HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2023, 3:59 AM
craigs's Avatar
craigs craigs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,834
It's one study, in which the authors state their metrics and release a list accordingly.

For those who want to arbitrarily demote Los Angeles, which of the study's metrics would you tweak--and how--to attain your desired outcome?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2023, 4:28 AM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by craigs View Post

For those who want to arbitrarily demote Los Angeles, which of the study's metrics would you tweak--and how--to attain your desired outcome?
There's nothing "arbitrary". LA isn't exactly a pedestrian paradise. If it ranks highly, yeah, the metrics are suspect. One doesn't need to delve into the business rules to understand the ranking doesn't make sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2023, 12:38 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is online now
NYC/NJ/Miami-Dade
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Riverview Estates Fairway (PA)
Posts: 45,840
Every city is walkable. So long as one picks up their leg and plants it on the ground moving in a direction, and than proceeds to do it with the other leg, touching the ground with a foot. Really what it comes down to is how interesting of a walk is it and a question of time with some cities. Walking from Long Beach to Downtown LA might take a while.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2023, 3:10 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,895
LA is walkable in that period between getting out of a car and walking into the entrance of your destination.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2023, 3:31 PM
EastSideHBG's Avatar
EastSideHBG EastSideHBG is offline
Me?!?
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Philadelphia Metro
Posts: 11,223
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
Agreed. There's no reality where LA is more walkable than Philly. Center City is an urban gem that has more charming streets than even NYC.
Metro, though, not just the central city. I would argue that the LA metro is more "cohesively dense" in its built environment because of how it grew so it can sometimes be easier to live in places that are walkable. Granted, there are quite a few factors at play here if we want to dive into this but I have seen more pedestrians in various spots across the LA metro than I do across various areas of the Philly metro.

But regardless the U.S. has so much work to do in this area and the congestion in our metros is unbearable.
__________________
Right before your eyes you're victimized, guys, that's the world of today and it ain't civilized.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2023, 4:31 PM
LA21st LA21st is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
Every city is walkable. So long as one picks up their leg and plants it on the ground moving in a direction, and than proceeds to do it with the other leg, touching the ground with a foot. Really what it comes down to is how interesting of a walk is it and a question of time with some cities. Walking from Long Beach to Downtown LA might take a while.
Sure, but walking from Manhattan to Pasiac or something would too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2023, 5:17 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 6,613
Phoenix is a lot more dense than people think it is. Its just got a massive city limits with entire areas of undeveloped land and whole mountain preserves within its city limits.

There are several specific areas that are extremely walkable and bikeable. But most visitors are up in Scottsdale for conferences or out visiting their Aunt in Mesa or Glendale so they only see suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2023, 6:54 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is online now
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastSideHBG View Post
Metro, though, not just the central city. I would argue that the LA metro is more "cohesively dense" in its built environment because of how it grew so it can sometimes be easier to live in places that are walkable. Granted, there are quite a few factors at play here if we want to dive into this but I have seen more pedestrians in various spots across the LA metro than I do across various areas of the Philly metro.

But regardless the U.S. has so much work to do in this area and the congestion in our metros is unbearable.
If MSA then yeah, I totally agree, LA is consistently dense all around. Philly drops off pretty quick beyond the city itself. Even the Bay Area pales compared to LA.

LA in any form is still not what I would call walkable though. There are certain areas that are but 'Los Angeles' is literally Spanish for traffic congestion.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2023, 7:47 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,744
L.A. isn't as car-dependent as its reputation, especially for a Sunbelt city. The fact that it is densest metro is discounted way too much. The gap between LA and Philadelphia isn't actually that big. LA and Philadelphia are both among the very few MSAs where the non-car commutes to work is higher than 10%. If you look at the stats, you will see that is extremely rare in the US. In most other MSAs, it is more like 3% or 4%.

Traffic congestion is not an indicator of walkability or car dependence. The central city probably has more traffic congestion than its suburbs, that doesn't mean it is less walkable or more car dependent.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Feb 20, 2023, 8:18 PM
Doady's Avatar
Doady Doady is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 4,744
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse View Post
It's also important to remember the role of safety because while yes, being safe makes people feel more comfortable, it also has great practical importance. Being injured or killed by traffic, crime, or other threats like falling on an icy surface can physically prevent a person from walking or biking. So the knowledge or perception of such risks is a big deterrent. For instance, a survey conducted in greater Halifax showed that around 60% of people would be interested in biking more if they felt safer which is one of the motivations for the city's AAA (all ages and abilities) bike network plan.

The thing is, safety and other aspects of comfort often correlate.
I know, I can see in places like Brampton how the narrow sidewalks and lack of parallel parking to provide buffer from cars makes for a bland downtown, even compared to place Milton. But that is not the root of the problem. Comfort doesn't mean anything the sidewalk is too far away or the destination is too far away.

Here in Mississauga they have also been building lots and lots of bike paths along all of the arterials to make cycling more safer and comfortable, which is great. But these paths would not work if the arterials were not easy to access to begin with. The arterials are closer together, there is a lot of multi-family housing in Mississauga and they are concentrated along these arterials, and there are many sidewalks and paths connecting to the arterials. Density of housing, density of streets, density of sidewalks and bike paths, density is the foundation of walkability and cycling. Comfort is something extra to build upon that foundation.

Brampton has a busy transit system, it has the foundation for a great downtown, but they are not building upon that. They even rejected LRT into their downtown. Extend the LRT, convert the main streets to one-way streets, remove one traffic lane from the main streets for roadside patios and parallel parking, that will make for a great vibrant downtown.

What is the foundation of a walkable and transit-oriented city, and what it takes to build upon that, two different things, and that distinction is what so many cities and transit systems in the US are missing when they focus so much on increasing comfort instead of just reducing distances.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2023, 1:36 AM
ChrisLA's Avatar
ChrisLA ChrisLA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Fernando Valley
Posts: 6,666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doady View Post
L.A. isn't as car-dependent as its reputation, especially for a Sunbelt city. The fact that it is densest metro is discounted way too much. The gap between LA and Philadelphia isn't actually that big. LA and Philadelphia are both among the very few MSAs where the non-car commutes to work is higher than 10%. If you look at the stats, you will see that is extremely rare in the US. In most other MSAs, it is more like 3% or 4%.

Traffic congestion is not an indicator of walkability or car dependence. The central city probably has more traffic congestion than its suburbs, that doesn't mean it is less walkable or more car dependent.
Just to add I born and raised in the city of LA and know this city like the back of my hand. I lived here longer than some of the forumers been alive. Of course the city is too big to walk all around, but so is every big city in this nation. No this isn’t Manhattan, or Chicago(even this city has auto oriented neighborhoods similar to the San Fernando Valley) still most city residents can get just about anything they need within a short walk. I currently live in the most western part of the San Fernando Valley the suburban part of the city other than living in the hills, even I can walk to just about all that I need without a car. Ventura Blvd is around the corner, every kind of retail stores and restaurants and even big box is only walking distance from me. Sure there is no train by me, but a few blocks away I have access to multiple bus service to reach the commuter train about 10 minutes away, or around the corner I can take a freeway express bus to downtown LA, or the other option is use the busway (Orange Line) to get to the subway or just to North Hollywood. I have a car of course, and I use it for most errands. I do a lot of bulk purchases because I have a family and it would make it difficult to carry the stuff home. But if I’m just picking up something I can carry I most definitely will walk to Costco, Ralph’s, Sprouts, Whole Foods, Target, Trader Joes a little further walk so I don’t walk there but there are three in my area 5 minutes in each direction. I even walk to the mall, it’s that close. I also have a park across from me so we walk there all the time, and during the summer we enjoy the outdoor concerts, and movies every week.

Now speaking on my upbringing I grew up in many different neighborhoods in Watts and South LA and we walked everywhere, to the parks, the corner markets, the grocery stores, and to local diners and fast food restaurants. This was back in the mid 70’s and early 80’s There was nothing we needed a car for, we went by bus to downtown LA, Huntington Park, a big shopping district 20 minutes away, downtown Inglewood-Market Street, and a good number of major blvd. (Broadway, Vermont, 103rd Street in Watts before the 1965 riots burn down the retail, Central Avenue, Manchester Avenue, Florence Avenue) all had store front retail all within a short walking distance from their house.

Unfortunately in many parts of south central as the demographics have changed over the years the mom and pop retail has closed down due to the malls and big box retail expanding. Although many of the buildings still stand and support retail but not usually things you can get cheaper at big box retail. As for reaching the malls, it was fairly even get to the malls by public transportation(bus), such as the Fox Hills Mall in Culver City, and the Hawthorne Mall.

Last edited by ChrisLA; Feb 21, 2023 at 1:48 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Feb 21, 2023, 2:13 AM
LA21st LA21st is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,003
yes, parts of the SFV are very similar to Chicago's bungalow belt. No doubt.
Even though LA isn't NYC it and it's disconnected, you see a alot of pedestrians if you're going from the Arts District to Santa Monica. It adds up, just not in a traditional city way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2023, 1:01 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
DTLA bounded by the three freeways and the LA River is a massive 4.25-4.5 square miles (roughly the size of Midtown Manhattan and core Central London), an expanse of geography large enough to build a contiguously urban city center of world-class-caliber, especially if it's mostly buildings of 10+ stories.

Of course, we are nowhere close to that being reality, but the seeds are being sown. The Arts District's first skyscraper is currently under construction, and there are well over a dozen high-quality projects that would add new residential, office, and retail space. With a heavy rail station at the 6th Street bridge planned and funded along with a planned station between 6th-7th on Alameda, 80-85% off the Arts District will be within a 10-minute walk of a Metro subway stop.

It's the area between Los Angeles and Alameda (which includes Skid Row) that hasn't seen much activity other than the proposed City Market project and the ROW DTLA, which I hope becomes a Meatpacking District / Hudson Square.
__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2023, 1:33 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Inveterate Angeleno
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 7,500
Cal Poly SLO and Gensler conducted a really cool study 10 years ago analyzing the capacity of DTLA based on current zoning and resource consumption levels. They concluded that DTLA could support a maximum of 1.36 million people. With a current population of 60-85K and seeing how much land is underutilized, I don't think 400-500K is all that ambitious.



__________________
“To tell a story is inescapably to take a moral stance.”

— Jerome Bruner

Last edited by Quixote; Feb 26, 2023 at 1:49 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2023, 2:08 AM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
LA is walkable in that period between getting out of a car and walking into the entrance of your destination.
Yeah; you know, the only walkability *I* care about is the walk from my front door to my drivers side car door.

Like Nancy Sinatra's walk from her front door in Trousdale Estates to her 1957 T-bird.
Video Link


I'm kidding, I'm kidding!
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2023, 6:19 PM
Prahaboheme Prahaboheme is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,690
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Philly is clearly one of the most walkable U.S. geographies. Outside of NYC, probably the best walkability. Even narrower streets, on average, than NYC, and a huge geography of really top-tier urbanism, especially in South Philly.

Boston has much less of this A+ level urbanism, and DC and Chicago, while both have tons of good urbanism over a huge geography, have almost none of this super-granular type common to NYC, Boston and Philly. SF is up there and somewhere between the two typologies, but just feels a tad less walkable.

Seattle and Portland are a tier below, and LA is maybe a half-tier below Seattle. LA is such a different typology it's hard to rank. Does it matter if LA has 50x as much B- urbanism? Is it better to have almost an entire metro quasi-walkable, as opposed to a sprawly metro with a great core?
What do you mean by “granular” urbanism? Townhomes, brownstones, rows?
Certainly DC is in that list by that definition.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2023, 6:36 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prahaboheme View Post
What do you mean by “granular” urbanism? Townhomes, brownstones, rows?
Certainly DC is in that list by that definition.
DC is highly walkable but to me it's a less walker friendly place than NY, Philly, and Boston. Something about the layout feels a bit more spread out than what you'd find in those other three cities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2023, 6:38 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed View Post
DC is highly walkable but to me it's a less walker friendly place than NY, Philly, and Boston. Something about the layout feels a bit more spread out than what you'd find in those other three cities.
Could it be the width of some of the streets? That's what I thought when I walked around DC.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Feb 26, 2023, 6:43 PM
iheartthed iheartthed is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: New York
Posts: 9,895
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
Could it be the width of some of the streets? That's what I thought when I walked around DC.
Yeah, it's that and the blocks are pretty long in some areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Feb 27, 2023, 12:10 AM
Crawford Crawford is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prahaboheme View Post
What do you mean by “granular” urbanism? Townhomes, brownstones, rows?
Certainly DC is in that list by that definition.
DC has a huge area of medium-high density but doesn't have a lots of small scale, pedestrian-oriented urbanism as in Philly or Boston. There are some great blocks around Dupont Circle and Adams Morgan, but not much else. And it has a ton of monumental arterials and wide streets in general, and really big blocks. It's built as a monumental capital city, which isn't the pedestrian ideal.

DC is certainly a rowhouse city, but doesn't have a huge geography of rows like Philly, or even Baltimore.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:40 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.