I was just thinking about this, and sorry to anyone who doesn't give a damn about the issue, great to you. To anyone else, really, so what if L.A.'s not as urban as other cities?

I mean, its great if L.A. would become more pedestrian friendly, but why let that hurt your current perception about L.A.?

L.A. is L.A., and NYC is NYC, and London is London, etc.....

L.A. has many qualities and many places that I wouldn't trade it for any other city. How many major cities have such breathtaking scenery as the L.A. area as looking from the harbor freeway (or from kenneth hahn park) on a super
clear winter day for instance?

How many cities have neighborhoods that look like Venice Beach, Marina Del Rey, Playa Del Rey, Santa Monica, Westwood, Beverly Hills, Beverlywood, Hancock Park, Miracle Mile, West Hollywood, and the Hollywood Hills?

How many cities look as good as L.A. at sunset and dusk?

How many cities could you easily meet someone in the entertainment industry seemingly anywhere?

Sure, L.A. got traffic, so does NYC. And even with public transit in cities like NYC, its not perfect (trains come late or are delayed, people get stuck once in a while.)

L.A.'s got problems, so does every other city, and everyone has problems. Problems will exist as long as a city exists.

And on the urbanism thing, many of L.A.'s areas are styled in a semi-urban manner, and so what if most of L.A. isn't textbook urban? That doesn't hurt L.A. from feeling like a big city. Heck, the traffic only enhances the big city feel. The fact that you can find commercial highrise areas (and significant, built up commercial districts) in L.A. all throughout the metro makes it feel bigger than cities like Chicago (think about it, 6 highrise areas in the San Fernando Valley alone, 15 highrise areas west of Downtown L.A. (and north of the Westchester Bluffs / Baldwin Hills), 8 highrise areas in Orange County.) Plus, you still have many vibrant downtowns and urban commercial districts around the L.A. area.

And this is not to knock on any other city, I still love Chicago and NYC. L.A.'s just a different city and I love it that way :)

I agree.

i just want better public transit dammit(rail)

LOL ^^

I agree. :dunno:

Yeah all those reasons are great. But it's not about LA wanting better public transportation to be LIKE NY, or Chi, it's about traffic getting worser and worser with no signs of stopping. It's about helping the environment because less cars is less pollution, it's about not having to be dependable on a car if you live in the suburbs, it's about that and more.
Oh, to your list you could add that LA has the 2nd best bus system in the country.

Isnt LA America's Best Bus System? Who is better?

And I feel another reaosn why it doesn't feel so "urban" is that lots of areas don't like to mesh well with other areas. I STILL get shit from people when I say that I'm going to Downtown. People are afraid of something they don't know about.

I live off of Western/Expo and I feel like its a very urban area. People are always walking around, flowers being sold, the carneceria is always packed, Foshay is right there, loads of people riding the 207 and the rapid bus [forgot the number, never ride it], but yet, there are people who are too damn afraid to even DRIVE through here. It's people being used to their safe neighborhood and theyre too afraid of some spontaneity.

Places like MacArthur Park get a bad rap because it's full of Latinos [and well..some drug problems] but it feels very urban. A shitload of people WALKING around, a cool park that has an amazing spot, 2+ story buildings along the main blvd. This is what urban is but a shit ton of people are used to their premeditated spots like The Grove and The Promenade [nothing wrong with these places, but they weren't built with urban desire, just for making money]. This area reminded me a lot of Tokyo. If there were some cool stores that could attract the white folk, then I feel like this area would be very successful in making you feel that way of being in something bigger than just walking down Rodeo Dr.

Another great example is K-Town. Western/Wilshire feels so vibrant and alive. If people were to go through some small streets, there are some cool clubs and restauranta that have that "urban"feel.

Anyways, I just feel like too many people in this city are used to their "safe" [aheeem] carand want to get to their destintion without being touched.

Some parts of LA has that urban feel such as downtown and Hollywood especially the area within Hollywood Blvd.

The problem here is that cities are by definition urban centers. If Los Angeles is not very urban then rather than a city it's an... area (as it is frequently called). The Los Angeles AREA, right?

i disagree about LA not being very urban. I think it is a very urban place; it is just that its urbanity doesn't look like that of the typical US city.

^^Isn't the typical US city car dependant?

Isn't that what L.A is? L.A isn't the only urban place that doesn't have an urban feel. I think you're confused...

Isnt LA America's Best Bus System? Who is better?

I think what you really mean is Los Angeles in 2007 is America's Best Transit System as voted by the American Public Transportation Association.

Isnt LA America's Best Bus System? Who is better?

In my opinion Vegas has the best bus system. Not only are all the buses clean and air-conditioned, most Vegas buses are the accordion type which is roomier than standard buses.

:deadthreaNo "edsg" gets it....and usually does. Who said LA wasn't urban anyway? I moved here from NYC 4 years ago and LA(the city) feels pretty urban to me! The places I go on a regular basis are all areas w/ more than 10,000 ppl per sq mile. Since I take lots of PT I usually only hit areas that have good quality mass transit e.g. Hollywood, Los Feliz, Silver Lake, Echo Park, Downtown, Koreatown, Pasadena, North Hollywood, Long Beach downtown, Santa Monica and Venice. All of these places feel pretty urban to me. This is a stupid and redundant thread in many respects.:deadthrea

The problem here is that cities are by definition urban centers. If Los Angeles is not very urban then rather than a city it's an... area (as it is frequently called). The Los Angeles AREA, right?

Are you talking urban as in pedestrian friendly or urban as in the "big city feel"?

L.A.'s technically not as pedestrian friendly as other cities but L.A. in many areas does feel like a bustling big city (moreso than perhaps most U.S. cities), complete with streetside retail, tons of traffic, and highrise office buildings.

Pedestrian friendly design is nice but has no direct relationship with "the big city feel".

^^Isn't the typical US city car dependant?

Isn't that what L.A is? L.A isn't the only urban place that doesn't have an urban feel. I think you're confused...

excuse me, koolkid....didn't I say that LA is very urban, not urban. Which one of us is confused?

:deadthreaNo "edsg" gets it....and usually does.

thanks, klamedia...you obviously did get it (as I knew you would) and I know you realize that I love LA's unique skin on urbanism. I actaully thought this thread was laughable because LA is an extremely urban place....good grief: how many US cities can stack a Wilshire corridor with high rises or have a Century City shoot skyward miles away from the heart of the urban core.

If that ain't urban...what is?

thanks, klamedia...you obviously did get it (as I knew you would) and I know you realize that I love LA's unique skin on urbanism. I actaully thought this thread was laughable because LA is an extremely urban place....good grief: how many US cities can stack a Wilshire corridor with high rises or have a Century City shoot skyward miles away from the heart of the urban core.

I consider L.A. very urban myself but thats because my definition is different than others (big city feel). There are many urbanism purists (especially in SSP) that, despite L.A.'s big city feel and even, all its streetside retail and similar characteristics with other big cities around the world, they call L.A. not urban because its not specifically designed to be pedestrian oriented or that most people in L.A. drive and most of that streetside retail isn't bustling with a lot of pedestrian activity.

Most people in most urban areas in the US drive w/ the exception of NYC metro. I think we are confusing the culture of the city with what might actually be happening on the street. Also the nagging issue of class/race comes into play because if only poor latinos are walking in droves around downtown we still hesitate to consider downtown to be called pedestrian friendly. LA has the 2nd highest bus ridership in the country and 3rd overall after Chicago and NYC and its still somehow called an auto-dependant town. It's as if the masses of persons riding transit are invisible because they are brown and black. Just think if their were 2 million white middle class (or any color but not poor) people taking trips on our transit system daily how the perception of transit would change. Sadly, this many trips are being taken every day on our busses and trains but once again these folks are considered non-existent. So I believe it is more culture and some truth but not a complete reality that is driving this perception that LA is not transit nor pedestrian friendly.

My numbers that I came up with pitting daily unlinked avg rides against metro pop MSA:
Chicago - 9,505,748 / 1679.0 daily rides = around 21% riding (including commuter)
San Francisco - 4,180,027 / 1204.1 daily rides = 29%
Los Angeles - 12,950,129 / 1973.3 = 16% (including commuter rail and a plethora of over 10 interagency bus systems that operate exclusively within the MSA)

Most people in most urban areas in the US drive w/ the exception of NYC metro. I think we are confusing the culture of the city with what might actually be happening on the street.

Personally I think the back-to-the-city movement had produced a very snobish set that decries the use of the automobile and make disparaging remarks on how the suburbs have sent their strip malls and parking lots into the city.

That's bullshit. We are living in an age of the automobile, for better or for worse. So, of course, it is a major part of our cities (just like our suburbs); the era that these urban snobs glorify was actually a pre-car era; hey, fellows, we're not going back.

Of course we should encourage mass transit, but as you noted, only Manhattan is truly negotiable without a car. Our society is still geared to the automobile...city, suburban, and rural...and there will have to be a lot of societal changes to make that any difference.

The sad part of the real urban snobs today is that they don't want a return to the grittier, more "real" cities of the past....they just want the trappings of urban life, often in a more sanitized version than the real cities of the past.

Yes, we are in the age of the auto and their is no mistake that we also reside in the age of the metro. That's why I don't get this thread.....who says LA isn't urban? We can only judge a place being suburban/urban by density right? And there are many places that have high density that are def not suburban but are not ped friendly, right?

That's why I don't get this thread.....who says LA isn't urban?

No, you didn't read it correctly. The statement is that who cares if L.A.'s not as urban as other cities like NYC and Chicago.

yeah no one really cares ^^ So I dont know why people keep making these threads. Really no one ever says anything about L.A not being urban as NYC Or Chicago. You know waht I think. I think its all in our heads. Because when someone writes something that compares L.A with NYc just a littlebit people start saying how L.A dont want to be like NYc and how L.A is its self.

No, you didn't read it correctly. The statement is that who cares if L.A.'s not as urban as other cities like NYC and Chicago.No actually the thread reads "LA's not very urban....so what?" What makes it not very urban? What is the definition of urban? What does urban look like? And do all places that are considered urban look the same? I read it correctly, thanx.

Yes, we are in the age of the auto and their is no mistake that we also reside in the age of the metro. That's why I don't get this thread.....who says LA isn't urban? We can only judge a place being suburban/urban by density right? And there are many places that have high density that are def not suburban but are not ped friendly, right?

Don't feel alone in this, klamedia. It's not just an LA thing. In Chicago, if they build a strip mall (admittedly one with few parking spaces in front of it and not all that far from the street), the urban-crazed city folk will bemoan the invassion of "suburban style" construction.

Suburbs are the dirty word. These people look at what has happened in suburbia this past half century and think it is more indicative of a suburban life style than the just another change in the change-is-constant history of our nation and all others. Cars are not a suburb invention designed to allow the cities to inflict their insidious life style on the cities; cars are instead a practical tool that couldn't be stopped in the technological world that started in the 1950's. Do these people really believe the city folks would have stuck to horse and buggy and streetcar and el and subway if cars had been readily available in, say, the turn of the 20th century?

And let's throw this out, too: much of our suburbia across the US is anything but suburban. It is only suburban today because it beyond the city limits of the primary city.

I am not only in complete agreement with you on LA urbanism, but, as noted, those who like to cling to old fashioned, gritty urbanity (as long as they can do it in luxury and the nasty folks nowhere near them) see the same things in Chicago (and elsewhere) that you see them gripping about LA here.

No actually the thread reads "LA's not very urban....so what?" What makes it not very urban? What is the definition of urban? What does urban look like? And do all places that are considered urban look the same? I read it correctly, thanx.

Well, urban is usually defined by SSPers and other "urbanists" as being pedestrian friendly. This is why in the context of this definition, L.A.'s not as urban as other world cities.

Urban is not only pedestrian friendly. I see Urban like this.... The more people in a city makes the city more urban. The less people in a city is less urban. Los Angeles has a lot of people in its city but not as much as NYC making it not as urban as NYC. Chicago may seem urban because so many people in one area. But as soon as the suburbs kick in things change. So If L.A were to take all the dense areas in the city like Santa Monica Hollywood. Areas around Wilshire. And places it in downtown. L.A would be seem extremely Urban But this would not change anything L.A would be the same degree of urban before and after.

It seems that for a city to be considerably urban it must have a gigantic cluster of high rises, and therefore LA is not, according to a lot of people. Well think about putting all the highrises in LA metro in the area enclosed by Los Angeles St. the 101, the 110, and Olympic. Adding to that, all those vibrant hoods west of DT, but within these borders. Surely, we got the 3rd or 4th best skyline in North America and a vibrant incredibly pedestrian life 24/7.
My point is that LA is way too big to really shows its urbanity.
But once again, if all of LA's jucyness was enclosed in the area mentioned, it would make the city totally boring, and cause the Chi effect where everything is cramped in to one single area, therefore making the rest of the city boring.

^ High-rises do not equate to urbanity. Don't make such silly statements.

Urban is not only pedestrian friendly. I see Urban like this.... The more people in a city makes the city more urban. The less people in a city is less urban. Los Angeles has a lot of people in its city but not as much as NYC making it not as urban as NYC. Chicago may seem urban because so many people in one area. But as soon as the suburbs kick in things change. So If L.A were to take all the dense areas in the city like Santa Monica Hollywood. Areas around Wilshire. And places it in downtown. L.A would be seem extremely Urban But this would not change anything L.A would be the same degree of urban before and after.

Joey, sprawl and the real nightmere of "suburbia" exists in the Chicago area, a lot more than a lot of us would like to see. Yet many close in suburbs (Evanston and Oak Park are the prime examples) are really more urban than suburban. Also, throughout the area, the suburbs that grew along the rail lines (which used to look like fingers on a map before the sprawl filled in) are laid out in a more grid like and urban way. In fact, I would say to degree because commuter rail has always been extensive here, there may actually be a lot less sprawl than many cities expereince in their suburbs, although as I said, your observation that sprawl is a definite part of the mix is right on.

^^I should have added from an LA comparison, Evanston and Oak Park type of density and urbanity would comfortably relate to Santa Monica or Pasadena.

It seems that for a city to be considerably urban it must have a gigantic cluster of high rises, and therefore LA is not, according to a lot of people. Well think about putting all the highrises in LA metro in the area enclosed by Los Angeles St. the 101, the 110, and Olympic. Adding to that, all those vibrant hoods west of DT, but within these borders. Surely, we got the 3rd or 4th best skyline in North America and a vibrant incredibly pedestrian life 24/7.
My point is that LA is way too big to really shows its urbanity.
But once again, if all of LA's jucyness was enclosed in the area mentioned, it would make the city totally boring, and cause the Chi effect where everything is cramped in to one single area, therefore making the rest of the city boring.

I disagree with that observation. The trick is to look at LA as New York. If Manhattan is the core for New York, certain the basin areas of LA from downtown to Santa Monica city limits create a core like area akin to Manhattan (although obviously much larger). It is no insult to the valley or harbor or beach communities around Venice to say they are not core in the sense that downtown, Hollywood, Westwood, or Century City are. The LA Basin is highly urban and frequently very well designed for walking.

It seems that for a city to be considerably urban it must have a gigantic cluster of high rises, and therefore LA is not, according to a lot of people. Well think about putting all the highrises in LA metro in the area enclosed by Los Angeles St. the 101, the 110, and Olympic. Adding to that, all those vibrant hoods west of DT, but within these borders. Surely, we got the 3rd or 4th best skyline in North America and a vibrant incredibly pedestrian life 24/7.
My point is that LA is way too big to really shows its urbanity.
But once again, if all of LA's jucyness was enclosed in the area mentioned, it would make the city totally boring, and cause the Chi effect where everything is cramped in to one single area, therefore making the rest of the city boring.

geez, man, have you ever been in the totally vibrant and urban and exciting neighborhoods in Chicago that extend well past the core? are you aware that Chicago is one of those San Francisco or Boston type of cities where the neighborhoods are enormous attractions and are magnets for places to live for people from around the nation. Chicago emphatically is one of the most neighborhood strong cities in the nation. By far. High rises abound in neighborhoods north and south of downtown and those, as well as interior neighborhoods, draw people from all over to enjoy their offerings. I could write books about neighborhoods like Lincoln Park and its love affair with the lakefront, delicously lovely and collegate Hyde Park and its Univ of Chgo, young, hip and Cub-struck Wrigleyville, artsy Wicker Park and Bucktown, the UN-in-a-neighborhood that is Uptown.

Believe me.....like LA where you have so much outside of the core to enjoy, Chicago, too, is a pleasure well past its incredibly massive and pleasurable core.

Thinking Chicago is hopelessly centered on downtown is as ridiculous a paradigm as I've heard those who don't know LA and dismiss all of your city's wonderful qualties...including its urbaness. I think I have posted enough on this board to make it evident I really like Los Angeles and believe in giving it its much deserved due. You can be damned sure I would give no less to my home town.

^^one additional thought, based on logic:

If you look at Chicago's incredibly large, bustling, and intense core that is the downtown area: could that area even exist if it weren't surrounded by some of the most desirable and vibrant neighborhoods in the nation? If those huge areas that surround the core and move well outward from it weren't in place and didn't provide the pure urban joy that they do, downtown Chicago would b a pale comparison to what it is.

And with this observation, I'll drop the Chicago stuff. This is an LA thread and that it should remain. But I certainly would have been remiss if I hadn't clarified the Chicago core/periphery issue.

It seems that for a city to be considerably urban it must have a gigantic cluster of high rises, and therefore LA is not, according to a lot of people. Well think about putting all the highrises in LA metro in the area enclosed by Los Angeles St. the 101, the 110, and Olympic. Adding to that, all those vibrant hoods west of DT, but within these borders. Surely, we got the 3rd or 4th best skyline in North America and a vibrant incredibly pedestrian life 24/7.
My point is that LA is way too big to really shows its urbanity.
But once again, if all of LA's jucyness was enclosed in the area mentioned, it would make the city totally boring, and cause the Chi effect where everything is cramped in to one single area, therefore making the rest of the city boring.

Go to London sometime. High rises do not define that city, yet I dare anyone here to claim that it is not an urban mega city.

Well, urban is usually defined by SSPers and other "urbanists" as being pedestrian friendly. This is why in the context of this definition, L.A.'s not as urban as other world cities.

And who are these people? It's funny how once again class/race gets pushed into this. My old 'hood of Harlem circa '95 for alot of people who comment on this forum was not at all pedestrian friendly. Burnt out buildings, loiterers galore, drug dealers on the corner, a smattering of working ladies here and there, gunshots all hours of the day and night.....and it goes on. Harlem at that time was considered by most in the city black or white not to be pedestrian friendly but who would in their right mind ever consider it to be not urban? So we can see that pedestrian friendly not only reacts to front facing parking, deadzones/vacant lots or sidewalks but rather who is on the sidewalk with you which steers us dangerously towards a purely subjective view on what is pedestrian friendly to that particular person(their racism, classism, prejudices) instead of their existing an equal bar for every situation.
As "edsg" has stated earlier the central core of LA is very similar to the central core of any other major city and it stretches from dowtown to SM and is about 15 miles long and 5 miles wide, roughly the size of Manhattan. Just because every inch of LA is not deemed pedestrian friendly by these no nothings on this forum does not make it so. If that was the case then NYC is not pedestrian friendly if you've tried to have a lovely stroll let's say in Red Hook, Staten Island or the eastern parts of Queens.

My point is that LA is way too big to really shows its urbanity.


LA is only 469 sq miles. Greater London(which counts the 7 million people that exist in London) flirts with 700 sq miles. Both Sao Paulo (city)and Mexico City are both larger than LA in area, who would consider any of those cities aforementioned not to be urban?

LA is only 469 sq miles. Greater London(which counts the 7 million people that exist in London) flirts with 700 sq miles. Both Sao Paulo (city)and Mexico City are both larger than LA in area, who would consider any of those cities aforementioned not to be urban?

PWN3D!

NEW YORK = Old Money

Los Angeles = New Money

I got it from an interpretation on the book THE GREAT GATSBY... off topic though but it was interesting

it took me a while to understand

--LA is URBAN

I don't know why but I like railed public transit more than busses.
Too bad our subways don't go anywhere

Is Los Angeles "urban" is a moronic, idiotic, trite, intellectually bankrupt question that is about 50 years out-of-date--and one that I thought anyone who's ever spent much time in LA would be way beyond. If "urban" means looking like Manhattan or Hong Kong, then no, it's not (and neither are 99.99% of the world's cities by that definition). Otherwise, the city is so obviously urban that I'd seriously question either the sincerity, genuine knowledge of the city, or quite frankly the intelligence of the asker, or the arguer to the contrary.

edit

One interesting thing about L.A. is that overall, it is hard to distinguish the city from most of the suburbs, and by that I mean that L.A.'s suburbs are quite dense, urban, and lively when compared to your more traditional East Coast, and Midwest cities. Multi-nodel as opposed to a central city plan like Chicago, NYC, Boston, or Philly....

I mean this when I say it, this past August, I saw L.A. in a whole new perspective. AND I REALLY LIKED WHAT I SAW :cheers:

What did you see?:)

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0038.jpg

^ That area's not built up enough to qualify as being truly urban.

Hmm, looks like The Bronx to me......and who would ever say that The Bronx is not urban?

what in the world? not built up enough? the Pico-union area is one of the densest areas in L.A.!

^ I see a strip mall and a Jack In The Box in that pic. That's not urban. This is urban:

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1221/532086964_aad7fd15cd_b.jpg
From Flickr, by fridayinla

^ I see a strip mall and a Jack In The Box in that pic. That's not urban. This is urban:


^^As a lead participant on this forum please tell us all that your sense of humour is in full swing with that above comment.

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/whitecastlesnyc.jpg
This is a shot of a White Castle's which is the equivalent to a Jack In The Box in the sense that they both do a wonderful job at serving the best tasting laxatives this side of Bangladesh. Not mixed use. Front facing parking. Even a drive-thru! This is within the city limits of NYC. Oh yeah I forgot, NYC isn't urban either.........silly me.

^^As a lead participant on this forum please tell us all that your sense of humour is in full swing with that above comment.

I'm dead serious. ;)

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/whitecastlesnyc.jpg
This is a shot of a White Castle's which is the equivalent to a Jack In The Box in the sense that they both do a wonderful job at serving the best tasting laxatives this side of Bangladesh. Not mixed use. Front facing parking. Even a drive-thru! This is within the city limits of NYC. Oh yeah I forgot, NYC isn't urban either.........silly me.

So where's that at? The Bronx? What intersection?

It's in the Rockaways.

NEW YORK = Old Money

Los Angeles = New Money

I got it from an interpretation on the book THE GREAT GATSBY... off topic though but it was interesting

it took me a while to understand

--LA is URBAN

That interpretation of The Great Gatsby is indeed interesting, since Los Angeles is not mentioned at all in the book. The novel takes place entirely in Long Island and in Manhattan.
Did you actually read the book, or did you just see the movie?

It's in the Rockaways.

One strip mall/parking lot doesn't mean anything. It's when you have an abundance of them scattered throughout the entire city that's bad.

That interpretation of The Great Gatsby is indeed interesting, since Los Angeles is not mentioned at all in the book. The novel takes place entirely in Long Island and in Manhattan.
Did you actually read the book, or did you just see the movie?

I've read The Great Gatsby. It's also important to note that the novel takes place during the Jazz Age (the early 1900s). Hollywood was just starting out at that time.

I always though jack in the box tacos were the equivalent to white castle sliders. I sure do miss jack in the box... and Roy Rogers... falafels & gyros are too fattening ;)

You actually have a point "NY" but its them curly fries that don't set me up right.

One strip mall/parking lot doesn't mean anything. It's when you have an abundance of them scattered throughout the entire city that's bad.
Your assumption was made on this forum from one picture. So I did the same. But then again you corrected yourself by showing what you and only you deemed as urban which was a shot of downtown LA. So I guess I'll do the same:
NYC
http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/newyork1stave.jpg

Gee, NYC sure is urban!

http://i135.photobucket.com/albums/q138/tmaxx6/newyork1stave.jpg


Woa, hey! Watch it! I'm eating..:)

Klam, one strip mall/parking lot isn't the deciding factor between urban and non-urban. A small fraction of NYC actually looks like the pic you posted of the Rockaways.

Hey guys just got back from SF. City is absolutely beautiful and ideal (tough city for straight males but thats a different story). I've heard many people say we should model our city after SF. Sounds good in theory but not a good idea......SF benefits from its geography and topography and LA's geography and topography hurts it. SF is located on a peninsula. Since SF was founded it could only expand south. With this in mind, they had no choice but to build up and densify their city. Also, SF is small. I'm wondering if it is even bigger than the San Fernando Valley. The small size allows it to be interconnected where everyone can benefit from the city.......LA was the prime city for the automotive industry to exploit because of it's geography and room for expansion. In this respect they were able to plug the freeway system. None the less I still love my city of angeles and will continue to defend it.

You actually have a point "NY" but its them curly fries that don't set me up right.

Bahh screw curly fries.. its all about the chicken rings.

Contrary to what most people think NYC is a plethora of all types of living conditions. From very high dense to single family homes. I lived in the high dense neighborhood of Harlem for about 3 years and did a stint along E. Parkway in Crown Heights that felt very quaint low dense brownstones and row houses w/ *gasp* front and back yards! My boyfriend at the time lived in St. Albans in Queens and is there something about St. and San? Because St. Albans looks suspiciously like the San Fernando Valley sans the taco trucks and amatuer soccer games in the park. Been dragged onto the ferry and made to exit and experience on more than one occasion the suburban but urban (within the city limits)Island of Staten. Contrary to what you've been told New York is more than just Park Ave and Broadway and that photo is far from just a fraction of the city, it's just another facet of that amazing multi-faceted city. And please strip malls don't make a place any less urban.....next you'll be saying 'if a Wal-Mart exists'........The only way to fairly judge if some place is urban or not is by its density. All urban places are not friendly to pedestrians or have good public transit. But there are many a small town in suburban settings that have good walkability and decent public transport service. As "smart growth" catches on in suburban settings (basically a return to old time town squares) replete w/ mixed used zoning, streetcars and pocket parks the lines have begun to be blurred between urban and suburban.

^ High-rises do not equate to urbanity. Don't make such silly statements.

This is *so* true. I am here in Dubai currently and its skylineS are starting to look very Hong Kong-like but it doesn't particularly feel urban to me. Fantastic architecture though. I meant breathtaking some of it especially this Burj Tower (Jesus this thing looks like it is going to fall down some day). Hope to be able to post some pics when I get back.

Hey guys just got back from SF. City is absolutely beautiful and ideal (tough city for straight males but thats a different story). I've heard many people say we should model our city after SF. Sounds good in theory but not a good idea......SF benefits from its geography and topography and LA's geography and topography hurts it. SF is located on a peninsula. Since SF was founded it could only expand south. With this in mind, they had no choice but to build up and densify their city. Also, SF is small. I'm wondering if it is even bigger than the San Fernando Valley. The small size allows it to be interconnected where everyone can benefit from the city.......LA was the prime city for the automotive industry to exploit because of it's geography and room for expansion. In this respect they were able to plug the freeway system. None the less I still love my city of angeles and will continue to defend it.

that's such a key point, LApride. People talk about emulating the urban nature of other cities, but it really can be absurd. Let's face it: New York and San Francisco are as "urban" as they are due to topography...an island and a peninsula respectively will do that for you. What each of those cities has done can not be replicated (or necessarily even attempted to be) in other locations because the topography differs.

elsewhere, the same things ring true: Boston is hemmed in between the bay and the charles basin and that contributes to its density and urban character. Chicago is famously dense downtown....would that have been the case if the Chicago River didn't define the Loop the way it does (I doubt it). On the west coast, Seattle's ability to generate density comes from being an isthmus. And the ultimate isthmus city in the nation...Madison...appears much bigger than it is because it had to squeeze its core into a very, very tight space.

LA's tophography differs from any city in the world. First of all, its downtwon core was not really confined by natural features (the LA River itself wouldn't be very confining) and that core in so much of the city's development wasn't the center of things the way that downtowns were in other cities. LA is far more of a product of towns and villages coming together than core-to-periphery growth.

As such, LA has the ability to spread its truly urban offerings today in a landscape far wider than any other city...and not have those offerings being seen as "inferior" to what the core has to offer.

I have to say (and have said it before) that I find this discussion amusing. LA is URBAN, pure and simple. The only reason the city's urbanity comes into question is that provencial America believes there is one model only for urbanity....stick a bunch of skyscrapers at a core and cram people into the surrounding concentric rings until you fade out to suburbia. That's hardly the world's model for being urban; it's America's.

LA should more than proud of the unique urban landscape it has created and doesn't need to look at other cities as models.

LA is far more of a product of towns and villages coming together than core-to-periphery growth.



This fact is so very true. The unique growth feature of LA is that yes, it is a the mother of the metro but not a very dominating one. In other words in the traditional sense you have a mother city then the secondary suburbs then and possibly an exurban ring of towns that all create an empirical system that really gives back at the end of the day to the mother city. In LA you have suburban cities(or are they really other urban centers?)such as Pasadena, Long Beach, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Orange County, Glendale and Burbank that could really hold their own plopped down in any state next to any metro in the US. These places are worlds within themselves with their own economy and unbelievably their own tourist destinations that in no way are connected to Los Angeles. You could literally come to LA and visit only Orange County(Disneyland), Santa Monica(the beach/promenade) and Long Beach(Queen Mary) and leave saying that you visited LA. You could not ever go to Hoboken, Jersey City and Islip and tout that you've seen New York City.
LA is truly the sum of its parts.

This fact is so very true. The unique growth feature of LA is that yes, it is a the mother of the metro but not a very dominating one. In other words in the traditional sense you have a mother city then the secondary suburbs then and possibly an exurban ring of towns that all create an empirical system that really gives back at the end of the day to the mother city. In LA you have suburban cities(or are they really other urban centers?)such as Pasadena, Long Beach, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Orange County, Glendale and Burbank that could really hold their own plopped down in any state next to any metro in the US. These places are worlds within themselves with their own economy and unbelievably their own tourist destinations that in no way are connected to Los Angeles. You could literally come to LA and visit only Orange County(Disneyland), Santa Monica(the beach/promenade) and Long Beach(Queen Mary) and leave saying that you visited LA. You could not ever go to Hoboken, Jersey City and Islip and tout that you've seen New York City.
LA is truly the sum of its parts.

I'd say there is a healthy equality in what you describe here. In LA, nobody seems to be in somebody else's shaddow and the essence of the SoCal life style can be played out well throughout metropolitan LA.

I'll give you a strange analogy here: Manhattan. Sure, Manhattan is centralized for NYC and metro New York. But one of Manhattan's greatest internal strength is its lack of centralization. it is a long and narrow island and, as such, it is able to maintain a core feeling from the tip of the island to the northern fringes of Central Park. Its grid system of streets and avenues is very democratic...no single focal point. Manhattan is able to spread its intensity and its "centrality" over many, man miles.

Metro LA is kind of like that...it is not core based and thus it is more than fine to go in all directions to enjoy the city's and area's offering without feeling you are removed from a particular spot. So along with downtown, you find that Hollywood gets its due (and revival), the westside way across town is able to pack a whallop from BH to the Pacific, that Universal and NBC can make the valley an important locale, that Disney draws you to Anaheim and Malibu to the beach, etc.

And nowhere do you feel like you are out of the center of things.

Like I said before, looks of skyscrapers in cites can be deceiving. This is Dubai. Is it more urban than LA?

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0013-2.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0032.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0156_edited.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0132.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0143.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0164_edited.jpg


http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0154.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0139_edited.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0169.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0177.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0029-1.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0126.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0131.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0008-1.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0238.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0025-1.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0188_edited-1.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0118.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0026.jpg

^^i love american skylines. however, i'm a believer in moderation. so to be honest, those asian skylines can scare the crap out of me. they are so over-the-top and their buildings can be so come-look-at-me that they are either unurban or antiurban or perhaps a new-vision-of-hell urban.

I'm not an american firster by any means, but give me Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York any day over these offerings. I hope I'm not being offensive, but, I'm sorry, I want no part of what they are offering. I just can't imagine how these things can relate to what's on street level.

This is Dubai. Is it more urban than LA?

No, it is not. It is literally a city/skyline growing out from the dirt. It's not organic at all.

I'm not an american firster by any means, but give me Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York any day over these offerings. I hope I'm not being offensive, but, I'm sorry, I want no part of what they are offering. I just can't imagine how these things can relate to what's on street level.

So true. I think most of us here, including myself, would agree with your sentiments. Dubai can have the WTB title. NYC and Chicago have had the privilege of holding that title; maybe it's time to pass the torch on to someone else? Neither city will hold that distinction again, which is okay. I just hope the planned 3,000 ft. supertall for Chicago won't see daylight.

This isn't a knock on Dubai. I think most would concede that Dubai's boom is the most impressive right now -- and good for them -- but, no thanks. :)

No, it is not. It is literally a city/skyline growing out from the dirt. It's not organic at all.

Precisely my point and I am sure one being made by many others here. The very notion of throwing buildings up makes a city urban is utter nonsense. I found this place to be interesting but walk a block over in either direction from this strip of buildings (and I hear that 1/3 of the world's skyscraper cranes are in use there and I believe it) and there is absolutely nothing of interest left of the place.

Here are a few more just for the hell of it:

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0011-1.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0023.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0005-1.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0145.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0120.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0031-2.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0027.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0021-1.jpg

^^ Feaux twin Chrysler copy's. ;)

^^Oooh, somebody's been bizayyy! That's damn impressive shit, and some of it actually looks halfway decent. You have to give the environment of construction some respect there, because the development speaks for itself, the quantity, and some of the quality, of it. Whether it's real or not, let them swim around in their brand-spanking new world for a few years, or maybe decades, before it can be legitimate. NYGIRL's right. Some projects look downright embarrassing, or maybe they were meant to embarrass? The twin, FAKE LOOKING Chrysler imposters are tacky, share a common base and say to America "We think we'll build 2 of these, they're small. Just for kicks!" They cheapen the artistic reality and history of that art-deco accomplishment. This 'project' has its own thread on this site. There are also aerial shots of Dubai which show this 'city' to be basically empty, with the exception of these 'projects'. And I thought China was pretentious!:)

So true. I think most of us here, including myself, would agree with your sentiments. Dubai can have the WTB title. NYC and Chicago have had the privilege of holding that title; maybe it's time to pass the torch on to someone else? Neither city will hold that distinction again, which is okay. I just hope the planned 3,000 ft. supertall for Chicago won't see daylight.

This isn't a knock on Dubai. I think most would concede that Dubai's boom is the most impressive right now -- and good for them -- but, no thanks. :)

WTB title is a very asian thing. here's why: in the US nobody is going to build a super tall building unless there is an economic reason. it is not done on speculation. and it is not done because of height. asian cities will put up a building like the one in Dubai while the parcels of land next to it are f-ing empty! So there is no connection to reality, no suggestion that tall buildings relate to the cost of real estate and the need to maximize an important space with density.

look...we do big projects in the US, too, but they happen in some sort of context and there is a reason for their height and complexity. Dubai and cities like it have so blurred the line between reality and fantasy that they really are little more than disneyesque parodies of real cities.

In a sense, it seems to me that Dubai is commiting the same lack of human touch vetically that Brasilia did years ago horizonally.

westside, for what it is worth, it is 2000 not 3000 ft...but that's a lot too. is there excitement for how chicago spire will look? sure. but some skyline projections show a building terribly off kilter with the rest of the skyline

^^Oooh, somebody's been bizayyy! That's damn impressive shit, and some of it actually looks halfway decent. You have to give the environment of construction some respect there, because the development speaks for itself, the quantity, and some of the quality, of it. Whether it's real or not, let them swim around in their brand-spanking new world for a few years, or maybe decades, before it can be legitimate. NYGIRL's right, though. Some projects look downright embarrassing, or maybe they were meant to embarrass? The twin, FAKE LOOKING Chrysler imposters are tacky, share a common base and say to America "We think we'll build 2 of these, they're small. Just for kicks!" They cheapen the artistic reality of that art-deco accomplishment. This 'project' has its own thread on this site. There are also aerial shots of Dubai which show this 'city' to be basically empty, with the exception of these 'projects'. And I thought China was pretentious!:)

It is as if someone woke up one day and decided to build a complete city from scratch. I could not believe all of the construction going on and it begs the question who is living and working in all of these places? Most of this HAS to be empty and they're just building for the hell of it. Abu Dhabi as well.

BTW those twin towers aren't that small. I'd say an easy 80 - 90 stories each.

westside, for what it is worth, it is 2000 not 3000 ft...but that's a lot too. is there excitement for how chicago spire will look? sure. but some skyline projections show a building terribly off kilter with the rest of the skyline

I'm not talking about the CP. I'm talking about the 3000 ft. supertall proposal that was planned for either Chicago, Houston, or LA.

BTW those twin towers aren't that small. I'd say an easy 80 - 90 stories each.

Oh, I know! I'm just projecting what my opinion of their attitude would be towards us. They look to be replicas in size, if not class.:)

Isn't Dubai what LA was supposed to look like by now?

Isn't Dubai what LA was supposed to look like by now?

Which? This Dubai?

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0222_edited.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0220_edited.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0250-1.jpg

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0219_edited.jpg

^^Gee, overhead power lines and frontfacing surface parking...looks familiar.:lol:

La Dubai??? Sprinkle a little bit more palm trees and there you have it.

:lol::lol:

^^Oooh, somebody's been bizayyy! That's damn impressive shit, and some of it actually looks halfway decent. You have to give the environment of construction some respect there, because the development speaks for itself, the quantity, and some of the quality, of it. Whether it's real or not, let them swim around in their brand-spanking new world for a few years, or maybe decades, before it can be legitimate. NYGIRL's right. Some projects look downright embarrassing, or maybe they were meant to embarrass? The twin, FAKE LOOKING Chrysler imposters are tacky, share a common base and say to America "We think we'll build 2 of these, they're small. Just for kicks!" They cheapen the artistic reality and history of that art-deco accomplishment. This 'project' has its own thread on this site. There are also aerial shots of Dubai which show this 'city' to be basically empty, with the exception of these 'projects'. And I thought China was pretentious!:)

Good post. I agree. :sly:

Thank you :sly:

^ OMG.

:eek2:

Which? This Dubai?

http://i227.photobucket.com/albums/dd299/losangelinos/PICT0222_edited.jpg

This is not Dubai. This is New York, New York on the Vegas strip. Give me a day or two and I'll be able to pick out where the roller coaster is in the photo!:banana:

Will Dubai recreate Vegas in its skyline? Or will Vegas recreate Dubai in its skyline? They're becoming quite interchangeable.

Will Dubai recreate Vegas in its skyline? Or will Vegas recreate Dubai in its skyline? They're becoming quite interchangeable.

you get a million bucks, Westside, if you can find that blurry, blurry line that separates reality from fantasy today. And if you can...you're a better man than I am.:)

But to answer your question, how about "Frank Sinatra's Dubai Dubai Du Resort" on the Vegas strip.

Or maybe Dubai's salute to Elvis, Vegas, and American pop culture: "The : Sheikh, Rattle, and Roll Resort"

Not sure they will go for this, but judging by how much time was spent in the strip clubs here by Atta and his retard gang, and knowing the environment around here, maybe the flagship gentleman's club Sheikh yur Money Makir?:)