Entry-Level Mega Cities

[JManc]

JFC people...are you guys serious with this shit show of a debate?

[jtown,man]

Yes lol

I am done though, I will wait patiently for craigs to clarify what he meant. It doesn't excuse the other two for believing that sidewalks, crosswalks, and etc make a place walkable though.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by Crawford

IMO LA is walkable, but not walker friendly. I think that's the distinction. One can easily walk all around places like Irvine, even. It just isn't pleasant, so almost no one with options does it. Streets are too wide, no other pedestrians, drivers aren't looking for you, right turns are allowed, little shade, and little of pedestrian-level visual interest.

My aunt lives in Coastal OC in an area with very high walk score, and tons of stuff within walking distance, but there are almost no walkers. There's really no reason to walk anywhere. Even the beach is a difficult, roundabout walk for most, and there's cheap parking right next door, so what's the point?

Originally Posted by Quixote

In the context of these sorts of discussions, using OC as an example is rather disingenuous. Come on, dude.

LA’s “walkability” comes mostly from its grid structure, medium-high density, developed commercial arteries, and bus routes. You already know this.

Yeah, I lived in Hollywood for 17 years and found it to be very walkable and pleasant. Wide sidewalks, pretty and pleasant neighborhoods and everything you need within walking distance. That said there were certain streets I tended not to walk along that were busier and not as pleasant or walker friendly, but because LA is on a grid and some of the less busy streets in the neighborhoods are so pleasant I still found it a walking paradise. I of all people should know this city's walkability. 12 to 15 years ago I pretty much walked this entire city time and time again posting LA photo threads.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yes lol

I am done though, I will wait patiently for craigs to clarify what he meant. It doesn't excuse the other two for believing that sidewalks, crosswalks, and etc make a place walkable though.

We don’t agree with your literal interpretation of his statement since we understand the subtext of his argument. You chose an extreme example to seemingly bolster your argument, only to demonstrate some level of nuance and beyond-the-surface understanding with the Chicago Street View. You obviously have an axe to grind, as demonstrated by your post history.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Yes lol

I am done though, I will wait patiently for craigs to clarify what he meant. It doesn't excuse the other two for believing that sidewalks, crosswalks, and etc make a place walkable though.

I never said it did. I always said Craig meant more than that and you made a strange comparison. That's it.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by dktshb

When I saw this thread before I even entered it I realized it was going to be all about LA and filled with the same stereotypical factually incorrect assumptions. There will be hundreds of more threads like this so the same handful of forum members can go on with there same nonsense like "LA is three Atlanta's" or Wilshire blvd and San Vicente is the "heart of the city." It gets so old!

I lived in LA for 20 years and it felt like a large city to me and that's because factually it is. Certainly not Tokyo or NYC. Living now in the heart of SF, which I love, it definitely feels smaller to me, which it should because it is.

Don't forget get the "santa Monica, west Hollywood, Hollywood, Beverly hills are small towns like in Fairfield Connecticut" comments.
And people wonder why we get annoyed. You'd never hear that in real life.

The San Vicente thing sounds like a guy looking at a map and thinking "this looks close to enough to say it could be the center..."

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Quixote

We don’t agree with your literal interpretation of his statement since we understand the subtext of his argument. You chose an extreme example to seemingly bolster your argument, only to demonstrate some level of nuance and beyond-the-surface understanding with the Chicago Street View. You obviously have an axe to grind, as demonstrated by your post history.

Were all good then.

My post history? I barely...and I mean BARELY mention LA. I don't know where you are getting this from?

[homebucket]

https://goo.gl/maps/uXXzTt87iaJ5K1wTA

https://goo.gl/maps/DbnVKG6ETmqUekrZ9

https://goo.gl/maps/RwboGu2HUt6ULwDA8

I've ordered these from least to most walkable. You guys are reading too much into Craig's post and being intentionally obtuse. This fits the definition of trolling. They are all walkable, in that they have sidewalks and crosswalks. But they clearly have very different built environments around them.

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by Quixote

We don’t agree with your literal interpretation of his statement since we understand the subtext of his argument. You chose an extreme example to seemingly bolster your argument, only to demonstrate some level of nuance and beyond-the-surface understanding with the Chicago Street View. You obviously have an axe to grind, as demonstrated by your post history.

He's in all the anti-California threads. I agree the axe to grind is quite obvious.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by homebucket

He's in all the anti-California threads. I agree the axe to grind is quite obvious.

Theres a few of those here, sadly.
And they jump on any opportunity to argue their pov.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by homebucket

https://goo.gl/maps/uXXzTt87iaJ5K1wTA

https://goo.gl/maps/DbnVKG6ETmqUekrZ9

https://goo.gl/maps/RwboGu2HUt6ULwDA8

I've ordered these from least to most walkable. You guys are reading too much into Craig's post and being intentionally obtuse. This fits the definition of trolling. They are all walkable, in that they have sidewalks and crosswalks. But they clearly have very different built environments around them.

Fair enough.

Guys, I guess I am trolling a little bit. It was fun while it lasted. I did have a point to begin with but then it disappeared. I will say my point had zero to do with LA, it was about the statement about sidewalks and crosswalks, I just want that to be clear. That's why I posed googlemaps of VB and Chicago, because it wasn't about LA, it was about S and C.

Accept my apologies?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Quixote

In the context of these sorts of discussions, using OC as an example is rather disingenuous. Come on, dude.

LA’s “walkability” comes mostly from its grid structure, medium-high density, developed commercial arteries, and bus routes. You already know this.

Coastal OC shares the same characteristics. Grid structure, medium-high density, developed commercial arteries and bus routes. Walkable, yes, but not walker friendly.

This is the environment. No one walks. You see a few poor folks waiting for buses, and joggers/dog walkers.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6008...7i16384!8i8192

How is this worse than an LA arterial? There are no walkers, but there aren't in wealthy LA neighborhoods either. Poor areas with transit dependent folks have walkers, obviously, but this is true in both counties. Santa Ana has walkers, Pacific Palisades doesn't.

What's with LA people hating on OC re. urbanity/walkability? Someone living in a random LA neighborhood with similar demographics doesn't have a more walkable/urban environment than someone living in coastal OC. If someone moved from Corona del Mar to Brentwood, there would be no lifestyle difference.

[park123]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Don't forget get the "santa Monica, west Hollywood, Hollywood, Beverly hills are small towns like in Fairfield Connecticut" comments.
And people wonder why we get annoyed. You'd never hear that in real life.

The San Vicente thing sounds like a guy looking at a map and thinking "this looks close to enough to say it could be the center..."

Literally only in America would Santa Monica be a "big city". It's a town. not even a big town. And yes, the commercial center of Greenwich CT is not much if at all smaller or less walkable. I lived in both Greenwich and less than 5 minutes drive from Santa Monica.

There's like 1 tall building and a dated-looking 3-block 1970-80s pedestrian mall in Santa Monica, and that makes it a top 3 urban area in the LA megalopolis.

[Nouvellecosse]

Just so I understand correctly, everyone is arguing about whether or not LA is walkable because if it can be proven to be unwalkable, then it's disqualified as a megacity? Or is it just demoted to "entry-level mega city" despite having megacity population size?

[jtown,man]

I, for one, NEVER argued that LA isn't walkable. Not once in this thread.

[park123]

"But what about Montrose??? And that one intersection in K-town that looks kind of like a city if you ignore the 100 strip mall centers within 500 yards of it?"

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Coastal OC shares the same characteristics. Grid structure, medium-high density, developed commercial arteries and bus routes. Walkable, yes, but not walker friendly.

This is the environment. No one walks. You see a few poor folks waiting for buses, and joggers/dog walkers.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.6008...7i16384!8i8192

Corona del Mar exists in a vacuum. It's a tiny village-like community completely surrounded by more generic suburban sprawl.

LA's grid is much more expansive and contiguous, creating a certain level of holistic synergy that simply doesn't exist in OC. LA folks, including middle and upper-middle class, are also more open to the idea of walking and taking public transit. I say this as someone who commutes to work by public transit (rail and bus) daily and could be regarded as "upper middle class."

That's the difference between LA and OC.

How is this worse than an LA arterial? There are no walkers, but there aren't in wealthy LA neighborhoods either. Poor areas with transit dependent folks have walkers, obviously, but this is true in both counties. Santa Ana has walkers, Pacific Palisades doesn't.

What's with LA people hating on OC re. urbanity/walkability? Someone living in a random LA neighborhood with similar demographics doesn't have a more walkable/urban environment than someone living in coastal OC. If someone moved from Corona del Mar to Brentwood, there would be no lifestyle difference.

First off, OC at its poorest is nothing compared to LA's poverty. Santa Ana probably doesn't have more pedestrians or bus riders than wealthier, whiter areas of central LA like the Fairfax District or West Hollywood.

As an off-shoot of what I said in the "next tier" thread, what non-core nabes outside of NYC are absolutely teeming with pedestrians? I go on Google Street View all the time, and there are hardly any pedestrians on the commercial strips, let alone the quiet residential streets in Northside Chicago, South Philly, Outer Boston, outer SF, etc. Feel free to post examples to the contrary.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by park123

Literally only in America would Santa Monica be a "big city". It's a town. not even a big town. And yes, the commercial center of Greenwich CT is not much if at all smaller or less walkable. I lived in both Greenwich and less than 5 minutes drive from Santa Monica.

There's like 1 tall building and a dated-looking 3-block 1970-80s pedestrian mall in Santa Monica, and that makes it a top 3 urban area in the LA megalopolis.

Wow, sounds like your perception of sm is from the 1970s. You said small town. Have you actually been to downtown santa Monica on a weekend? There's more pedestrians there than several large cities. Youve never walked on ocean Ave or Broadway??
Yes, let's ignore Montana Ave, main St,
Downtown sm (it goes to Lincoln Blvd these days ), ocean Park Ave, Wilshire, sm Blvd, arious clusters
Of 7-8 story office buildings on the east side.

It's not a big city, it has 90,000. But there's nothing small town about it. There's not many suburbs that pack more amenities in or as walkable either. Please don't mention little villages either. It's not the same.
Greenwich looks like Laguna Beach more than Santa Monica.
But keep exgerrating though.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by park123

"But what about Montrose??? And that one intersection in K-town that looks kind of like a city if you ignore the 100 strip mall centers within 500 yards of it?"

Yea, you're one to be taken seriously.
Fairfield county. Nuff said.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Just so I understand correctly, everyone is arguing about whether or not LA is walkable because if it can be proven to be unwalkable, then it's disqualified as a megacity? Or is it just demoted to "entry-level mega city" despite having megacity population size?

Who knows. It draws in alot of trolls though