Entry-Level Mega Cities

[maru2501]

it's been pumping younger professionals in and building the core while disenfranchised neighborhoods empty.. net result is same number

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by maru2501

it's been pumping younger professionals in and building the core while disenfranchised neighborhoods empty.. net result is same number

Yep, the state of Illinois overall is hemorrhaging people but the central city of Chicago still grows while the first loop of city neighborhoods and suburbs continue to die, with residents either retreating into the suburban sprawl, moving to the sunbelt and the young relocating to apartments in the core.

[Will O' Wisp]

Originally Posted by McBane

Basically what you're saying is that LA has that same "mega city" feeling except stretched out and diluted over a larger geographic area, whereas in Tokyo and Shanghai, development is more intense and concentrated? I suppose that's another perspective on the mega city. I don't personally agree but I get what you're saying.

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I believe he meant from the air and at night only. On street level, Tokyo and Shanghai certainly look more a mega city than Los Angeles.

I spent an hour writing up a detailed reply to you both and then the forum ate it, so here's the short version. You're both right. From the ground Tokyo and Shanghai feel huge because there's an endless number of things to do, no matter which direction you walk in. From the air LA feels huge because you realize that even in a car you can spend hours and hours and still not even be close to getting out of that tangled mass of concrete. All are mega-cities, but in LA that feeling of infinity comes in a physical sense of entrapment rather than a cultural sense of wonder.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

How about Hong Kong? I've never been, but Manhattan and HK Island/Kowloon are the two places I think as epitomizing "the city". Urbanity at its grandest and most intense.

That's a good call and not one I'd question. For me though, Hong Kong is humanity at it's most intense. When you're in the thick of TST or Wan Chai, it's easy to feel you're in the middle of it all. This feeling is similar to what I get in NYC. But HK just ends in spots. Kowloon goes on a bit further, but it's only a few blocks from Central or Admiralty to nearly-vertical jungle cliffs. Slight exaggeration, but think about the view of HK and Kowloon from the Cliffs or Victoria Peak: the most striking thing is the density slamming against green slopes. In NYC, the skyscraper canyon avenues run north-south in straight lines for miles and miles of uninterrupted splendor. Geography doesn't let this happen in HK. Nathan Road in Kowloon is the only avenue which comes close.

(I know I had Sao Paulo listed for "most intense", but I've never actually been there, so I'm going off Google Earth, YouTube drone and helicopter videos, and of course SSP.)

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp

I spent an hour writing up a detailed reply to you both and then the forum ate it, so here's the short version. You're both right. From the ground Tokyo and Shanghai feel huge because there's an endless number of things to do, no matter which direction you walk in. From the air LA feels huge because you realize that even in a car you can spend hours and hours and still not even be close to getting out of that tangled mass of concrete. All are mega-cities, but in LA that feeling of infinity comes in a physical sense of entrapment rather than a cultural sense of wonder.

Interesting juxtaposition:

In LA, you fight to get out whereas in the other you want to get lost inside.

[park123]

I remember reading some American travelogue about Japan written around 1920, and the writer said that Tokyo felt like a small city that never ends. Because back then, while Japan was definitely modernizing and had already created the first “modern” non-Western state and empire, the built environment was still quite traditional in terms of low-rise Asian style buildings continuing forever and ever.

Well that is a long way to say that for me, LA feels kind of like that when you are there. It most certainly doesn’t feel like a large city when you park your car, get out, and look around. It’s just a never ending suburb or small city that keeps going and going. Even Wilshire blvd. Come on. At any particular spot, it’s really nothing special. The thing is that it keeps on going. Just like LA. Literally for 100 miles in some directions.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by park123

I remember reading some American travelogue about Japan written around 1920, and the writer said that Tokyo felt like a small city that never ends.

Honestly, this was kind of my perception of Tokyo when I was there a few years ago.

At times, it didn't feel even as big as San Francisco (where I live), but it sustains densities of about 30,000 ppsm over a very extensive area.

Edit: And some nodes did feel like parts of a very big city.

[park123]

The thing about Chicago is that for me, it is the only city in America that even gives any “big city” vibes compared to NY. Boston feels like a toy city, SF like some provincial capital, only Chicago gives any sense of being in a large metropolitan area. Yes, that’s partly an illusion. A big greater downtown. An industrial-era cool metro system. A physically extensive city with a lot of interesting neighborhoods (because of a lot of dead space between).

I live in NY, and when I first visited Chicago for real, the main impression was not big vs small as much as dynamic and lively vs sparse. If anything, Chicago felt grander on some per capita basis (or maybe I just got used to NY). But Chicago was not remotely as lively and busy. When I came back to NY, I felt like I came back to a super lively, prosperous developing world city. And I mean that I a good way lol

[SFBruin]

^
I would agree with all of this.

Chicago is very big, but still kind of spread out as compared to a city like New York, or even San Francisco.

[JManc]

Boston and San Francisco feel much bigger than they are but they don't look or feel like New York or Chicago. They feel different; more European. LA feels absolutely massive but again, different vibe than NY or Chicago.

[Razor]

I've only seen L.A through pictures, but I get the sense that it's like a European megacity or an Istanbul, where you don't get a sense of it's scale unless you there. Chicago on the other hand, you know immediately through photos because of it's "big city" concentrated skyline that L.A doesn't really have compared to it's size. It seems like DC is the same, but on a smaller scale then LA.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Razor

I've only seen L.A through pictures, but I get the sense that it's like a European megacity or an Istanbul, where you don't get a sense of it's scale unless you there. Chicago on the other hand, you know immediately through photos because of it's "big city" skyline that L.A doesn't really have compared to it's size. It seems like DC is the same, but on a smaller scale then LA.

L.A. is probably more like 3 or 4 Atlanta's lined up next to each other.

[Quixote]

^ That’s rather far-fetched (to put it in a respectful manner). Atlanta is probably the most sparse, low-density major metropolitan area on Earth. Most of the city feels borderline rural because it was built in (literally) a forest of pine trees. There’s really nothing analogous between the two cities’ respective typologies or sense of place.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by park123

I remember reading some American travelogue about Japan written around 1920, and the writer said that Tokyo felt like a small city that never ends. Because back then, while Japan was definitely modernizing and had already created the first “modern” non-Western state and empire, the built environment was still quite traditional in terms of low-rise Asian style buildings continuing forever and ever.

Well that is a long way to say that for me, LA feels kind of like that when you are there. It most certainly doesn’t feel like a large city when you park your car, get out, and look around. It’s just a never ending suburb or small city that keeps going and going. Even Wilshire blvd. Come on. At any particular spot, it’s really nothing special. The thing is that it keeps on going. Just like LA. Literally for 100 miles in some directions.

In what direction does LA sprawl for 100 miles?

DTLA to San Clemente: 61 miles
DTLA to Ventura: 68 miles
DTLA to Lancaster: 44 miles
DTLA to Riverside: 54 miles
DTLA to San Bernardino: 61 miles
DTLA to Victorville: 68 miles

The Coachella Valley (Palm Springs area) is the only place 100+ miles away, but that’s a retirement/vacation destination. People aren’t commuting from there to LA every day.

[badrunner]

DTLA to Temecula is about 90 road miles. I think that's about the farthest outpost that still feels somewhat vaguely like LA. Places like Victorville and Yucca Valley (120 miles) really feel disconnected from the metro.

[JManc]

Everyone who drives from LA to Vegas stops at the Panda Express in Victorville.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ That’s rather far-fetched (to put it in a respectful manner). Atlanta is probably the most sparse, low-density major metropolitan area on Earth. Most of the city feels borderline rural because it was built in (literally) a forest of pine trees. There’s really nothing analogous between the two cities’ respective typologies or sense of place.

L.A. is closer to an Atlanta than it is an Istanbul lol.

[Razor]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

L.A. is closer to an Atlanta than it is an Istanbul lol.

I was referring to it's immense sprawl and low rise build only..Ditto for Paris or London.
In that regard, LA is closer to these cities then it is to Chicago, or any city with a concentrated and tall downtown skyline.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Razor

I was referring to it's immense sprawl and low rise build only..Ditto for Paris or London.
In that regard, LA is closer to these cities then it is to Chicago, or any city with a concentrated and tall downtown skyline.

I guess if you look at photos of the two cities taken from space then they might look like each other. But, on the ground, it is hard to imagine two cities feeling like more polar opposites than those two.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

L.A. is closer to an Atlanta than it is an Istanbul lol.

Razor’s argument was nothing more than an analogy. Re-read what he wrote.

Atlanta doesn’t have miles and miles of consistent medium density. LA’s “dense sprawl” is pretty much the exact polar opposite of what exists in Atlanta. “lol”