where is the core part of Los Angeles?

[freepcrusher]

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:

[Torie]

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.

[traininthedistance]

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.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Staten Island probably deserves to be in New Jersey instead.

No thank you.

[traininthedistance]

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.

[Free Palestine]

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

[Torie]

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

  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.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

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.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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'...?

[traininthedistance]

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.

[Sbane]

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.

[Torie]

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.

[freepcrusher]

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.

[muon2]

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.

[freepcrusher]

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:

[bgwah]

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