[klamedia]

First off, LA is not to be compared to Eastern "bloc" cities. It grew up during the federally funded freeway era and thus is somewhat centrifugal in its layout. Although, the streets are still a grid, from downtown to Santa Monica is 15 miles long, comparable to Manhattans 13 miles and most business and popular events are held within those perimeters, comparable to NYC's Manhattan. As a NYC transplant, I too held the enjoyable past time of bashing LA but I've been remarkedbly converted to the belief that LA is different as well as unique. As the most diverse city in America now(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles#Demographics) and the #1 METRO REGION IN ANTISPRAWL SUCCESS(http://www.sprawlcity.org/losangeles.html)it's clear that alot of people still talk out of their ass when discussing LA. How many LAhaters realize that the Los Angeles Metro region is now the DENSEST in the US???(http://www.demographia.com/db-uauscan.htm) Many parts of LA exceed the density of Brooklyn and Queens. Second, LA the MUNICIPALITY, only covers 465 square miles,(London covers over 700) not 900 or 1000 like so many people think. Like NYC has Yonkers, Jersey City, and southwestern parts of Conneticut, THIS IS NOT NYC!! So, LA has Pasadena, Hawthorne and San Bernadino, please go to credible atlas sources, these places are not part of Los Angeles the city! LA really isn't all that big.(http://www.laalmanac.com/LA/lamap2.htm) Los Angeles is undergoing an infill phenomena different from the Eastern cities because being auto-centric in nature its city center has been neglected for decades. Los Angeles has no more room to grow out. Please let me reapeat this!! Their is NO MORE ROOM for Los Angeles to grow but inward(http://www.laalmanac.com/cities/ci93.htm). Please note on the previously referenced site that the city is ringed by mountains, oceans and other cities preventing it to grow out anymore. If you don't think that the city will continue to "urbinate", where in the hell do you think that the projected population of 3+ mil by 2030 is going to go?? (http://www.csusm.edu/analytic_studies/Analytic Studies/S&R Trends/SRTrendsTables/PopProjTable.htm) LA is poised to surpass Chicago and eventually New York in the amount of density because of the new trend of infill at a special time when America hasn't seen the number of immigrants entering the country since Irish and Italians stood ragtagged and stared misty eyed at the Lady in the harbour. And the #1 place for point of entry for immigrants in the new millenium?? You guessed it! LA.(http://uscis.gov/graphics/fieldoffices/losangeles/overview.htm) LA is still evolving. NO other major US city has had mass race/class riots in the last 30 years. This means that the city is still or has yet to shift itself to a comfortable balance of class and race power. Unlike a museum i.e San Fran, the city is alive. And don't worry about people shitting on LA. By no means, that's how you earn your stripes. London and Paris shitted on America and its premiere city (New York)for years! It wasn't until the 20th century when NYC began to really shine that they had to eat their words and reluctantly file behind the leader of what a modern city is to be. NYC learned to play their game by investing in its infrastructure, creating spectacular artistic havens and then beat them by building skyscrapers! To this day, those cities can't even come close to NYC's skyline. What will it be in this millenia? Who knows? China? And if it is, what city in the US has the most direct flights to China as well as all of Asia? LA. And which harbor has the most import/export load? You guessed it. LA, and er Long Beach. It's an exciting time to live in this city, even as a New Yorker. LA is like the girl that nobody really likes but can't ignore. Reluctantly wants to be considered an urban mecca but fights and succeeds to be recognized as such.(http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citymap.html) also ( http://www.americanplaces.org/books/book_pages/reluctant_m-w_fulton.shtml)
Sometimes while living here you must ask yourself, is anyone really in charge? I mean, the local news TELEVISES car chases!! Huh?? Where else in the world does that happen?? It's a mess. An enigma. Annoying. Elusive. But something is interesting about it. Truly, the only other city that it should be mandatory for all Americans to have to live in for a year. I'm excited about this city and what it will happen upon in its imminent future. Eventhoug TOMORROW it could just all slide into the ocean due a 7.5er! Believe me when I say I Love New York. But I've been beefing up on my Capoeria classes because next time I visit New York, I WILL be wearing my favorite "From LA with Love" tshirt.

 

[FROM LOS ANGELES]

Did anybody read an article that came out in the Times in October 03' called 'Downtown Like Never Before'? I still have it, it's pretty interesting.

 

[FROM LOS ANGELES]

When you watch tv, you see more downtown LA than any other downtown in the USA.

 

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

First off, LA is not to be compared to Eastern "bloc" cities. It grew up during the federally funded freeway era and thus is somewhat centrifugal in its layout. Although, the streets are still a grid, from downtown to Santa Monica is 15 miles long, comparable to Manhattans 13 miles and most business and popular events are held within those perimeters, comparable to NYC's Manhattan. As a NYC transplant, I too held the enjoyable past time of bashing LA but I've been remarkedbly converted to the belief that LA is different as well as unique. As the most diverse city in America now(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles#Demographics) and the #1 METRO REGION IN ANTISPRAWL SUCCESS(http://www.sprawlcity.org/losangeles.html)it's clear that alot of people still talk out of their ass when discussing LA. How many LAhaters realize that the Los Angeles Metro region is now the DENSEST in the US???(http://www.demographia.com/db-uauscan.htm) Many parts of LA exceed the density of Brooklyn and Queens. Second, LA the MUNICIPALITY, only covers 465 square miles,(London covers over 700) not 900 or 1000 like so many people think. Like NYC has Yonkers, Jersey City, and southwestern parts of Conneticut, THIS IS NOT NYC!! So, LA has Pasadena, Hawthorne and San Bernadino, please go to credible atlas sources, these places are not part of Los Angeles the city! LA really isn't all that big.(http://www.laalmanac.com/LA/lamap2.htm) Los Angeles is undergoing an infill phenomena different from the Eastern cities because being auto-centric in nature its city center has been neglected for decades. Los Angeles has no more room to grow out. Please let me reapeat this!! Their is NO MORE ROOM for Los Angeles to grow but inward(http://www.laalmanac.com/cities/ci93.htm). Please note on the previously referenced site that the city is ringed by mountains, oceans and other cities preventing it to grow out anymore. If you don't think that the city will continue to "urbinate", where in the hell do you think that the projected population of 3+ mil by 2030 is going to go?? (http://www.csusm.edu/analytic_studies/Analytic Studies/S&R Trends/SRTrendsTables/PopProjTable.htm) LA is poised to surpass Chicago and eventually New York in the amount of density because of the new trend of infill at a special time when America hasn't seen the number of immigrants entering the country since Irish and Italians stood ragtagged and stared misty eyed at the Lady in the harbour. And the #1 place for point of entry for immigrants in the new millenium?? You guessed it! LA.(http://uscis.gov/graphics/fieldoffices/losangeles/overview.htm) LA is still evolving. NO other major US city has had mass race/class riots in the last 30 years. This means that the city is still or has yet to shift itself to a comfortable balance of class and race power. Unlike a museum i.e San Fran, the city is alive. And don't worry about people shitting on LA. By no means, that's how you earn your stripes. London and Paris shitted on America and its premiere city (New York)for years! It wasn't until the 20th century when NYC began to really shine that they had to eat their words and reluctantly file behind the leader of what a modern city is to be. NYC learned to play their game by investing in its infrastructure, creating spectacular artistic havens and then beat them by building skyscrapers! To this day, those cities can't even come close to NYC's skyline. What will it be in this millenia? Who knows? China? And if it is, what city in the US has the most direct flights to China as well as all of Asia? LA. And which harbor has the most import/export load? You guessed it. LA, and er Long Beach. It's an exciting time to live in this city, even as a New Yorker. LA is like the girl that nobody really likes but can't ignore. Reluctantly wants to be considered an urban mecca but fights and succeeds to be recognized as such.(http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citymap.html) also ( http://www.americanplaces.org/books/book_pages/reluctant_m-w_fulton.shtml)
Sometimes while living here you must ask yourself, is anyone really in charge? I mean, the local news TELEVISES car chases!! Huh?? Where else in the world does that happen?? It's a mess. An enigma. Annoying. Elusive. But something is interesting about it. Truly, the only other city that it should be mandatory for all Americans to have to live in for a year. I'm excited about this city and what it will happen upon in its imminent future. Eventhoug TOMORROW it could just all slide into the ocean due a 7.5er! Believe me when I say I Love New York. But I've been beefing up on my Capoeria classes because next time I visit New York, I WILL be wearing my favorite "From LA with Love" tshirt.

The Best post in a Long time. welcome to the board!

 

[SILVERLAKE]

Finally someone who can say it better than me. Best post ever! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

First off, LA is not to be compared to Eastern "bloc" cities. It grew up during the federally funded freeway era and thus is somewhat centrifugal in its layout. Although, the streets are still a grid, from downtown to Santa Monica is 15 miles long, comparable to Manhattans 13 miles and most business and popular events are held within those perimeters, comparable to NYC's Manhattan. As a NYC transplant, I too held the enjoyable past time of bashing LA but I've been remarkedbly converted to the belief that LA is different as well as unique. As the most diverse city in America now(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles#Demographics) and the #1 METRO REGION IN ANTISPRAWL SUCCESS(http://www.sprawlcity.org/losangeles.html)it's clear that alot of people still talk out of their ass when discussing LA. How many LAhaters realize that the Los Angeles Metro region is now the DENSEST in the US???(http://www.demographia.com/db-uauscan.htm) Many parts of LA exceed the density of Brooklyn and Queens. Second, LA the MUNICIPALITY, only covers 465 square miles,(London covers over 700) not 900 or 1000 like so many people think. Like NYC has Yonkers, Jersey City, and southwestern parts of Conneticut, THIS IS NOT NYC!! So, LA has Pasadena, Hawthorne and San Bernadino, please go to credible atlas sources, these places are not part of Los Angeles the city! LA really isn't all that big.(http://www.laalmanac.com/LA/lamap2.htm) Los Angeles is undergoing an infill phenomena different from the Eastern cities because being auto-centric in nature its city center has been neglected for decades. Los Angeles has no more room to grow out. Please let me reapeat this!! Their is NO MORE ROOM for Los Angeles to grow but inward(http://www.laalmanac.com/cities/ci93.htm). Please note on the previously referenced site that the city is ringed by mountains, oceans and other cities preventing it to grow out anymore. If you don't think that the city will continue to "urbinate", where in the hell do you think that the projected population of 3+ mil by 2030 is going to go?? (http://www.csusm.edu/analytic_studies/Analytic Studies/S&R Trends/SRTrendsTables/PopProjTable.htm) LA is poised to surpass Chicago and eventually New York in the amount of density because of the new trend of infill at a special time when America hasn't seen the number of immigrants entering the country since Irish and Italians stood ragtagged and stared misty eyed at the Lady in the harbour. And the #1 place for point of entry for immigrants in the new millenium?? You guessed it! LA.(http://uscis.gov/graphics/fieldoffices/losangeles/overview.htm) LA is still evolving. NO other major US city has had mass race/class riots in the last 30 years. This means that the city is still or has yet to shift itself to a comfortable balance of class and race power. Unlike a museum i.e San Fran, the city is alive. And don't worry about people shitting on LA. By no means, that's how you earn your stripes. London and Paris shitted on America and its premiere city (New York)for years! It wasn't until the 20th century when NYC began to really shine that they had to eat their words and reluctantly file behind the leader of what a modern city is to be. NYC learned to play their game by investing in its infrastructure, creating spectacular artistic havens and then beat them by building skyscrapers! To this day, those cities can't even come close to NYC's skyline. What will it be in this millenia? Who knows? China? And if it is, what city in the US has the most direct flights to China as well as all of Asia? LA. And which harbor has the most import/export load? You guessed it. LA, and er Long Beach. It's an exciting time to live in this city, even as a New Yorker. LA is like the girl that nobody really likes but can't ignore. Reluctantly wants to be considered an urban mecca but fights and succeeds to be recognized as such.(http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citymap.html) also ( http://www.americanplaces.org/books/book_pages/reluctant_m-w_fulton.shtml)
Sometimes while living here you must ask yourself, is anyone really in charge? I mean, the local news TELEVISES car chases!! Huh?? Where else in the world does that happen?? It's a mess. An enigma. Annoying. Elusive. But something is interesting about it. Truly, the only other city that it should be mandatory for all Americans to have to live in for a year. I'm excited about this city and what it will happen upon in its imminent future. Eventhoug TOMORROW it could just all slide into the ocean due a 7.5er! Believe me when I say I Love New York. But I've been beefing up on my Capoeria classes because next time I visit New York, I WILL be wearing my favorite "From LA with Love" tshirt.

 

[The Urban Politician]

When you watch tv, you see more downtown LA than any other downtown in the USA.

^gee, I wonder why? Let me think about that one..

 

[The Urban Politician]

The more one has to say to defend LA's "urban" environment the more futile the argument.

That's like northern cities constantly defending their "coldness"

Urban is defined by older northeastern cities. Everyplace else knows the standard and must live up to it. LA is making progress but is nowhere near where it needs to be. San Francisco is a different story

 

[chicagogeorge]

Higher population density in the suburbs does not make L.A. any more urban than NYC or Chicago. L.A's cental city density is much less than NYC's and slightly less than Chicago's, although Los Angeles maintains a higher density as you live the city and venture out into the suburbs. This is basically the model for west coast cities (less density variation between city and suburbs) as oppossed to cities in the midwest, and out east. L.A. is a multi-nodel city, while Chicago, NYC, Boston, Philly have clearly defined central areas. The following links provide some insights as to what high density urban areas without an adequate mass transit system can bring.
http://www.demographia.com/db-ladn-traffic.htm
http://www.demographia.com/db-ladn-rail.htm

L.A.'s urbanized area consisting of 12 million, is the densest in the U.S. This doesn't inlcude the entire Los Angeles CSA of 18 million people. Orange county, Ventura, and San Bernardino/Riverside are excluded. The over all density level would drop significantly if we were to include the additional areas because thousands more square miles would be added.
San Bernardino/Riverside happens to be the most sprawling msa in the U.S. so there's seems to be plenty of room for more sprawl in the Inland Empire even though most of L.A. county is built up.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-17-metro-sprawl_x.htm

As for L.A. building it's downtown core, it still has a long way to go imo (after visiting there in March and June of last year). However I must admit that it's 10 times better than my first visit to L.A. in 1992.

 

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

the reason that san bernaardino and Riverside are not included in the Urban area count is because they strech all the way to nevada and there are thousands of square miles of just desert and mountains.

 

[FROM LOS ANGELES]

It's also the post with the most links LOL.

 

[SILVERLAKE]

But LA's pop is growing and growing unlike most rustbelt midwest cities, so the density will get higher and higher as we fill in and grow UP.

LA is the city that people are taught to hate. But the truth is is that every criticism against LA could be made against NY and SF to some extent. We are growing and are already AMerica's clear #2 city.
















And might be #1
soon

Higher population density in the suburbs does not make L.A. any more urban than NYC or Chicago. L.A's cental city density is much less than NYC's and slightly less than Chicago's, although Los Angeles maintains a higher density as you live the city and venture out into the suburbs. This is basically the model for west coast cities (less density variation between city and suburbs) as oppossed to cities in the midwest, and out east. L.A. is a multi-nodel city, while Chicago, NYC, Boston, Philly have clearly defined central areas. The following links provide some insights as to what high density urban areas without an adequate mass transit system can bring.
http://www.demographia.com/db-ladn-traffic.htm
http://www.demographia.com/db-ladn-rail.htm

L.A.'s urbanized area consisting of 12 million, is the densest in the U.S. This doesn't inlcude the entire Los Angeles CSA of 18 million people. Orange county, Ventura, and San Bernardino/Riverside are excluded. The over all density level would drop significantly if we were to include the additional areas because thousands more square miles would be added.
San Bernardino/Riverside happens to be the most sprawling msa in the U.S. so there's seems to be plenty of room for more sprawl in the Inland Empire even though most of L.A. county is built up.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-10-17-metro-sprawl_x.htm

As for L.A. building it's downtown core, it still has a long way to go imo (after visiting there in March and June of last year). However I must admit that it's 10 times better than my first visit to L.A. in 1992.

 

[chicagogeorge]

the reason that san bernaardino and Riverside are not included in the Urban area count is because they strech all the way to nevada and there are thousands of square miles of just desert and mountains.

Yes, but Riverside San Bernardino has it's own urbanized area as well which is basically attached to L.A., thus creating the CSA of Greater Los Angeles. Same goes for Orange County, and to a lesser extent Ventura. The deserts and empty space are to the east of Riverside San Bernardino. These are the areas that is being consumed by sprawl. Correct?

 

[SILVERLAKE]

The white house will always be in DC and LA has forever to go to catch up as the financial center of the US, but we just might we win the culture war. We have TV, movies and music all we need is literature publishing and the culture war will be over.

 

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Yes, but Riverside San Bernardino has it's own urbanized area as well which is basically attached to L.A., thus creating the CSA of Greater Los Angeles. Same goes for Orange County, and to a lesser extent Ventura. The deserts and empty space are to the east of Riverside San Bernardino. These are the areas that is being consumed by sprawl. Correct?

Pretty much correct, but the developments are not in the middle of the desert, they are connected to the rest of the area. Its not scattered around with a development here and one 50 miles away. the last 200 miles from LA to Vegas is still untouched and will be forever, as its either unbuildable or preserved.

 

[FROM LOS ANGELES]

I would hate to live in that desert of San Bernandino/Riverside you guys are talikng about. Imagine in the summers, it would be Vegas hot!!

 

[klamedia]

Simply untrue! Queens, NYC density stands at 20,409 per sq mi. As you well know, Queens is an area, a borough that is part of New York City. Let's take a look at the density of some areas in LA.......Koreatown density 40,612 per sq mi, Pico Union 40,903 per sq mi, Westlake density 34,096 per sq mi, even the boring Palms kicks out 22,972 per sq mi and their are many more that match the level of parts of NYC. OK, so what about Brooklyn? Still 34, 920 per sq mi. Many parts of LA the city matches and at times exceeds parts of even NYC, excluding the mecca of density Manhattan. Los Angeles is not the low density, sprawling city that it was in the 50's. Some areas are high dense while others are lower, like in all other cities. So LA has passed the test of density. So now, what makes you urban? And please don't give me that Starbucks on the corner argument again.

 

[klamedia]

Oh yeah, and the areas mentioned are not the suburbs. These are well within LA's urban core. If you don't like the city, that's understandable coming from the Eastern cities, but don't make false statements.

"Urban is defined by older northeastern cities"-

what? Older northeastern cities are based on a European model which was based on a Mesopatmian model, which was probably based on a NorthEast African model (Egypt). Ever heard of Babylon??

 

[klamedia]

Manhattan density is at 66,940. The areas immediately surrounding downtown LA as mentioned above get as high as 40+. More than the outerboroughs of NYC but less than Manhattan. This argument wouldn't be so viscious if the proponents of falsehood about LA wouldn't continue changing the finish line of what constitutes urbanity. It has the diversity #1, it has the density#1(on average), and it is feverishly building its rapid transit system, in the face of people who wish it could go back to the 1950's model. Over 100 miles of urban rail will have been built in about 20 years. If you don't like it here don't come but don't start lying.

 

[chicagogeorge]

Manhattan density is at 66,940. The areas immediately surrounding downtown LA as mentioned above get as high as 40+. More than the outerboroughs of NYC but less than Manhattan. This argument wouldn't be so viscious if the proponents of falsehood about LA wouldn't continue changing the finish line of what constitutes urbanity. It has the diversity #1, it has the density#1(on average), and it is feverishly building its rapid transit system, in the face of people who wish it could go back to the 1950's model. Over 100 miles of urban rail will have been built in about 20 years. If you don't like it here don't come but don't start lying.

Not exactly klamedia,

Remember Manhattan is 22 sqr miles with an average density of 67,000 pple per sqr mile. It has several areas where density levels surpass 110,000 pple per sqr mile. In L.A. Korea town hits a high density of 41,000 people per square mile, same goes for Wilshire Center, and a couple other spots. The peek density in L.A. is 66,000 ppl per sqr mile. The entire borough of the Bronx (42 sqr miles) and Brooklyn (80 sqr miles) average density level above 30,000 ppl per sqr mile. Thats over 120 square miles of land. Furthermore, they both have peek densities above 70,000 ppl per square mile. Queens does too, but it's average density is 22,000 ppl per sqaure mile (about 115 square miles in size). Staten Island density is 7,000 ppl per sqr mile equal to the city of Los Angeles. When you mentioned a few neighborhoods of L.A. surpassing density levels of Queens, Brooklyn, and the Bronx in your earlier post, you were comparing L.A. communities that are a few square miles in size, such as Korea Town and Wilshire Center which are only 5 sqr miles in size combined, with a density average of 40,000 compared to entire boroughs with almost equal densities. The inner core of L.A. which is over 100 square miles has an average density level of 15,000 people per square mile. The outer core is 140 square miles and averages 6000 people per square mile. The Valley, at 222 square miles is also around 6000.
http://www.demographia.com/db-la-sector.htm


Again its in the suburbs of L.A. where density levels remain higher on average. About 1,500 pple per sqr mile more on average than NYC suburbs.

http://www.demographia.com/dm-nyc.htm


On the other hand, L.A. peek densities can go toe to toe with Chicago. Chicago has more central city areas with density levels above 35,000 (with River North having a density average of 50,000 ppl per square mile for 1.5 sqr miles) than L.A. does, but again, L.A. has the higher density levels in the suburbs.

If you were to ask me which central city area is more "urban looking" (again, tough to define the term), I without a doubt would pick Chicago in an unbias manner for a variety of reasons.

 

[Brillemeister]

Hell..all of SoCal has had a MASSIVE influence on the world. To the beaches, to the style of dress and speech, food, TV, music. I can go to Mumbai, India and see bits of LA in the way of life there.

I think the whole Hollywood/Laguna Beach bit is the main reason my gut just says I shouldn't go to LA. It's a shame, too, because besides being twice as auto-dependant as even Atlanta, it seems like it's done okay for itself.