High density doesn't necessarily mean lack of sprawl

[middeljohn]

Stumbled across this article yesterday that compares LA and NY metropolitan areas. LA is the densest metro area in the US, yet it argues that LA is sprawling and NY not as much due to LA's decentralization. Worth a read.

http://www.uctc.net/access/37/access37_sprawl.shtml

[Crawford]

It depends on how you're defining density and sprawl.

The article isn't "wrong" but arguably isn't using the best definitions of either term. Weighted density would probably be a better measure, as it looks where people actually live.

A place could technically have very low density, yet people could live in very dense, transit oriented environment, depending on the distribution of population. Compare Stamford, CT to Irvine, CA. They are both suburbs with similar density, yet Stamford is far more urban and transit oriented, because you have 80% of the population living in 20% of the area, and the rest is ultra-low density.

[memph]

Also I would say the LA is only the densest urban area in the US because all of the US' urban areas are low density. LA is just a bit more on the high end of low density.

The article mentioned LA would be considered sprawling by its VMT. Is that true? At least compared to other US cities, does it have a high VMT per capita? While most people drive, I always thought trips were relatively short compared to many other cities.

And as many here might know, LA has a core with similary high population density similar to many older cities (SF and East coast) although the total population of the urban area is also quite a bit higher than anywhere but NYC.

The article did mention weighted density as an alternative btw.

[destroycreate]

LA is more like one giant streetcar suburb if you think about it.

[miketoronto]

That article has some false facts.

Greater LA's density can for sure support high frequency transit service, and it is more an issue that the region just has not provided it. Same goes for walkability. LA has tons of commercial streets, but people just don't walk as much, because the car has been promoted for so long. The book Transport for Suburbia actually talks about how LA purposely decided to make the region car dependent.

I also find it funny how he is pushing strong downtown centres. The fad the last little while has been the idea to decentralize everything, with the idea that people will live close to work (which actually does not happen). I also believe it was stated on here once, that if you pick downtown LA and the Wilshire corridor. So basically a similar area to Manhattan's business areas, that a significant number of regional jobs are in that corridor, just like Manahttan.

I also think that while LA needs some retrofitting, he should also be noting that the NYC model of a dense dense dense city surrounded by extreme low density suburbia is not good either. NYC's suburbs are just as or more so car dependent than LA. And that has to be tackled as well.

LA ha great bones to make a more pedestrian and transit friendly city. And there are just as many people in high density Brooklyn or other areas of NYC that drive everywhere, despite being near walkable strips.
I know some of them.

[DenseCityPlease]

In comparing the ten or so sprawling post-war boom towns of the American sunbelt, Los Angeles is far and away the most urban of the group by simple virtue of the fact that it was already geographically larger and more populous than any of its sunbelt peer cities by WWII. In fact compared to Dallas or Houston or Atlanta at that time, it was an order of magnitude larger.

Within the 500 square mile City of Los Angeles, the cul-de-sac as a typology is non-existent. The city is characterized by a vast and unrelenting grid divided by four lane arterials, or in rare cases six lanes, dozens of which are lined with commercial and residential buildings that meet the sidewalk. Many of these commercial strips are over 10 miles long.

That most people drive is well known, but even those who live in single family homes are, almost without exception, never more then a 5-7 minutes walk from a commercial arterial with neighborhood shops. This is the reason L.A. will have more success than any other sunbelt city in reorganizing itself around rail transit. It's built from and urban character have far more in common with Queens, N.Y. then Houston or Atlanta.

[tablemtn]

I'm not sure if it's the case here, but a lot of discussions of "the LA region" exclude Riverside/San Bernardino, which is a contiguous part of the LA region by any reasonable definition. Density drops off as you head deeper into the Inland Empire.

A lot of "urban area" calculations of LA are unsatisfying for one reason or another. Either they overreach and include places like Palm Springs and Lancaster/Palmdale (which are not directly connected to LA), or they put the boundary right through the middle of a bunch of continuous development somewhere in the IE.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

NYC's suburbs are just as or more so car dependent than LA.

We know this isn't true. We have Census commuting and transit-share data by community. Many suburban counties of NYC have higher transit share than the city of LA, to say nothing of suburbs.

Originally Posted by miketoronto

And there are just as many people in high density Brooklyn or other areas of NYC that drive everywhere, despite being near walkable strips.

We also know this isn't true. We know Census commuting and transit-share data for Brooklyn.

There are likely more transit riders in Brooklyn alone than in entire LA metro + entire SF metro combined.

[dc_denizen]

The Inland empire or southern Orange County are far more ped-oriented and transit-retrofitable than their NYC equivalents (western Bergen County, Suffolk County, or the CT suburbs) though.

Transit share isn't everything. Sure many people commute from western Bergen into NYC or central northern NJ/LI, but the areas where they live are incredibly ped-hostile. Whereas you could probably walk on sidewalks (or bike on bike lanes) from Yucaipa or Irvine to Santa Monica with plenty of bus options also.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

The Inland empire is far more dense and transit-retrofitable than western Bergen County, Suffolk County, or the CT suburbs though.

In theory, yes, because density is higher.

But currently no, because there is little transit infrastructure, and population isn't centered on the transit infrastructure, and the destinations don't lie on the transit infrastructure.

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Transit share isn't everything. Sure many people commute from western Bergen into NYC or central northern NJ/LI, but the areas where they live are incredibly ped-hostile. Whereas you could probably walk on sidewalks (or bike on bike lanes) from Yucaipa to Santa Monica with plenty of bus options also.

True, 90% of the streets in Orange County have sidewalks, while the ratio will much lower in NYC suburbs, but I don't think that makes them "walker friendly". Walking across Irvine would be a nightmare, even though you probably can't find a residential street without sidewalks.

Most people in the NYC area don't live in the sprawl. Most people live in the more urban parts, which have real, walkable infrastructure. That's why Westchester County has much higher transit share than Orange County, even though it's generally a low density county where a majority of the land is semi-rural sprawl. The majority of people live in a small proportion of the land, so transit oriented living is much easier, even if some people have "country living" on multiacre lots.

[fflint]

Originally Posted by Crawford

There are likely more transit riders in Brooklyn alone than in entire LA metro + entire SF metro combined.

Your claim is obviously false.

According to the most recent APTA Ridership Report, there are 1,897,100 transit riders in greater Los Angeles and 1,715,000 transit riders in the Bay Area.

That's a total of 3,612,600 transit riders. Forget about Brooklyn transit riders--that figure exceeds Brooklyn's entire population of 2,592,149 by more than 1,000,000 people.

[novawolverine]

I didn't read the link, but the premise is not wrong. That's why I could not understand the controversy surrounding that article not long ago about the South densifying a few decades into the future. Density in a literal sense is just simple arithmetic. What's "urban" and "sprawly" is more a product of other factors.

Originally Posted by miketoronto

That article has some false facts.

Greater LA's density can for sure support high frequency transit service. The region just has not provided it. Same goes for walkability. LA has tons of commercial streets. People just don't walk as much, because the car has been promoted for so long. The book Transport for Suburbia actually talks about how LA purposely decided to make the region car dependent.

"Walkability" is also different from density and "urban". LA does have great bones for more transit and has a style of planning that is more conducive with what we typically refer to as urban, walkability goes another step. LA is so big in land area, has so many relatively large blocks and wide roads that walkability will come a little after it densifies even further and more transit options exist.

Originally Posted by miketoronto

I also think that while LA needs some retrofitting, he should also be noting that the NYC model of a dense dense dense city surrounded by extreme low density suburbia is not good either. NYC's suburbs are just as or more so car dependent than LA. And that has to be tackled as well.

"Extreme low density suburbia" is not true at all. You're aware that places like Jersey City, Hoboken, Elizabeth, New Rochelle, most of Nassau County, and plenty other nearby places are pretty damn dense, right? You can argue about the transit availability, but you're not correct w/ respect to population or development density. I dunno if you're saying relative to Manhattan or what, but I don't agree in that case, either.

Originally Posted by miketoronto

And there are just as many people in high density Brooklyn or other areas of NYC that drive everywhere, despite being near walkable strips.
I know some of them.

This is also not quite correct. I have lived in all of the Boroughs of NYC at some point or another, with the exception of Staten Island, and in the dense and relatively less dense parts of Brooklyn and Queens. I've also lived right over the border in Nassau County. Yes, there are people who drive everywhere, but I guarantee you that the "corner store" culture is far more prevalent in NYC than in LA. Even if you drive, you're typically not driving as far and there is more of a culture of walking down the street for some bread or something like that in many of these dense parts of outer Brooklyn and Queens that lack some transit options. There are little pocket parks everywhere you look and some other recreational stuff that would surprise some people. The municipalities are smaller in land area; the schools tend to have smaller boundaries as well. The overall community feel is far different in a place like NYC versus what you find in places that are "newer".

Lots of people do drive everywhere, but I really think that's a combination of a few things. One thing not mentioned is that being near "walkable strips" is fine, but sometimes you need to go farther away and despite being near transit, sometimes it really is faster and more convenient and less restrictive to drive. Taking transit can add lots of time to things sometimes.

[simms3_redux]

I think Crawford nailed it on the head. Places like Westchester, even Fairfield Co are a mixture of:

rural/unpopulated land (hardly any people, large share of land)

wealthy SFR communities (NE "golf course" type communities) (a fair amt of people considering the wealth of these counties, but a larger share of the land than is proportional to population)

dense townships and transit corridors (the vast bulk of people living in these two counties, and probably less than 20% of the land)


There are still co-op communities and a large amount of high rise apartments in Westchester and Fairfield Counties. Townships, rail lines, and infill development. Development patters in tri-state area are actually not unlike CA development patterns. Looking at LA/Bay Area, both consume a lot of land, but each has land taken up by mountains and otherwise undevelopable areas (protected redwood forests, etc). The development of suburban Bay Area counties is confined to areas immediately around highways or commuter rail/BART lines. It's not miles of cul de sacs in every which way. Same goes for LA. It's interspersed between hill/mtn ranges and quite dense.

Substitute mountains for former farmland now forest in suburban NYC.

[memph]

Originally Posted by fflint

Your claim is obviously false.

According to the most recent APTA Ridership Report, there are 1,897,100 transit riders in greater Los Angeles and 1,715,000 transit riders in the Bay Area.

That's a total of 3,612,600 transit riders. Forget about Brooklyn transit riders--that figure exceeds Brooklyn's entire population of 2,592,149 by more than 1,000,000 people.

Although the claim is probably false, it's not obviously so. You can have transit ridership that exceeds the population.

The TTC has transit ridership equal to the population is serves (2.6-2.8 million) despite only about 35% transit commute mode share for Toronto proper.

[memph]

Originally Posted by tablemtn

I'm not sure if it's the case here, but a lot of discussions of "the LA region" exclude Riverside/San Bernardino, which is a contiguous part of the LA region by any reasonable definition. Density drops off as you head deeper into the Inland Empire.

A lot of "urban area" calculations of LA are unsatisfying for one reason or another. Either they overreach and include places like Palm Springs and Lancaster/Palmdale (which are not directly connected to LA), or they put the boundary right through the middle of a bunch of continuous development somewhere in the IE.

True, if you add Riverside-San Bernardino, Santa Clarita, Simi Valley, Thousand Oaks and south O.C. the density drops from 6,999 ppsm to 5,815 ppsm (with 15.266 million people).

Doing something similar with SF, adding Vallejo, Antioch, Concord, Livermore and San Jose brings densities down from 6,266 ppsm to 5,184 ppsm.

I probably wouldn't add anything else though, I mean Stamford-Bridgeport, Poughkeepsie and Trenton were considered separate urban areas.


I think if all of Central and South Central LA had densities more like Hollywood, Westlake and Mid-Wishire though, you'd have something much more transit oriented in the core, even if the employment remained somewhat decentralized.


BTW the frequent transit grid of Central and South Central LA is not that bad. 15 min service on arterials at about 1 mile intervals. Ideally I'd have 10 min service at 0.5 mile intervals. Doubling of densities should make that possible, combined with more rapid transit too.

[llamaorama]

I've always felt some sprawly cities had the right stuff to densify in an urban way if only there was ever an actual push to do so. San Antonio has a vast street grid and commercial strips and wide(for the purpose of being reconfigured for transit and better sidewalks) radial avenues, while it's downtown has a strong sense of place. I think with enough infill it would be incredible.

[middeljohn]

In San Francisco right now for the first time. I've heard plenty about the high density and vinrancy here, but seeing it in person is incredible. Much more vibrant than I had expected. I had expected something similar to Toronto, but San Francisco is a notch above. Not as many highrises, but the mid-rise density is awesome! The streets are filled with people, and you see streetcars, buses and train tracks everywhere!

[Altauria]

Percent of parkland out of total city area:

1. New York City - 19.6% - [38,229 acres]
2. Washington DC -19.4% - [7,617 acres]
3. San Francisco -18% [5,384 acres]
4. Jersey City -17.3% [1,660 acres]
5. Boston -16.3% [5,040 acres]
6. Philadelphia -12.6% [10,886 acres]
7. Long Beach -10.1% [3,275 acres]
8. Baltimore -9.5% [5,905 acres]
9. Chicago -8.2% [11,860 acres]
10. Los Angeles -7.9% [23,761 acres]

Source:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...-parkland.html

LA still feels like one big suburb.
I've often wondered if LA's severe lack of parks had something to do with an artificial jump in population density.
Sure there's Griffith, but for a subjective argument it's 4,000+ acres, almost a quarter of the total parkland; and is mostly comprised of a side of a mountain, which means all the useable land is dedicated to trails and attractions (although the observatory is still one my favorite places on this planet!). In general most of the parks are not very accessible to your average citizen.
(joke coming...)You have a choice of park experiences in LA: either get stabbed in MacArthur Park, or attacked by some bougie actress's toy dog in Runyon Canyon...

Perfectly accessible Central Park in New York is a mere 843 acres.

[lovemycity21]

Originally Posted by Altauria

Percent of parkland out of total city area:

1. New York City - 19.6% - [38,229 acres]
2. Washington DC -19.4% - [7,617 acres]
3. San Francisco -18% [5,384 acres]
4. Jersey City -17.3% [1,660 acres]
5. Boston -16.3% [5,040 acres]
6. Philadelphia -12.6% [10,886 acres]
7. Long Beach -10.1% [3,275 acres]
8. Baltimore -9.5% [5,905 acres]
9. Chicago -8.2% [11,860 acres]
10. Los Angeles -7.9% [23,761 acres]

Source:
http://www.city-data.com/forum/city-...-parkland.html

LA still feels like one big suburb.
I've often wondered if LA's severe lack of parks had something to do with an artificial jump in population density.
Sure there's Griffith, but for a subjective argument it's 4,000+ acres, almost a quarter of the total parkland; and is mostly comprised of a side of a mountain, which means all the useable land is dedicated to trails and attractions (although the observatory is still one my favorite places on this planet!). In general most of the parks are not very accessible to your average citizen.
(joke coming...)You have a choice of park experiences in LA: either get stabbed in MacArthur Park, or attacked by some bougie actress's toy dog in Runyon Canyon...

Perfectly accessible Central Park in New York is a mere 843 acres.

You realize the Hollywood Hills are basically one big ass park? Topanga Canyon, Runyon Canyon, Elysian Park, Ernest E Debbs Park...list goes on. Plus Baldwin Hills is one big park as well. The beaches are technically public parks as well. It's probably why you don't here people in LA complaining about park space.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by fflint

Your claim is obviously false.

You aren't reading the APTA reports correctly.

APTA measures unlinked transit trips, not unique transit riders.

I have no idea what the unlinked transit trips would be for Brooklyn, but it will be much higher than the borough population, because the vast majority of Brooklynites use transit for weekday commuting, so that's already 2 trips for one person, and that's before transfers.

I'm guessing Brooklyn does have more transit riders than LA + SF metros, but APTA isn't going to give us the answer. Census will, though. I'll look it up.