Compton and Inglewood are packed with tiny single-family homes.  If they had instead built attached row homes there would actually be a little more interior space.  But the typical home is like a 20-foot wide X 35-foot deep ranch with a pair of 10x11 bedrooms.  There is tons of fencing and grates over the windows.  It's hard to find an area so pathetic anywhere in Ohio.  And yet the homes all sell for $500k. 

In no particular order:
Los Angeles (my second-home)
London

Singapore

Tokyo

Sydney

 

but it's so hard to choose. I also love Hong Kong, Perth, Gold Coast, Honolulu, Rome, Jerusalem, Cape Town, Stockholm, etc.

Edited April 1, 20196 yr by dwhershberger

interesting timing -- i am headed out los angeles way next week.

 

i plan to check out some of the architecture like the eames house, neutra, hollyhock, etc.

7 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

Compton and Inglewood are packed with tiny single-family homes.  If they had instead built attached row homes there would actually be a little more interior space.  But the typical home is like a 20-foot wide X 35-foot deep ranch with a pair of 10x11 bedrooms.  There is tons of fencing and grates over the windows.  It's hard to find an area so pathetic anywhere in Ohio.  And yet the homes all sell for $500k. 

 

 

Linden is quite Compton-like once you get a block or two away from Cleveland Avenue. Houses are $60K though.

The houses are similar except in Compton the lots are smaller on average.  They are all detached but super-close and I don't think the typical lot is very deep either. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0386414,-82.9735261,3a,75y,53.01h,85.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sibYK6iWPBdXb_xiH8YGyxw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

 

On 3/25/2019 at 11:19 AM, BigDipper 80 said:

I've been spending a decent amount of time in Southern California recently, and it's quickly risen to one of my favorite cities/metropolises in the country. I think it helps that I get to experience it from "arms-length" and don't have to deal with the traffic and the cost of living on a daily basis, but LA is a way more textured and multifaceted place than people tend to give it credit for. Great architecture to boot too, contrary to the whole little boxes made of ticky tacky thing, although there's plenty of that too. 

I’ll second this. Visited for the first time last week and was blown away. Spent most of my time in Highland Park which I fell in love with immediately. Tons of gorgeous Victorian/craftsman houses. Also surprised at the density, activity, and architecture downtown. Was as impressive as any city outside NY or Chicago imo. And I somehow didn’t realize how beautiful and omnipresent the mountains are. 

1 hour ago, jmecklenborg said:

The houses are similar except in Compton the lots are smaller on average.  They are all detached but super-close and I don't think the typical lot is very deep either. 

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.0386414,-82.9735261,3a,75y,53.01h,85.16t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sibYK6iWPBdXb_xiH8YGyxw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

 

 

I don't think the small houses of Compton or South LA are much different than small houses from the 50s in and around Ohio's cities, though lots are definitely smaller in CA.

 

This 50s era subdivision in Blue Ash doesn't look all that different than this residential street in Compton. You can find similar homes all around here- Deer Park, Silverton, Reading...

On 3/30/2019 at 5:29 PM, BigDipper 80 said:

There's something about the scale of the sprawl there that I find really intriguing. I definitely have a different perspective on it as a visitor vs actually living with it every single day, but it still feels exotic to me compared to really anywhere else in America. Weirdly, LA gives off a similar vibe as Detroit, which is a city I really "feel", so it feels homey when I visit compared to the other west coast cities. As for which areas, pretty much anything DTLA westward (aka the "fancy" parts of the metro, although houses in Compton start at $400k now so who knows what's actually fancy in SoCal any more). Particularly Angeleno Heights and West Adams, but I'm also a Silver Lake/Echo Park and Hollywoodland aficionado. The winding hillside streets are so charming and I find them way more interesting than the garbagey boxes built in San Francisco around the same time period. Ktown was pretty interesting, Broadway is a national treasure, Beverly Hills is, well, Beverly Hills, the Sunset Strip is crammed full of random stuff... even Culver City and El Segundo are cute and generally well-maintained and their landscapes and gentle hills add a lot of character to what could be otherwise a fairly bland series of suburban tracts. 

 

Funny you say that LA reminds you of Detroit, because I have felt that way for years too, and people largely look at me like I'm crazy when I say it. But if you're driving down some of those impossibly wide streets in South LA (Vermont, Manchester, Crenshaw) lined with single story retail, I swear it feels just like driving down Woodward or Gratiot or something. Residential neighborhoods in the Valley feel like where my family lived in Warren, MI. It's strange, but I definitely get it.

 

LA can be a very rewarding city to visit or live in. There is truly an endless amount of cool stuff to find. I am constantly finding new neighborhoods, business districts, etc. without even really trying. I agree that the city has some spectacular residential neighborhoods, and I think it probably has some of the prettiest SFH neighborhoods in the country. There's an astounding amount of architectural variety in the residential hoods- from the Spanish and Mediterranean Revival styles that are ubiquitous in SoCal, to mid-century modern, tutor revival, art deco, streamline moderne...just an endless array of styles. They also have exotic landscaping, with all sorts of ferns, palms, flowers, and trees that is just so different from anywhere else I've been.

 

That said, LA can be challenging, too. The traffic and mobility issues are famous, but the ugliness of the commercial corridors is not something I was prepared for before moving out here for the first time about 10 years ago. You have these amazing residential neighborhoods, but they're often bordered by really ugly, and fragmented commercial corridors. Lots of strip malls, fences, chaotic signs, curb cuts all over the place...the streets themselves are often wide and unpleasant to cross. That is something that detracts from the city for me. I love exploring cities on foot, and when I lived in DC I would choose a corridor and spend a saturday walking it for miles, just taking in the architecture, commerce, neighborhood changes, etc. You can't do that in LA, at least not pleasantly. You can have a wonderful walk around a neighborhood, or go for a fantastic hike in the mountains, but you can't just walk down Vermont or Hollywood or Sunset and have that pleasant experience. I miss that, and I wish this city was better in that regard.

24 minutes ago, edale said:

That said, LA can be challenging, too. The traffic and mobility issues are famous, but the ugliness of the commercial corridors is not something I was prepared for before moving out here for the first time about 10 years ago. You have these amazing residential neighborhoods, but they're often bordered by really ugly, and fragmented commercial corridors. Lots of strip malls, fences, chaotic signs, curb cuts all over the place...the streets themselves are often wide and unpleasant to cross. That is something that detracts from the city for me. I love exploring cities on foot, and when I lived in DC I would choose a corridor and spend a saturday walking it for miles, just taking in the architecture, commerce, neighborhood changes, etc. You can't do that in LA, at least not pleasantly. You can have a wonderful walk around a neighborhood, or go for a fantastic hike in the mountains, but you can't just walk down Vermont or Hollywood or Sunset and have that pleasant experience. I miss that, and I wish this city was better in that regard.

 

 

The pancake flatness of the valley floors also resembles Detroit.   Things would be a lot different for both cities if landscaped streetcar reservations had remained.  St. Charles in New Orleans is a very, very wide street (150+ feet) but it's one of the most attractive 3~ miles of the United States because it is consistently landscaped and you can easily cross because of the center reservation.  The so-called "neutral zones" are all over New Orleans, even where streetcar tracks were removed. 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, edale said:

 

I don't think the small houses of Compton or South LA are much different than small houses from the 50s in and around Ohio's cities, though lots are definitely smaller in CA.

 

This 50s era subdivision in Blue Ash doesn't look all that different than this residential street in Compton. You can find similar homes all around here- Deer Park, Silverton, Reading...

 

 

Once you get past the 1920s lots are generally bigger in Columbus than Cincinnati. Often much bigger.

14 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

Compton and Inglewood are packed with tiny single-family homes.  If they had instead built attached row homes there would actually be a little more interior space.  But the typical home is like a 20-foot wide X 35-foot deep ranch with a pair of 10x11 bedrooms.  There is tons of fencing and grates over the windows.  It's hard to find an area so pathetic anywhere in Ohio.  And yet the homes all sell for $500k. 

Some of those do look like maybe 25 X 30 foot Cape Cods-very similar to the original Levittown. Lots of those in areas of Cbus built right after the war in the late 40's.  Lot sizes are maybe 50 foot widths? It does sort of look like a Linden but with better weather lol.

I just used the measure tool on Google Earth and it looks like the prevailing lot sizes in Compton & Inglewood range between 30x125 and 35x150.  Most of the smaller lots (like 30x100) are near the blue line tracks or close to industries. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What's crazy is that a 30x125 lot in many Cincinnati neighborhoods is "big".  My house sits on a 25x90 lot and I previously owned a 25x87.  There are a fair number of 20-foot lots in the Cincinnati basin and some as narrow as 15 feet.  The big difference is that there is space between nearly all of the single-family homes in LA, and there is more often a horizontal eve that seems to overlap the property line. 

 

The big problem is that as dense as so much of the LA basin appears -- and it is quite dense overall because there are so few breaks in the action (almost zero cemeteries or golf courses or parks) -- there aren't many dense nodes outside of the prewar areas. 

 

59 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

I just used the measure tool on Google Earth and it looks like the prevailing lot sizes in Compton & Inglewood range between 30x125 and 35x150.  Most of the smaller lots (like 30x100) are near the blue line tracks or close to industries. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What's crazy is that a 30x125 lot in many Cincinnati neighborhoods is "big".  My house sits on a 25x90 lot and I previously owned a 25x87.  There are a fair number of 20-foot lots in the Cincinnati basin and some as narrow as 15 feet.  The big difference is that there is space between nearly all of the single-family homes in LA, and there is more often a horizontal eve that seems to overlap the property line. 

 

The big problem is that as dense as so much of the LA basin appears -- and it is quite dense overall because there are so few breaks in the action (almost zero cemeteries or golf courses or parks) -- there aren't many dense nodes outside of the prewar areas. 

 

Oh for God's sake! I was not really paying attention and was looking at the link that was a street in Linden! No wonder it looked so alike lol. Duh. Yeah those are definitely smaller lots and 20 foot wide homes like you said. I was tired earlier otherwise I cannot explain how I ridiculously mistook Homestead Drive for Compton. smh.  Not a palm or fence in sight.

 

Just make the lots and homes a bit bigger and take away the gates and bars and much of the forties and fifties LA sprawl looks just like that-and the same bland colors as well. And I agree the lack of green space in the LA basin is shocking.  Lot sizes of 50 or sixty feet wide by 100 or maybe 120 feet deep at most are very common all through the 40's, 50's and 60's LA sprawl-Orange County too. Some of the newer developments (that are not for the super rich) have lot sizes that are not any bigger and sometimes considerably smaller-almost the size of those Compton lots. But of course the homes are bigger and cover almost the entire lot so at most they might have a patio and a patch or two of garden/landscaping and that is about it-and they are often absolutely dominated by their garages of course-which is a look I absolutely detest.

Edited April 2, 20196 yr by Toddguy

On 4/1/2019 at 1:45 PM, bumsquare said:

I’ll second this. Visited for the first time last week and was blown away. Spent most of my time in Highland Park which I fell in love with immediately. Tons of gorgeous Victorian/craftsman houses. Also surprised at the density, activity, and architecture downtown. Was as impressive as any city outside NY or Chicago imo. And I somehow didn’t realize how beautiful and omnipresent the mountains are. 

 

I don't think I've ever spent any time in HP.

 

DTLA has come a long way, but it's still to sketchy to me.  And I love a downtown that is a mixed bag of old and new, glass and grit, etc.  LAs traffic is a nightmare.  When in LA I try to get to my office early, but when 90 min in a car is considered a"normal commute" is crazy.  I can't imagine what its like for people who actually have to drive.  I believe that is the reason why so many LA natives/drivers are cranky as hell when they get to work.

 

I don't find the architecture in the city that interesting, it's all bland and beige.  I don't get out to the burbs and it could be different there.

^ i'm kind of in between you both. agree typical LA city homes and new developments are nothing special. generally speaking of course, there are modernist and historic exceptions and the coast and up in the hills are wealthy exceptions.  there are towering apt buildings going up downtown and other large complexes being built here are there. the LA city driving is no big deal at all, i could see how highway commuting is bad though. i was just out there for a week and a half, so hang on for threads!

 

On 5/2/2019 at 2:18 PM, mrnyc said:

^ i'm kind of in between you both. agree typical LA city homes and new developments are nothing special. generally speaking of course, there are modernist and historic exceptions and the coast and up in the hills are wealthy exceptions.  there are towering apt buildings going up downtown and other large complexes being built here are there. the LA city driving is no big deal at all, i could see how highway commuting is bad though. i was just out there for a week and a half, so hang on for threads!

 

Driving in LA is slow and tedious!  SLOW SLOW SLOW.  Not to mention the time to find parking or wait for Valet parking.  It's maddening! 

 

Some of the craftmans home are nice. There are nice neighborhoods like the Baldwins (The Black Beverly Hills), Los Feliz, Silver Lake and Leimert (Thanks Insecure for ruining this quiet gem).  Those areas have some gorgeous housing stock, but do not make up for the lazy beige apartment with courtyards in my opinion.

1.NYC

2. Portland

3. London

4. Chicago

5. Los Angeles

 

reading: Bryan Clifford Blog

Edited August 7, 20195 yr by Rusty Herriot

Only counting places I've been, in no particular order:

 

Lisbon, Portugal

Bangkok, Thailand

Buenos Aires, Argentina

Paris, France

Mexico City, Mexico

 

In the USA:

 

New York City

Chicago

New Orleans

Seattle

San Francisco

This is my first post but I've been lurking for awhile. Reading through everyone's lists made me made me start to miss my favorite city, Taipei. I moved back to the Akron area last year and, as great as living here can be, I really miss the mountains, the trains, the narrow little streets, not being the only person walking around on the street, etc.

 

Here's my list (both international and US):

1.) Taipei, Taiwan

2.) Portland, Oregon

3.) Osaka, Japan

4.) Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

5.) Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Where is that second photo?  It looks a lot less ... dense ... than the first and third.

10 minutes ago, Gramarye said:

Where is that second photo?  It looks a lot less ... dense ... than the first and third.

I took these a few years ago but I think that was taken in Sanxia or Tucheng which would be part of New Taipei City but still only a half hour train ride from the center of Taipei. That area would be to the left in the first photo. 

Edited August 6, 20195 yr by Keelung to Cuyahoga

San Francisco

Boston

New York

Seattle

Pittsburgh

On ‎12‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 11:36 AM, DarkandStormy said:

Domestic

1. San Francisco

2. Philadelphia

3. D.C.

4. Nashville

5. Austin

 

Based on recent travels, updating to:

1. Seattle

2. Austin

3. Denver

4. Portland

5. Philadelphia

On 8/16/2019 at 2:18 AM, shack said:

San Francisco

Boston

New York

Seattle

Pittsburgh

International:

Vienna 

St. Petersburg 

Rio de Janeiro

Quebec City

Moscow  (for its Metro)

 

 

2 minutes ago, shack said:

International:

Vienna 

St. Petersburg 

Rio de Janeiro

Quebec City

Moscow  (for its Metro)

 

 

It goes without saying that I'm limited to the cities that I've been to. Not exactly a comprehensive comparison to say the least.

1. NYC

2. Berlin

3. Copenhagen

4. Edinburgh

5. Cleveland (Honestly! I love my city.)

A great thread. I've spent probably a half-hour so far reading through these New York City stories. Some are celebrity stories. Some are rat stories. Some are subway or taxi stories...

 

 

^ ha those stories are funny, but honestly anyone who has lived here for any length of time has plenty of them.

 

here's one -- years ago i walked into a bar along the westside hwy at like 4pm that had just opened.

i'm waiting for the man by vu is playing and the bartender is frozen stiff, staring straight ahead with his jaw hanging and white as a sheet.

i said, "what's up, you look like you saw a ghost"

he said,"did you see that guy that just left?"

i said, "yeah, sorta"

he said, "that was lou reed, he came in and asked for a drink, then this song randomly came on and he screamed at me and called me a #@!*&^ and stormed out!"

😂

We've had some great "get to know you" threads here on UrbanOhio!  This one is no exception.

 

This thread has held up very well, over the past decade.  Interested to see if your initial choices have remained the same?

i really want to go to st petersburg. not just the daytrip tourist ghetto, but to stay awhile, hang out and explore mother russia.

 

i guess that is off the table for awhile. ugh.

 

i also want to go to taipei and explore taiwan.

 

that's maybe a bit iffy these days too sadly.

 

as for adding cities or changing my mind lately i would probably want to add new guinea, pacific islands and oz/nz.

 

also more south america is always a choice, like peru, colombia & paraguay.

US:

1. San Francisco

2. New York

3. Chicago

4. Boston

5. Washington, DC

 

Global:

1. Tokyo

2. Amsterdam

3. Barcelona

4. Hong Kong

5. Paris

On 4/18/2018 at 2:11 PM, ryanlammi said:

 

I like the "small cities" ranking. Small is hard to narrow down (do Savannah and Asheville count?). In no particular order, mine is probably:

*Marquette, MI

*Asheville, NC

*Savannah, GA

*Bethlehem, PA

*Covington, KY

 

On 7/30/2012 at 11:01 AM, ryanlammi said:

US cities:

 

New York City, NY

New Orleans, LA

Chicago, IL

Washington, DC

Detroit, MI

 

My previous posts are above. At one point there was a trend to include a separate list of small cities. Here's my updated list in no particular order.

US Cities:

• New York City, NY
• New Orleans, LA
• Chicago, IL
• Washington, DC
• Pittsburgh, PA

International Cities:

• Berlin, Germany
• Amsterdam, Netherlands
• Montreal, Canada
• Cologne, Germany
• Prague, Czechia

Small Cities:

• Marquette, MI
• Savannah, GA
• Thun, Switzerland
• Covington, KY
• Madison, WI

U.S Cities

1. Chicago (The Midwest NYC and the US city with the most beautiful architecture and relatively inexpensive for what it offers).

2. Washington D.C (Reminds me of a European City and the Northeast corridor rail connection is a plus)

3. NYC (Extremely expensive but sets the standard for car less and 24 hour cities in the U.S)

4. Philadelphia (Very Good and underrated city with a ton of history, great density and good transit)

5. Cleveland (I can't leave home off of this list, but it's an underrated city due to a lack of proper leadership but it's inexpensive, has a ton of culture and history, great food scene, and diverse neighborhoods).

Sent from my Pixel 8 Pro using Tapatalk

These list are fun. In terms of cities I've actually visit and assuming money is no option:

 

1. Washington DC. God, I need a trip out there. It sucks the Newseum closed, but the endless Smithsonians would keep me eternally entertained. Best of all, no car needed.

 

2. Miami. Between South Beach, Brickell, Wynwood, Coconut Grove, Coral Gables, etc, it's such a bubble of beauty and happiness. 

 

3. Boston. I think people underappreciate its walkabilty and culture. 

 

4. Santa Monica. God I wish I could afford it. The weather is true paradise.

 

5. Hmmm. Too bad I only restricted my choices to five. I... honestly don't know. Maybe Traverse City? Savannah? I'm struggling with this one.

 

Edited December 2, 20231 yr by TBideon

My Top 5 US:

1. San Francisco

2. Chicago

3. Philadelphia

4. Santa Fe, NM

5. Washington, DC

 

Top 5 International:

1. Tokyo

2. Barcelona

3. Mexico City

4. Amsterdam

5.  I anticipate here: Buenos Aires, St. Petersburg, or Berlin.