absolutely false that Las Vegas' local economy is dependent on the health of the gaming and hospitality industries.

31.4% of the jobs in the Las Vegas metropolitan area are in the Leisure and Hospitality Industry. 10.5% of the jobs in the Detroit metropolitan area are in Manufacturing. I don't know about you, but I would say that is a huge difference, especially, when you consider that not all of the factories in the Detroit region are producing cars. Maybe Detroit in the 1970's was like the Las Vegas of today, but things have changed over the last forty years, and especially in the last four.

Also, my argument was never that the auto industry isn't a significant employer in the region. My argument has always been that despite what the anti-cheesehead implied, it doesn't make up a majority of the employment. Anybody with common sense would realize that a region of 5.5 million people can't arise on the auto industry alone, especially an auto industry that has been decentralized over the last fifty years... All of the automotive jobs might support a Buffalo-sized metro, but not a Detroit-sized metro.

Lastly, there are plenty of cities that have major "pillars" of their economy. Washington has the federal government, Boston has the universities, New York has the banks, Los Angeles has the entertainment industry, Houston has energy, Seattle has aviation, San Francisco has the tech companies, Miami has the ports, Minneapolis has the agribusinesses, Las Vegas has the casinos, and yes Detroit has the auto industry. While the auto industry obviously takes up a larger chunk of the Detroit economy than some of the "pillars" of other cities, it isn't as large as many people think, and certainly not a majority...

31.4% of the jobs in the Las Vegas metropolitan area are in the Leisure and Hospitality Industry. 10.5% of the jobs in the Detroit metropolitan area are in Manufacturing. I don't know about you, but I would say that is a huge difference

"Auto industry" and "manufacturing" aren't interchangeable.

My argument has always been that despite what the anti-cheesehead implied, it doesn't make up a majority of the employment.

What % of the jobs and metro GDP in Detroit are directly and/or indirectly attributable to the auto industry?

Minneapolis has the agribusinesses

I don't know where you're getting the idea that agribusiness is the main pillar of Minneapolis's economy.

BTW, every city has dealers, car washes, gas stations, etc. So I think that point is irrelevent. The U.S. economy in general is highly dependent on automobiles in some form or another.;)

I disagree with that point. The economy is dependent on people spending their money on SOMETHING.

"Auto industry" and "manufacturing" aren't interchangeable.

Obviously you'll agree that none of the 38% of people working in the various governments, hospitals, universities, and hotels are part of the "auto industry", right? The 22% of the metro workers in the mining, construction, transportation, and utilities sectors aren't part of the "auto industry", correct? The 22% of the metro workers in the various service industries aren't part of the "auto industry", no? The 7% of the metro workers working in the financial and information sectors aren't part of the "auto industry", isn't that so?

What % of the jobs and metro GDP in Detroit are directly and/or indirectly attributable to the auto industry?

I'm not sure there is an accurate number for that, especially when you are talking about "indirect" jobs. Every job is indirectly affected in some way by every other job. But as far as jobs directly in the auto industry, I wouldn't doubt that only about 150,000 or so people work for the major automakers and their suppliers. That's about 7% of the regional workforce.

What I'm interested in knowing, is what percentage you think works in the auto industry... Obviously you think my numbers are too conservative, so what do you think?

I don't know where you're getting the idea that agribusiness is the main pillar of Minneapolis's economy.

I never said they were the "main" pillar of Minneapolis' economy. I'm saying the the agribusinesses are one of several pillars of the Minneapolis economy. You can't possibly deny that the city was founded on and still holds a large presence in agriculture and food stuff. Cargill, General Mills, Pillsbury, Hormel, Land O'Lakes, Nash Finch, CHS, Michael Foods, etc. are all major companies in or around the Minneapolis area, are they not? Just because Minneapolis has diversified its economy since the 50's, doesn't change the fact that agribusinesses are still a pillar of the economy.

I disagree with that point. The economy is dependent on people spending their money on SOMETHING.

And cars and auto-related businesses happen to be a huge part of that SOMETHING. Auto companies, oil companies, auto parts companies, dealerships, parking lots/parking garages, big box stores, gas stations, car washes, roads, highways, insurance, etc. are all dependent upon the auto industry.;)

Not exactly sure what "best" means, but DC's suburbs are more wealthy, more diverse, have a higher proportion of people using transit, and are more urban than the suburbs of any other city in the U.S.

Los Angeles :lol:

Not exactly sure what "best" means, but DC's suburbs are more wealthy, more diverse, have a higher proportion of people using transit, and are more urban than the suburbs of any other city in the U.S.

You're probably going to need to provide some numbers on those. If you meant that DC's suburbs have more of those superlatives than most other US cities, you would be in the clear. But try comparing suburban DC to cities and towns in the Bay Area's Marin, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. They're likely to "win" in all categories you've listed save possibly transit usage rates. Certainly in the wealth and diversity categories.

The suburbs of D.C. are some of the sprawliest I've ever seen. While the areas directly adjacent to the district are relatively urban, that's primarily due to Washington having such small boundaries. New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago easily have the most urban suburbs. Then there's Boston, San Francisco, Detroit, Miami, and Philadelphia. I would put all of them ahead of Washington in the "urban suburbia" department.

Or I take Houston, but the city isn't here to vote

Philly and SF has urban suburbs?

The suburbs of D.C. are some of the sprawliest I've ever seen. While the areas directly adjacent to the district are relatively urban, that's primarily due to Washington having such small boundaries. New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago easily have the most urban suburbs. Then there's Boston, San Francisco, Detroit, Miami, and Philadelphia. I would put all of them ahead of Washington in the "urban suburbia" department.

Both of those cities have small boundaries as well. DC does have some sprawly 'burbs, but the ones of good quality that it does have do count for something. Many of DC's burbs are fairly new and auto-dependent and they've grown fairly disorderly as well. But, DC's 'burbs aren't "quaint" with main streets that you will find in areas of the midwest and northeast. I agree with that. But I'd still take Bethesda, Chevy Chase, Arlington, Silver Spring, Alexandria over a number of the smaller, cute main street style suburbs of some places that don't even have heavy rail access and nice amenities. Along with that, you've got places like Potomac, MD and Great Falls, VA and McLean, VA with nice natural beauty and a good amount of wealth. Reston, VA and Tysons Corner, VA are not nice from the urban aspect, but the amount of business that exists out that way is impressive nonetheless. And the DC area has had a fairly stable economy, so a large middle class exists so that there are, IMO, a higher amount by percentage of upper middle class communities that fly under the radar than most places. I would never trade DC's suburbs as a whole for Miami, Philadelphia or Detroit, out of the places you listed with more "urban" 'burbs.

And while San Mateo and Santa Clara counties are diverse, DC 'burbs have very diverse communities as well. It's almost trivial comparing, depending on how much you care. Both have segregation, the biggest differences would probably be that there are more Black people in the DC area and more Asian and Latino's out West, but I don't think either of the places should be knocked for lack of diversity. Wealth-wise, I won't argue that SF has more higher-wealth areas like Atherton and whatnot. DC's middle class is its engine.

I voted for DC to be a homer, but I think I'd vote for LA, btw. Depending on how you define suburb, I'd rank NYC 2nd. I don't think ranking DC in the top 5 or 8 is unreasonable, though.

I'm just saying that the vast majority of suburban development in the D.C. area is haphazard sprawl; even areas within a few miles of the capitol are extremely sprawly. While the major nodes are nice, and the massive office complexes just outside the city limits are some of the best TOD in the nation, I wouldn't say the suburbs are the most urban in the nation, when the vast majority of suburbanites live on forested cul-de-sacs without sidewalks and nowhere to walk even if they did exist...

I agree they're not the densest suburbs, but areas that are older, middle-class suburbs like Springfield, VA and Rockville, MD are more populated than the exurbs that you're talking about.

Northern VA has more suburban sprawl than PG and Montgomery Counties of MD.

But even some of the inner-ring and most of the middle-ring suburbs are haphazard sprawl, and while most of the major nodes are relatively urban, it still doesn't make up for the fact that everything is disconnected.

In much of the inner and middle suburban rings of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Detroit, etc. the housing is still generally built to a grid and while most people still drive, people still have the ability to walk to the corner and pick up some milk. It just seems that the vast majority of neighborhoods in suburban Washington, even many that are just outside the city limits, don't have that aspect.

Don't get me wrong, the nodes are some of the greatest examples of suburban urbanity, but everything in between is the epitome of haphazard urban planning. At least, that's what I see...;)

I agree with that, but at least DC has the Metro.

NJ/Westchester/CT suburbs tend to be more urban central, with numerous cities over 100,000. Nassau-Suffolk, LI has a population of about 3 million, and barely any community reaching 50,000. Why? Long Island was the early sprawl prototype. Levittown is over 60 years old, and is about as suburban as it was in 1947. No downtown or hint of so-called urbanity ever developed. That pretty much goes for most of the island. Some pre-war communities embedded in this endless sea of subdivisions are zoning denser and higher for apartments. But out here high is still 5-7 stories.

In much of the inner and middle suburban rings of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, Detroit, etc. the housing is still generally built to a grid and while most people still drive, people still have the ability to walk to the corner and pick up some milk. It just seems that the vast majority of neighborhoods in suburban Washington, even many that are just outside the city limits, don't have that aspect.

I don't disagree with everything you write, but like you say, in practice, a lot of those places built to a grid still operate in a similar fashion, like driving 5 minutes or so to get a lot of the essential items.

I voted LA because I'm always a homer, but it also comes down to personal taste. While I think the dense city/sprawly suburb model is far more efficient, I prefer dense suburbs. Much more cozy.

You're probably going to need to provide some numbers on those. If you meant that DC's suburbs have more of those superlatives than most other US cities, you would be in the clear. But try comparing suburban DC to cities and towns in the Bay Area's Marin, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. They're likely to "win" in all categories you've listed save possibly transit usage rates. Certainly in the wealth and diversity categories.

Wrong! America's wealthiest suburbs are in fact Washington's.

http://www.forbes.com/2008/01/22/counties-rich-income-forbeslife-cx_mw_0122realestate.html

There are many ways to measure "wealth." Net worth, income, median, average....

That's median income, which is one measure of wealth. The DC area does well with median income and educational attainment. But we don't have the hyper-wealthy communities that are in Connecticut, Bay Area, Florida, and some other places that skew the averages. And that article looks to be older, but it's the same thing this year. I think three of the five counties were in Northern Virginia for median income and Montgomery and Howard counties in suburban Maryland ranked high as well.

US cities are going through a transitional period that will eventually leave the poor out in the suburbs while people with more means reside in the inner city. So if you have wealthy suburbs on average does that mean that your inner city is still basically poor?

I think it depends. Places like SF, Boston and DC have small physical boundaries and barriers to growth in the city proper that pretty much mean that a lot of people will need to live in the suburbs in order to meet demand for all of the jobs that exist. Suburbs also have lower taxes, better value house-wise and better schools and will continue to be that way for a while, so I don't think places with wealthy suburbs have poor inner cities. That transition that you speak of isn't even close to complete. In the case of DC, right now, there are a lot of poor people, a lot of rich people and a lot of singles and young people who have expendable income and don't have families to support. What's missing are middle class families.

That transition that you speak of isn't even close to complete.

Study: More poor living in U.S. suburbs than in cities
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/01/20/poor-suburbs-brookings/
For First Time, More Poor Live in Suburbs Than Cities
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6598999
Poverty surging in U.S. suburbs
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/78800/20101104/suburbs-poverty-jobs-recession.htm

I think that it's a worthwhile topic to discuss. Perhaps the cities that you mentioned above like DC and lesser SF are just in transitional periods. While other cities that have more variance and spatial boundaries within the inner city ring (yet still a competitive inner city) like LA will see this at a slower pace but one thing is clear, we are seeing the pattern emerging in US cities. Can the suburbs hold the middle class? Or is there and will there be policies implemented to call "families" back to the inner city? Are they implemented already?

Study: More poor living in U.S. suburbs than in cities
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/01/20/poor-suburbs-brookings/
For First Time, More Poor Live in Suburbs Than Cities
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6598999
Poverty surging in U.S. suburbs
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/78800/20101104/suburbs-poverty-jobs-recession.htm

I think that it's a worthwhile topic to discuss. Perhaps the cities that you mentioned above like DC and lesser SF are just in transitional periods. While other cities that have more variance and spatial boundaries within the inner city ring (yet still a competitive inner city) like LA will see this at a slower pace but one thing is clear, we are seeing the pattern emerging in US cities. Can the suburbs hold the middle class? Or is there and will there be policies implemented to call "families" back to the inner city? Are they implemented already?

There are various circumstances that exist for different cities. Spatial boundaries are more or less set. Sprawling with sprawling boundaries like LA are not representative of the country as a whole. For some metros, there are favored quarters and in others, there's a donut pattern w/ respect to which classes are where. In many places, people could only have what they wanted, w/ respect to how much house, in the exurbs. So you're seeing those areas suffer.

The links you post don't signify that this transition that we've been seeing is complete. Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore and DC - you can't say that the rich are in the cities and poor are in the suburbs generally speaking for any of these places. There are wealthy areas in all of these cities but they're not representative of the whole. Just b/c their are more poor in raw numbers in the suburbs doesn't mean that the suburbs are poor and cities are wealthy, b/c we know that the suburbs have more people. The same goes for many other markets all around the country. In many places, land was cheaper and abundant in the suburbs, so a lot of families decided that moving out of the city, versus getting something smaller, older, less safe w/ crappier schools in the city for the same price, was a good thing to do. Richer people were able to afford the nicer properties inside the city that were higher in demand. When the housing bubble popped, the price sensitive people moving out of the city got hit harder, and with our economy so dependent on housing, the downward spiral perpetuated itself and people started losing jobs and you have more poverty in the suburbs.

I don't see any reason why the suburbs can't hold the middle class, as they always have pretty much. I do think the cities are trying to get families back to the city through policy; it is working better in some places than others. The implementation of these policies is better in some places than others.

The transition will take time and isn't complete and I think we will probably see things more balanced than saying what you're saying, which is that the suburbs will be poor and cities wealthy.

Dallas-Fort Worth

The transition will take time and isn't complete
Yes I agree. We're in transition.