3 ms·
San Francisco only has three times the density of LA because "Los Angeles" includes a bunch of uninhabited mountains. If you use a more detailed measurement, th
by scythe 3y ago
San Francisco only has three times the density of LA because "Los Angeles" includes a bunch of uninhabited mountains. If you use a more detailed measurement, the densities are similar.
Anyway, fair is fair. San Francisco has to densify because the law is making all the cities around them densify too. This is a compromise because nobody wants to be the center of growth but everyone understands that the state is worse off with no growth. This is where the dream of local control is shattered on the rocks of game theory. And while I'm not familiar with the details of this particular kerfuffle, the story in San Francisco for at least a decade has been that politicians say they are in favor of growth, but they also want the developers to fix the homeless problem, save the whales and make your hair grow back, so nothing gets done.
- Rebelgecko 3y agoIs there a standard measurement for poulation density that handles unbuildable/uninhabited areas? you could do something like "calculate the population density for every census tract in LA, excluding those with density <10 people per square mile". That would get rid of the Angeles Forest, Griffith Park, Santa Monica Mountains, etc.
- kjkjadksj 3y agoYou look at a similar geographic area of population density. In this article they did just that, comparing central LA to SF, and found similar results for density and modal share: https://la.streetsblog.org/2015/03/03/l-a-vs-s-f-how-does-transportation-really-compare https://la.streetsblog.org/2015/03/03/l-a-vs-s-f-how-does-tr...