Which of these US cities has the best suburbs?

[NovaWolverine]

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

[mikey001]

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.

[SILVERLAKE]

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

[Silver Springer]

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.

[SILVERLAKE]

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.

[hudkina]

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.

[Insighter]

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).

[Silicon Francisco]

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

[Silver Springer]

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.

[Xusein]

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

[NovaWolverine]

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.

[goonsta]

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.

[mikey001]

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.

[Westsidelife]

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

[Silver Springer]

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).

[mhays]

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.)

[sogod]

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.

[-KwK345-]

"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.

[NovaWolverine]

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.

[mhays]

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.

[-KwK345-]

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?

[NovaWolverine]

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.

[krazeeboi]

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.

[Caliguy2005]

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

[ek120]

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.

[-KwK345-]

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??

[NovaWolverine]

^^It depends.

[krazeeboi]

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

[klamedia]

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.

[chicagogeorge]

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.

[SILVERLAKE]

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

[Shawn]

I think Silverlake must be a big emo fan.

[chicagogeorge]

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:

[zonmedia]

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

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

[lena5538]

i think detroit has.

[klamedia]

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.

[BrooklynHeights]

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.

[chicagogeorge]

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'?

[chicagogeorge]

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.

[klamedia]

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.

[chicagogeorge]

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

[vivo]

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.

[klamedia]

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!

[chicagogeorge]

^^

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.