Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 20, 2014, 01:02:12 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  where is the core part of Los Angeles?
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: where is the core part of Los Angeles?  (Read 1198 times)
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2292
United States


View Profile
« on: August 24, 2012, 11:33:07 am »
Ignore

one of the things I hate about sunbelt cities is that you don't know where the real "city city" is because they often take in a lot of suburban areas. At least in older cities like Boston, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh etc the city boundary lines reflect where the city really is. So my question is if Los Angeles was like those cities, what would its boundaries be? Here is my best guess:



Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27276
United States


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2012, 10:07:45 am »
Ignore

Where the city was as of when?  For example, I have marked the first subdivision built in LA in 1889. Then there was a bank crash, and development did not start again until 1895 in the Adams district north of USC.  My dad learned to drive on Wilshire Blvd west of La Cienega (the main commercial street in Los Angeles) when it was still a dirt road in the early 1920's, when he visited his brother there for a few months where he was a cameraman (later to become the most famous special effects man of his era), until Dad decided that LA was a sleepy little town, and repaired back to NYC.  LA is a new city!





And here is a map of LA circa 1913.



« Last Edit: August 25, 2012, 11:34:58 am by Torie »Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3408


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2012, 10:36:17 am »
Ignore

Eh, even in the old Northeastern cities the city boundaries don't always have a perfect relationship to what's actually the "city".

For example, the city lines don't reflect where Boston really is, but for the opposite reason.  Boston "really" should include at least Cambridge and Somerville.  In Philly, the far far Northeast is really of a piece with Bucks County instead.  Though Baltimore and NYC's boundaries are just about "right", except that Staten Island probably deserves to be in New Jersey instead.

And, frankly, it's actually better policy to do what cities like Louisville and Indianapolis have done, merging with most of their suburbs to create one big municipal unit that reflects the metro area and cuts down on redundancies.  The cities in the Northeast sensibly were doing this in the late 1800s, but then they got penned in.
Logged



Economic: -4.45
Social: -6.52
Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)
Vazdul
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4409
United States


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2012, 02:35:45 pm »
Ignore

Staten Island probably deserves to be in New Jersey instead.

No thank you.
Logged

Seriously, it was time to change back to the real avatar.
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3408


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2012, 03:18:08 pm »
Ignore

Staten Island probably deserves to be in New Jersey instead.

No thank you.

Oh I'm well aware that New Jersey doesn't want any part of Staten Island.  And I don't blame them.
Logged



Economic: -4.45
Social: -6.52
Free Palestine
FallenMorgan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8100
United States
Political Matrix
E: -10.00, S: -10.00

View Profile
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2012, 07:14:23 pm »
Ignore

West Hollywood, because that's where the rich people are.
Logged

Free Bradley Manning
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27276
United States


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: August 27, 2012, 10:28:05 am »
Ignore

West Hollywood, because that's where the rich people are.

Tongue  Actually, the rich people live in general live in Homby Hills, Bel Air, Hancock Park, Brentwood, and Pacific Palisades. In addition, West Hollywood is a separate city.
Logged
Former Moderate
Mr. Moderate
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13174
United States


View Profile WWW
« Reply #7 on: August 31, 2012, 11:10:26 pm »
Ignore

Los Angeles doesn't really have a core part, because it's one of the most poorly designed cities on the planet. The population density is just way too low for a city of its size.
Logged

asexual trans victimologist
Nathan
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 12529


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: September 01, 2012, 12:34:26 am »
Ignore

Los Angeles doesn't really have a core part, because it's one of the most poorly designed cities on the planet. The population density is just way too low for a city of its size.

Was it Parker who called it 'seventy-two suburbs in search of a city'...?
Logged

A shameless agrarian collectivist with no respect for private property or individual rights.

His idea of freedom is - it is a bad thing and should be stopped at all costs.

Nathan-land.  As much fun as watching paint dry... literally.
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3408


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: September 01, 2012, 03:15:35 am »
Ignore

Los Angeles doesn't really have a core part, because it's one of the most poorly designed cities on the planet. The population density is just way too low for a city of its size.

The funny thing is that if you take a look at the metro area as a whole, Los Angeles is more dense than New York.  Really.

http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/03/los_angeles_density_urban_new_york_census.php

The area is hemmed in by mountains and climate, so the suburbs are closely-packed by American standards, and you don't really have any quasi-rural exurbia to speak of.
Logged



Economic: -4.45
Social: -6.52
Sbane
sbane
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13453


View Profile
« Reply #10 on: September 03, 2012, 11:24:48 pm »
Ignore

I have said this many times before on this forum but looking as a whole, most of the east including the NYC metro is a better example of suburban sprawl gone wrong than the LA region. Most LA suburbs are well built up with no forests in between houses, sidewalks on all streets and services like grocery stores and gas station/convenience stores within a few miles of most places. It's just the core area of Los Angeles which cannot compare with Manhattan, or the Loop in Chicago or even downtown San Francisco. On the whole though, the LA metro is fairly dense.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 27276
United States


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: September 04, 2012, 11:55:08 pm »
Ignore

LA just doesn't have a dominating downtown. It has hubs. It was built too late, in the automobile era, for it to have such. And it is tough to get from point A to B, with an under-developed subway system (partially due to the earthquake risk, and partially because of that very lack of one BIG downtown).

But over time, LA along the Santa Monica mountains is becoming like Manhattan, and close in Brooklyn  and The Bronx. It is ALL downtown. The tale of the two cities over my lifetime have become much more alike, each going a bit towards the other, and I think that trend is continuing.
Logged
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2292
United States


View Profile
« Reply #12 on: September 05, 2012, 06:15:06 pm »
Ignore

if one was to draw a congressional district map of LA based off of the traditional regions of the area, here is what I would do (note that I'm using 2000 census info)



District 24 looks like the 1990s District 24.
District 25 of course is the north county district similar to the 90s cd 25
District 26 is similar to the district Jim Corman represented in the 60s and 70s
District 27 looks like the district represented by Carlos Moorhead for 24 years
District 28 is the descendant of the district Richard Nixon won
District 29 is the descendant of the 1950s CD 16
District 30 is the descendant of the 1960s CD 29
District 31 has no main descendant and is basically the NE corner of the hispanic areas
District 32 is descended from the Gordon McDonough district of the 1950s
District 33 is descended from the 23rd district of the 1950s and 1960s
District 34 is the descendant of the district Chet Holifield represented from 1943-1974
District 35 is descended from the district won by Helen Gahagan Douglas in the 1940s
District 36 looks like the 1960s CD 17
District 37 is descended from the 1960s CD 31
District 38 is descended from the Craig Hosmer district of the 50s and 60s.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8643


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: September 05, 2012, 10:16:25 pm »

if one was to draw a congressional district map of LA based off of the traditional regions of the area, here is what I would do (note that I'm using 2000 census info)



District 24 looks like the 1990s District 24.
District 25 of course is the north county district similar to the 90s cd 25
District 26 is similar to the district Jim Corman represented in the 60s and 70s
District 27 looks like the district represented by Carlos Moorhead for 24 years
District 28 is the descendant of the district Richard Nixon won
District 29 is the descendant of the 1950s CD 16
District 30 is the descendant of the 1960s CD 29
District 31 has no main descendant and is basically the NE corner of the hispanic areas
District 32 is descended from the Gordon McDonough district of the 1950s
District 33 is descended from the 23rd district of the 1950s and 1960s
District 34 is the descendant of the district Chet Holifield represented from 1943-1974
District 35 is descended from the district won by Helen Gahagan Douglas in the 1940s
District 36 looks like the 1960s CD 17
District 37 is descended from the 1960s CD 31
District 38 is descended from the Craig Hosmer district of the 50s and 60s.

It a bit confusing since you have one more district in LAC than current numbers permit. I'd be curious to see your take if you used 14 CDs instead of 15.
Logged


Lunar Eclipse of April 15, 2014 with the star Spica.
freepcrusher
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2292
United States


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: September 07, 2012, 09:42:43 pm »
Ignore

if one was to draw a congressional district map of LA based off of the traditional regions of the area, here is what I would do (note that I'm using 2000 census info)



District 24 looks like the 1990s District 24.
District 25 of course is the north county district similar to the 90s cd 25
District 26 is similar to the district Jim Corman represented in the 60s and 70s
District 27 looks like the district represented by Carlos Moorhead for 24 years
District 28 is the descendant of the district Richard Nixon won
District 29 is the descendant of the 1950s CD 16
District 30 is the descendant of the 1960s CD 29
District 31 has no main descendant and is basically the NE corner of the hispanic areas
District 32 is descended from the Gordon McDonough district of the 1950s
District 33 is descended from the 23rd district of the 1950s and 1960s
District 34 is the descendant of the district Chet Holifield represented from 1943-1974
District 35 is descended from the district won by Helen Gahagan Douglas in the 1940s
District 36 looks like the 1960s CD 17
District 37 is descended from the 1960s CD 31
District 38 is descended from the Craig Hosmer district of the 50s and 60s.

It a bit confusing since you have one more district in LAC than current numbers permit. I'd be curious to see your take if you used 14 CDs instead of 15.

here it is using Census 2010 numbers. Essentially the 38th in SELA is eliminated:
Logged
bgwah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 13744
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

View Profile
« Reply #15 on: September 07, 2012, 10:49:08 pm »
Ignore

Annexation maps can give you a good idea: http://www.bigmapblog.com/2011/territory-annexed-to-the-city-of-los-angeles-1781-1916/
Logged

Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines