High density doesn't necessarily mean lack of sprawl

[RaymondChandlerLives]

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.

Really? Los Angeles is bisected by a mountain range, that's a far bigger density killer than 38k of parkland.

How accessible is Central Park for someone living in Staten Island? Or Jamaica, Queens? NYC's largest park (Pelham Bay) is pretty much a hassle to get to for the majority of its residents.

[Altauria]

Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives

Really? Los Angeles is bisected by a mountain range, that's a far bigger density killer than 38k of parkland.

How accessible is Central Park for someone living in Staten Island? Or Jamaica, Queens? NYC's largest park (Pelham Bay) is pretty much a hassle to get to for the majority of its residents.

You're right, you would think the bisection of these mountain ranges would be density killers. The problem is, when we zoom way in, you'll find that those mountains are either densely built up (Hollywood Hills, Beverly Glen, Pacific Palisades), or they're State owned lands (Topanga State Park, Santa Monica National Rec. area, or even the Los Angeles Nation Forest). These won't be included in municipal statistics for density. As soon as you go west of Route 27 you're pretty well out of LA proper anyway.

As for New York's accessibility - while I haven't lived there, having stayed with a friend in Queens I found that Central Park (and everything else for that matter) is far more accessible. I have, however, lived in both Boston and Chicago. I find the former to be mind-blowingly accessible, and the latter to be reasonably accessible.

Admittedly, accessibility may have more to do with a person's personal transportation comfort-zone. I get that; some people simply prefer cars. I remain ambivalent to modes of transportation, as the type of travel is all relevant. But there does seem to exist a more simple, psychological, notion that objects in motion tend to stay in motion. That is, there's usually a more physically active approach to take a subway to one's destination than the passivity of an automobile. When you have to walk everywhere, there's automatically more motivation.*


* - LA's otherwise active and healthy lifestyle is not a contradiction of this theory, but more of an exception like job skill-sets, etc.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Altauria

You're right, you would think the bisection of these mountain ranges would be density killers. The problem is, when we zoom way in, you'll find that those mountains are either densely built up (Hollywood Hills, Beverly Glen, Pacific Palisades), or they're State owned lands (Topanga State Park, Santa Monica National Rec. area, or even the Los Angeles Nation Forest). These won't be included in municipal statistics for density. As soon as you go west of Route 27 you're pretty well out of LA proper anyway.

As for New York's accessibility - while I haven't lived there, having stayed with a friend in Queens I found that Central Park (and everything else for that matter) is far more accessible. I have, however, lived in both Boston and Chicago. I find the former to be mind-blowingly accessible, and the latter to be reasonably accessible.

Admittedly, accessibility may have more to do with a person's personal transportation comfort-zone. I get that; some people simply prefer cars. I remain ambivalent to modes of transportation, as the type of travel is all relevant. But there does seem to exist a more simple, psychological, notion that objects in motion tend to stay in motion. That is, there's usually a more physically active approach to take a subway to one's destination than the passivity of an automobile. When you have to walk everywhere, there's automatically more motivation.*


* - LA's otherwise active and healthy lifestyle is not a contradiction of this theory, but more of an exception like job skill-sets, etc.

The Hollywood Hills aren't densely built up. It's almost all single family homes. They're huge. They have to be 5-6 miles wide for the majority of LA's city limits.

I don't know what the square mileage is, but I'd guess 60?

[Altauria]

Originally Posted by LA21st

The Hollywood Hills aren't densely built up. It's almost all single family homes. They're huge. They have to be 5-6 miles wide for the majority of LA's city limits.

I don't know what the square mileage is, but I'd guess 60?

Yes, the Hollywood Hills was not a great example on my part. But it's still only 12 out of 500 square miles for the city.

[Munchitup]

Originally Posted by Altauria

Yes, the Hollywood Hills was not a great example on my part. But it's still only 12 out of 500 square miles for the city.

The Santa Monica Mountains in LA take up a lot more than 12 square miles. The 60 square miles mentioned earlier sounds more accurate.

[Altauria]

Originally Posted by Munchitup

The Santa Monica Mountains in LA take up a lot more than 12 square miles. The 60 square miles mentioned earlier sounds more accurate.

The Santa Monica Mountains are not the Hollywood Hills. The Hollywood Hills are IN the Santa Monica Mountains. The Neighborhood that is considered the Hollywood Hills is 12 square miles (East and West combined).

Also, please read the paragraph to which LA21st was referring.

[Munchitup]

Originally Posted by Altauria

The Santa Monica Mountains are not the Hollywood Hills. The Hollywood Hills are IN the Santa Monica Mountains. The Neighborhood that is considered the Hollywood Hills is 12 square miles (East and West combined).

Also, please read the paragraph to which LA21st was referring.

I think when LA21st was talking about the Hollywood Hills he/she means the entire expanse of the Santa Monica mountains within the LA city limits, not just the designated Hollywood Hills neighborhood. In fact, there is an even larger expanse of even less densely populated mountain areas to the west, around the Getty Center and Palisades.

So in essence, what I was saying is that LA has a large unpopulated or very sparsely populated area that does drag down density measurements.

[Altauria]

Originally Posted by Munchitup

I think when LA21st was talking about the Hollywood Hills he/she means the entire expanse of the Santa Monica mountains within the LA city limits, not just the designated Hollywood Hills neighborhood. In fact, there is an even larger expanse of even less densely populated mountain areas to the west, around the Getty Center and Palisades.

So in essence, what I was saying is that LA has a large unpopulated or very sparsely populated area that does drag down density measurements.

I appreciate that you're trying to clarify what you mean, but you're also ignoring everything I had said in previous posts. Much of the entire expanse of the Santa Monica mountains are not within LA's city limits. We're really beginning to create completely separate debates now.

Of course I wouldn't argue that the Hills and Palisades neighborhoods drag down density. But that wasn't the debate to begin with. The refutation is not that of the population density of those neighborhoods (which are really not as sparse as people seem to think anyway), it was the false assumption from another forumer (albeit a fair one) of an entire mountain range being within city limits; which it is not even close to being accurate. This makes a huge difference in terms of both perspective and numbers.

[whiteford]

in fact, it never means lack of sprawl. it will always be cheaper to build out instead of up. so any city that has a healthy upward build of density will always also have a immense sprawl pattern as well. show me one single city where this is untrue.

[dave8721]

Originally Posted by whiteford

in fact, it never means lack of sprawl. it will always be cheaper to build out instead of up. so any city that has a healthy upward build of density will always also have a immense sprawl pattern as well. show me one single city where this is untrue.

Honolulu?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by whiteford

in fact, it never means lack of sprawl. it will always be cheaper to build out instead of up. so any city that has a healthy upward build of density will always also have a immense sprawl pattern as well. show me one single city where this is untrue.

Barcelona, Hong Kong, Moscow, lots of cities.

But usually due to geographic (like mountains) or political (like autocratic central planning) reasons.

[pdxtex]

not sure if it was mentioned but there is a historic precedent for how los angeles was developed. for what ever reason, LA had fairly strict height restrictions for over 50 years (fire, earthquake liability reduction, nimbyism). so for half a decade, LA grew out, not up. LA and metro detroit also wrote the playbook on single family, auto oriented development. this was also the height of flashy, commercialized googie architecture(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googie_architecture) , a perfect fit for sunny california and a population obsessed with the automobile, the space age and personal freedom..... and ouila, the rest is land scraper history.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by whiteford

in fact, it never means lack of sprawl. it will always be cheaper to build out instead of up. so any city that has a healthy upward build of density will always also have a immense sprawl pattern as well. show me one single city where this is untrue.

Growth management or natural growth boundaries can control outward sprawl. See West Coast, Canada, Miami, Europe, etc.

[nei]

Originally Posted by whiteford

in fact, it never means lack of sprawl. it will always be cheaper to build out instead of up. so any city that has a healthy upward build of density will always also have a immense sprawl pattern as well. show me one single city where this is untrue.

really almost any Spanish city. They've grown outward, but most outward growth is high density. Much of the high density growth was when Spain was poorer