# Los Angeles is the future



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

No big secret to those of us who live here in LA but it's good to see a positive (and pretty accurate) assessment to the recent goings on in this city. From a NYC newspaper no less! 









Los Angeles is the future
It can’t stop, won’t stop; check yourself, New York!
By ANDY WANG and DAVID LANDSEL
Last Updated: 12:51 AM, September 25, 2012
Posted: 5:33 PM, September 24, 2012



> It is difficult to pinpoint the precise moment when Los Angeles stopped giving a damn what you or we or anyone else had to say — it was a slow but important finding of self, taking place quietly over the past decade. A decade that saw the city grow in all sorts of exciting and impressive ways. A decade of building real transit. (For the first time in generations, you will soon be able to travel by rail between Downtown and the Santa Monica; soon after, expect a subway stop on Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills.) Of creating truly walkable neighborhoods. The melting pot actually began melting, bubbling over messily and rather beautifully all over every aspect of city life. (Not coincidentally, suddenly here in the land of salad and iced tea, people truly learned how to eat. And to love eating.) Oh, and just for fun? A few more people squeezed into the city, now overall the most densely packed in the country. Los Angeles, quite simply, is ready to challenge anyone. New York, watch your back. Here are four LA places to get up to speed.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainment/travel/los_angeles_is_the_future_SoM9tHDbfS2KUuNx7Xq71J/0


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

ya, shocking to see that from a NY newspaper, thats for sure. 

Pretty well written and accurate. good to see the secret is out


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Los Angeles is cool and its changing rapidly, to the better. But lets get real, when it comes down to real urbanity (in contrast to suburbanity), LA is a bloody beginner, especially when compared to NYC. It is simply a different league. 

I don't say that LA is less exciting than NYC but for a huge city of its size, the (several) urban cores are tiny. Granted, I have not been for longer neither to LA nor NYC but I have visited both already.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

LA isn't trying to be like NYC at ALL when it comes to urbanization. You will never hear anyone say that there is a sort of 'Manhattanization of Los Angeles.' 

And which of LA's urban cores are tiny?


----------



## poshbakerloo (Jan 16, 2007)

I've been to LA a few times, I like and and I think that to a point the freeway network works, but I think its good that they are working on expanding the subway network.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

soup or man said:


> LA isn't trying to be like NYC at ALL when it comes to urbanization. You will never hear anyone say that there is a sort of 'Manhattanization of Los Angeles.'
> 
> And which of LA's urban cores are tiny?


All of them, Downtown, Hollywood, Santa Monica ... for a megalopolis of LA's size. In relation, not on their own. For a mid sized city any of these centres would be decent but LA is not a mid sized city but a huge one. 

And I am not talking about becoming like NYC, I am talking about being urban. Even in the US there are a number of cities, NYC aside, that have much bigger urban centers, even if the cities are in reality much smaller. San Francisco would be an example. The reason for this is probably the multi centric nature of LA together with its excessive car culture and sort of half suburban feeling even though densities would be almost urban in large parts. 

Of all the places I know Santa Monica is maybe the nicest part of LA. But it has no big city feel. Its more like a real, urban and intact but small/mid-sized city. Downtown in the right corners has a real big city feel but that does not work if you walk for a few minutes in the wrong direction and you are left in some parking lot desert. Hollywood looks like a place that could feel like a big bustling urban place ... in 20 years of more development of the kind that is already ongoing.

OFFTOPIC:
Superbus feeling "All Alone" in LA: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKH_XKGLqQo
Great song


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

I'll let you think you know you're talking about because I'm sure you felt great saying that but since you really don't know LA at ALL nor how this city works, I should let you know that LA is wayyyyy too big of a city to have just one core. San Francisco is built up because it cannot build out. LA has built out as far as it can go and it's now building up. And why do people keep comparing LA to NYC? The 2 cities are NOTHING alike.

Oh and P.S.: Watch this:


----------



## desertpunk (Oct 12, 2009)

I remember an article in The Atlantic 20 years ago about LA, "The Big Orange" which would someday overtake New York and be the dominant big city in America. 

Already LA has better jewish delis!


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

Considering the fact that Los Angeles was or even is among some circles considered to be the poster child for auto orientated sprawl, it is pretty encouraging to see Los Angeles densify and expand their mass transit network at a record pace. Hopefully other US cities will take notice and try to emulate Los Angeles as far as urban planning is concerned and rectify past mistakes.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

soup or man said:


> I'll let you think you know you're talking about because I'm sure you felt great saying that but since you really don't know LA at ALL nor how this city works, I should let you know that LA is wayyyyy too big of a city to have just one core. San Francisco is built up because it cannot build out. LA has built out as far as it can go and it's now building up. And why do people keep comparing LA to NYC? The 2 cities are NOTHING alike.
> 
> Oh and P.S.: Watch this:


It is because both LA and NY are the *urban centres for their respective regions* with NY dominating The East Coast and LA, The West.

Though The SF Bay Area is challenging LA as The West Coast's regional centre.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

diablo234 said:


> Considering the fact that Los Angeles was or even is among some circles considered to be the poster child for auto orientated sprawl, it is pretty encouraging to see Los Angeles densify and expand their mass transit network at a record pace. Hopefully other US cities will take notice and try to emulate Los Angeles as far as urban planning is concerned and rectify past mistakes.


The fact not everyone in LA has a car or even knows how to drive. 

I took public transportation when I went there for a month vacation. But since i stayed around Culver City / West LA, public transportation was better and more frequent unlike the other parts of the city.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

Manila-X said:


> It is because both LA and NY are the *urban centres for their respective regions* with NY dominating The East Coast and LA, The West.
> 
> Though The SF Bay Area is challenging LA as The West Coast's regional centre.


As much as I love San Francisco, and as powerful as it is, LA still dominates the West. But even though LA and SF have always had a sort of rivalry, both cities are growing in different ways. The entire West Coast is undergoing a maturation process that has never been seen before. It's difficult to explain what's going on out here unless you live here but the West Coast is as hot as it's ever been. It's a really exciting time to live out here because you get to see why people are drawn to this corner of the world: the excitement and uncertainty of what's going to happen next.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

soup or man said:


> As much as I love San Francisco, and as powerful as it is, LA still dominates the West. But even though LA and SF have always had a sort of rivalry, both cities are growing in different ways. The entire West Coast is undergoing a maturation process that has never been seen before. It's difficult to explain what's going on out here unless you live here but the West Coast is as hot as it's ever been. It's a really exciting time to live out here because you get to see why people are drawn to this corner of the world: the excitement and uncertainty of what's going to happen next.


The LA / Bay Area's rivalry goes to all sorts of things from economy, to trade, aviation, politics, culture, entertainment, sports and even to gangs and graffiti. 

Greater LA has the largest urban core and industrial centre in California while The Bay Area has the advantage of finance and politics the fact Sacramento is already part of this urban area.

But one thing I admire about LA is the various developments happening there. Downtown LA is improving and is become more vibrant. Same with other downtowns such as Culver City. 

The Expo Line is up plus a newly designed international terminal will be coming up in LAX.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

soup or man said:


> I'll let you think you know you're talking about because I'm sure you felt great saying that but since you really don't know LA at ALL nor how this city works, I should let you know that LA is wayyyyy too big of a city to have just one core. San Francisco is built up because it cannot build out.


The bay area suburbia is hardly better than suburbia in southern California. The natural limits around the urban core of San Francisco however might have helped. Thats right. 

You get me wrong if you think I am here to smear LA. I actually enjoyed that city and I am a great fan of a lot of developments in LA. I do not doubt for a moment that LA belongs to the most exciting corners of the US. 

But I was talking about urbanity. And while LA is huge there a quite a number of cities around the world of similar size and almost all of them will feel a lot more urban, even if they also have multiple centers due to their size. Stop focusing on NYC. I am not comparing LA to NYC, I am comparing it to other big urban areas in general. 



> LA has built out as far as it can go and it's now building up. And why do people keep comparing LA to NYC? The 2 cities are NOTHING alike.


That is the sad thing about American urban design conceptions. There is an inherent benefit coming from urban design and density. No matter how much space could be possibly wasted for suburbia. But many Americans seem to need some natural obstacles first in order not oppose urban concepts and designs. 

PS: 
Admittedly I missed Koreo Town, sounds nice however.


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

Manila-X said:


> The fact not everyone in LA has a car or even knows how to drive.
> 
> I took public transportation when I went there for a month vacation. But since i stayed around Culver City / West LA, public transportation was better and more frequent unlike the other parts of the city.


True, but if you were to look back a few decades ago the mentality of LA (and most other US cities as well) regarding public transit is that it is only used by the poor or for people who can't drive a car. Nowadays it is possible to take the subway/light rail from Downtown/Hollywood all the way to Pasadena and/or Long Beach with an extension to Santa Monica underway making it more convenient for people to take transit and ditch their car in the process.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

To understand where Los Angeles is at now, you have to go back in time.

American suburbia is nothing new. The end of World War 2 and the advancement of the automobile as well as new homes being built up left and right is what caused the decline of MANY downtowns across the US. Some were hit harder than others. DTLA was a no man's land from about 1960 to 2000. 

In the early 20th Century, downtown LA was home to LA's elite. Bunker Hill was adorned by beautiful Victorian style houses and hotels, beautiful gardens, and little old ladies with their parasols and poodles.

A panorama of Bunker Hill circa 1923.









Some of the types of homes that were on Bunker Hill.

















































A portion of Bunker Hill.









LA during the 1920's.





Lets take a drive around Bunker Hill from the 1940's.





However at this time, Bunker Hill was in decline. Instead of the wealthy, Bunker Hill became a sort of cesspool of sin and untoward behavior. Basically, Bunker Hill turned into Slumland.

















































Then of course came the freeway which chopped Los Angeles to pieces.

















So in the late 1950's, Los Angeles passed the Bunker Hill Redevelopment Plan which would destroy EVERYTHING that was on Bunker Hill. So for 32 years (from 1960 to about 1992), there was never ending construction on Bunker Hill. DTLA was scorched earth. It really was a mess. Added to the decline of DTLA's population + the added crime from those displaces from the slums of Bunker Hill, no one came to downtown Los Angeles for YEARS. On the plus side, a vast majority of LA's skyscrapers were constructed during this time.

Bunker Hill Redevelopment









































































































































Then in the early 1970's, skyscrapers started popping up. 

































































The trend continued in the 1980's.

























































































Then in 1986, an arsonist tried to burn down the already aging LA Central Library.

































After the fire, the City of Los Angeles sold air rights to the developers of the First Interstate Bank World Center tower to help pay for the reconstruction of the library. Since it was built right across the street, locals called it the Library Tower (they still do despite the building now being named the US Bank Tower).

































































Construction in DTLA chugged along until 1992 when Cal Plaza 2 signaled the end of skyscraper construction in DTLA for many years.

















































Not much happened in the way of construction until 1999 when 2 very important things happened in downtown Los Angeles. The first was the construction of the Staples Center (where the Lakers, Clippers, Kings, Sparks, countless concerts, The Grammy's, wrestling events, all sorts of things take place).









Also in 1999, Los Angeles passed the Adaptive Reuse Ordnance. What that meant was that a majority of the unused early 20th Century buildings that are in abundance downtown would be transformed into lofts, condos, and apartments.

Here are examples of buildings that have been converted. Or currently in the process of being converted.

































In 2003, the Walt Disney Concert Hall opened finally giving DTLA a truly iconic piece of architecture.









Then of course came the boom between 2004-2008.













Now, DTLA is in a second boom which is much more important than the first. The first boom brought in residences into DTLA. THIS boom will build things to keep them there. Cheif among them Farmer's Field.





Oh and did I mention the supertall we're getting?









Not to mention our ever growing rail network. This could be LA's rail map in 2020.









Whew! I hope this gives you insight as to where LA was, where it is now, and where it's going.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

This story of the great fall of downtown (also due to "urban renewal" of the car age) and rise of suburbia happened not only in LA. But LA is probably one of the most prominent examples as its also one of the major cities of the US.

You know, I am really a fan of all that development going on in LA in terms of transit, urban development (true urban development not a fake term that means the opposite like in the 60ies). There is so much going on. 

But it should be clear that what was almost dead until maybe 20 years ago can't be as big and vibrant as all these other cities that never experienced the almost total decline of their urban structures.

Take the transit network of LA. Its really heading the right way and it is already today a lot better than what people from Europe would expect (where LA still stands for the ultimate car city). But on the other side, I'd hope you don't take it as an offense but compare the plan of the LA rapid transit lines in maybe 10-20 years with plans of most major cities of today.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

I don't really care what other cities are doing to be honest. It's unfair to compare LA to say Manhattan because Manhattan is an island 13 miles long and 2 miles wide. (Wilshire Blvd is 15 miles long from downtown to the ocean). Los Angeles is 470 square miles. Geography here is much much different. You don't find many large cities with an ocean, mountains, and a desert as natural boundaries.

But considering the fact that as recent as 2000 when no one came to downtown other than to watch the Lakers play basketball and compare that to what's going on now is truly amazing. And what's even more amazing is that DTLA has barely scratched the surface of it's true potential. 

This truly is an exciting time to live in LA.


----------



## yankeesfan1000 (Aug 11, 2010)

soup or man said:


> I don't really care what other cities are doing to be honest. It's unfair to compare LA to say Manhattan because Manhattan is an island 13 miles long and 2 miles wide. (Wilshire Blvd is 15 miles long from downtown to the ocean). Los Angeles is 470 square miles. Geography here is much much different. You don't find many large cities with an ocean, mountains, and a desert as natural boundaries.
> 
> But considering the fact that as recent as 2000 when no one came to downtown other than to watch the Lakers play basketball and compare that to what's going on now is truly amazing. And what's even more amazing is that DTLA has barely scratched the surface of it's true potential.
> 
> This truly is an exciting time to live in LA.


You sound like a good person to ask about this, but is LA doing anything to concentrate new development around their mass transit infrastructure expansions, through zoning or LA's equivalent of that? 

Also, I've seen that map floating around concerning LA's future transit, but how much of it is currently funded or unfunded, whichever list is shorter. I know you guys have a vote coming up to fast track a good deal of it, a seemingly key component of the 30-10 plan, but how much of the new stuff is heavy rail?


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

How safe is living in downtown LA? I'm planning to move back to CA, and LA is my top 5 along San Diego.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

yankeesfan1000 said:


> You sound like a good person to ask about this, but is LA doing anything to concentrate new development around their mass transit infrastructure expansions, through zoning or LA's equivalent of that?
> 
> Also, I've seen that map floating around concerning LA's future transit, but how much of it is currently funded or unfunded, whichever list is shorter. I know you guys have a vote coming up to fast track a good deal of it, a seemingly key component of the 30-10 plan, but how much of the new stuff is heavy rail?


If by new development you mean TOD's (transit orientated development) then LA is doing that and has done that for quite some time. Hollywood and Highland sits right on top of a subway station.

This might help you out.
http://latod.reconnectingamerica.org/allstations

The only heavy rail (subway) line would be the Purple Line. LA, while being dense, is not dense enough to fully support a subway. Plus it's far too expensive to build a subway here. A billion dollars a mile if I remember.

What's under construction right now:

Gold Line Foothill Extension Phase 2a (the extension to East LA is complete)









Expo Line Phase 2









The Crenshaw Line is in pre-construction mode.









As is the Regional Connector. This short, 1.5 mile subway is extremely important as it turns 4 lines into 2. You will then be able to ride from Pasadena to Long Beach and Santa Monica to East LA without having to transfer trains.









Corey: DTLA is actually pretty safe. There is a strong police presence as well as bike patrols and safety officers. There are a few areas that are sketchy (Skid Row being the most famous example) and a few of the homeless can be a nuisance but DTLA is a pretty safe place.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

soup or man said:


> To understand where Los Angeles is at now, you have to go back in time.
> 
> American suburbia is nothing new. The end of World War 2 and the advancement of the automobile as well as new homes being built up left and right is what caused the decline of MANY downtowns across the US. Some were hit harder than others. DTLA was a no man's land from about 1960 to 2000.
> 
> In the early 20th Century, downtown LA was home to LA's elite. Bunker Hill was adorned by beautiful Victorian style houses and hotels, beautiful gardens, and little old ladies with their parasols and poodles.


Amazing development of Downtown LA especially the top of Bunker Hill. And it's amazing how various skyscrapers sprouted within this area.

On the other hand, SF's skyscraper boom in The Financial District also share the same history when formers run down areas are replaced by high-rise buildings. 

And San Franciscans debated the effect of skyscrapers in their city.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

Excellent Job Soup or Man

Just to clarify for those that dont know, most of the lines in that transit map are already complete. Also our Transit system is maturing. The trains now run till 2 am on friday and saturday and i expect 24 hour service in the next couple years honestly. With the crenshaw line, downtown connector and the second phase of Expo opening, we will be pushing 500,000 daily boardings.


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> Excellent Job Soup or Man
> 
> Just to clarify for those that dont know, most of the lines in that transit map are already complete. Also our Transit system is maturing. The trains now run till 2 am on friday and saturday and i expect 24 hour service in the next couple years honestly. With the crenshaw line, downtown connector and the second phase of Expo opening, we will be pushing 500,000 daily boardings.


I don't see 24 hour service happening because most transit agencies use that time period to conduct maintence operations. The only reason New York's subway system is open 24 hours is because many lines have multiple tracks so trains can just be simply re-routed from one track to another.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^Night service can be a challenge but in Vienna they introduced a handy compromise. There you have 24 h Subway service on two nights (Fr to Sa and Sa to Su) every 15 min while you have night buses the rest of the week every 30 min. 

I can understand that Los Angelinos are proud at their city and Downtown is really great considering what it was 20 years ago. I was impressed by the area around the Library down to Pershing Square. 

I have still to wait a few years however until they'll have repaired eg the whole Bunker Hill and Civic Center area. When you can walk from the Library to Union Station (especially between Disney Hall and City Hall but also along Main Street) without getting lost in parking lot deserts or urban decay than I am ready to say that LA got a full sized downtown, up and alive again. Until then, it is on its way but not yet there. Same goes for the rapid transit network, when you can reach all the major subcenters of LA by Light Rail/Subway again LA has got a solid network again.


----------



## yankeesfan1000 (Aug 11, 2010)

Thanks for the answer soup!


----------



## Sweet Zombie Jesus (Sep 11, 2008)

I learnt everything I need to know about LA from Californication:






:yes:


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Being policentric, I don't see the need for Los Angeles metro to have an unique downtown as reference. It is better to have various cluster of high-density areas (preferably of offices, entertainment and retail instead of residences), around which the rest of the "basin" revolves around.

At least its geography is highly favorable for that model.


----------



## pbrdpbrd (Jun 8, 2009)

*I do not Think Los Angeles is the Future....*

^^I lived in the suburbs of Los Angeles for 9 years and it is certainly not the paradise Hollywood wants you to believe it is. Don't get me wrong, there is a wealthy minority that lives in gorgeous places like Malibu, Beverly Hills, Palos Verdes, etc.
But the vast majority is buying houses on the fringes of the city and spending hours commuting on clogged freeways.

When the economy is good people leave the L.A. area in droves to other cities such as Portland, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. looking for more affordable housing, less congested freeways and overall better quality of life.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

pbrdpbrd said:


> ^^I lived in the suburbs of Los Angeles for 9 years and it is certainly not the paradise Hollywood wants you to believe it is. Don't get me wrong, there is a wealthy minority that lives in gorgeous places like Malibu, Beverly Hills, Palos Verdes, etc.
> But the vast majority is buying houses on the fringes of the city and spending hours commuting on clogged freeways.
> 
> When the economy is good people leave the L.A. area in droves to other cities such as Portland, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. looking for more affordable housing, less congested freeways and overall better quality of life.


right, thats why LA has been growing for 100 years.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> Being policentric, I don't see the need for Los Angeles metro to have an unique downtown as reference. It is better to have various cluster of high-density areas (preferably of offices, entertainment and retail instead of residences), around which the rest of the "basin" revolves around.
> 
> At least its geography is highly favorable for that model.


In your modernist utopia maybe, not in reality. Mono use centers are incredibly inefficient creating vast one way traffic extremes therefore needing much larger transportation infrastructure. Not to forget the extreme distances such a model creates. All in all a vastly inefficient system, wasteful and expensive, forcing people to spend more time in traffic (because greater speeds are largely compensated by greater distances and heavy traffic peaks) ...

In contrast to that are multi use areas and multi use centers where traffic extremes are much less pronounced and less mono-directional during rush hours. Distances are shorter and infrastructure is more efficiently used. 

Luckily LA is moving away from your failed modernist utopia towards the latter model of mixed use.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

pbrdpbrd said:


> When the economy is good people leave the L.A. area in droves to other cities such as Portland, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. looking for more affordable housing, less congested freeways and overall better quality of life.


Should there be a mass exodus from LA to Vegas, at least Vegas has plenty of empty homes that NO ONE IS BUYING for LA residences to pick from. 











Oh and Arizona?


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

pbrdpbrd said:


> When the economy is good people leave the L.A. area in droves to other cities such as Portland, Phoenix, Las Vegas, etc. looking for more affordable housing, less congested freeways and overall better quality of life.


You're kidding right?

Although Los Angeles and California in general has been hit pretty hard by the current recession, at least they can claim to have a diverse economy that is not reliant on tourism or retirees moving there unlike Las Vegas or Phoenix. Also considering that the school systems in both Nevada and Arizona are sub par in addition to the crime rates, I don't see what is so superior about the quality of life in Las Vegas and Phoenix at least in comparison with California in general (I will agree with you on Portland however).


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> In your modernist utopia maybe, not in reality. Mono use centers are incredibly inefficient creating vast one way traffic extremes therefore needing much larger transportation infrastructure. Not to forget the extreme distances such a model creates. All in all a vastly inefficient system, wasteful and expensive, forcing people to spend more time in traffic (because greater speeds are largely compensated by greater distances and heavy traffic peaks) ...


I didn't say monocentral. I said polycentric. Multiple areas with CDB-style features that, obviously, would be at transportation nods (freeway + subway/rail). The worst example of unidirectional flows in US is probably Manhattan, with all problems that generates (including, by leaps and bounds, the longest median and average commute times among all US metro areas).

I think Los Angeles can do well with a handful of CBDs of high-rises, easy access (rail and freeways) that creates multi-directional flows in different directions. Gosh, there is even the whole Orange county on its SE...

So Los Angeles could have like 4-5 major CBDs, 7-10 sub-CBD concentrating most office activity, some other entertainemnt discrcts of higher density.

Then, permeating and surrounding all these commerical high-density areas, you'd have medium and low density housing dominating the landscape. Remember: Los Angeles suburbs within the basin are among the densest in US. Much more denser than suburbs on NY Metro, Atlanta Metro, Chicago Metro etc., even if they are majority single-detached houses! But the key thing is to separate housing form office areas, creating barriers that specify where people live (and have only local commerce, but never sharing a same building with residences) and where people do everything else. 

They could also build a fast rail and another freeway to link Los Angeles Metro with San Diego, somehow making it a more interdependent region.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> I didn't say monocentral. I said polycentric.


I know. And I was not talking about "monocentral" city but about single use centers in a polycentric city. I give your concept credit though for locating those single-use centers at transportation nods (private and public I suppose). 

And yes, Manhattan is not necessarily a model case. Not because of Manhattan but because of insufficiently expanded subcenters, especially beside the other borough centers. The biggest problem are not the urban areas though, it is the vast suburbia in the periphery. 



> Then, permeating and surrounding all these commerical high-density areas, you'd have medium and low density housing dominating the landscape.


And here we have the problem of your concept. Radical separation of living from the rest. That is the biggest source of rush hour monodirectional traffic. An area where you can not reach a supermarket or at least a halfway decently stocked cornerstore on your own feet comfortably, does not deserve the label "urban", in functional terms. And small things like these cause something like the "lunch rush hour" in many edge cities of America that are you dreams come true. Have a look at Tysons Corner west of DC and you can see what a hell of a place your concept is. 

And yes, LA has a somewhat decent overall density. That is why it is not hopelessly lost but has a real chance of becoming a truly urban place again, with a working and efficient public transportation system. 



> creating barriers that specify where people live (and have only local commerce, but never sharing a same building with residences) and where people do everything else.


And why for god's sake? Other than for some weird modernist ideological reasons? I mean what are the rational arguments.


----------



## Fitzrovian (Oct 12, 2011)

Slartibartfas said:


> And why for god's sake? Other than for some weird modernist ideological reasons? I mean what are the rational arguments.


Suburbanist has creepy, depressing and downright nihilistic aspirations for a model of urban living. He is either a troll or needs psychiatric assistance. 

It is funny though that a guy who always champions the free market in support of his disturbing ideas now all of a sudden wants to "create barriers that specify where people live and where they do everything else". Precious.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> And why for god's sake? Other than for some weird modernist ideological reasons? I mean what are the rational arguments.


For the same reasons wise people in the mid-1920 realized it was a bad idea to have smokestacks and factories mixed with housing, despite obvious transportation advantages of the then-model of early industrialization.



Fitzrovian said:


> It is funny though that a guy who always champions the free market in support of his disturbing ideas now all of a sudden wants to "create barriers that specify where people live and where they do everything else". Precious.


I'm more in favor of strong HOA-backing that allows neighborhoods to keep themselves without commercial activities if the so want to. I'm a huge fan of the whole idea of HOAs, and HOAs can only operate, realistically, in a residential-only context.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> For the same reasons wise people in the mid-1920 realized it was a bad idea to have smokestacks and factories mixed with housing, despite obvious transportation advantages of the then-model of early industrialization.


You are equalizing polluting heavy industry with modern commerce, offices etc. Not surprisingly it is based on no rational argument to support that whatsoever.

There are good reasons why not to build homes on top of a steel work for example, there are none for not building homes on top of a supermarket or a hair dresser.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

For those who have never been to LA, I *implore* you to watch this video. It will truly open your eyes at how beautiful this place is. 






Fullscreen and 1080HD is a must.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

^^ Love Youtube. "This video contains content from Naive, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." ... bla bla bla ....


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Love Youtube. "This video contains content from Naive, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." ... bla bla bla ....


Try this.

http://vimeo.com/47224216


----------



## pbrdpbrd (Jun 8, 2009)

*How Life in L.A. Really Works.....*

^^As a previous dweller of the L.A. region, I will tell you how sad life is for many people in Southern California.......

For example, I used to work in an office in the Inland Empire in a city called Montclair (part of the greater L.A. area) and some peole were commuting from Temecula and Victorville in the desert to the office.....that is about 100 Km each way ... every day in the morning... every day back to home in the evening.....fighting congested freeways... if there was an accident on the freeway... you were out of luck the back up lines would go on forever.

Why would somenone buy a home 100km (60 miles) from their place of work?, one reason is affordability, the houses in the central areas of L.A. are too pricey for what you get.

Second reason has to do with white flight... meaning the areas near the center of L.A. are full of inmigrants, meaning the older white populations run further away to the outskirts of the city to avoid the newcomers. May sound terrible, but the place is not the melting pot they want you to believe.


----------



## Greg95100 (Oct 2, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> ^^ Love Youtube. "This video contains content from Naive, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds." ... bla bla bla ....


Same thing in France!! hno:


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

pbrdpbrd said:


> ^^As a previous dweller of the L.A. region, I will tell you how sad life is for many people in Southern California.......
> 
> For example, I used to work in an office in the Inland Empire in a city called Montclair (part of the greater L.A. area) and some peole were commuting from Temecula and Victorville in the desert to the office.....that is about 100 Km each way ... every day in the morning... every day back to home in the evening.....fighting congested freeways... if there was an accident on the freeway... you were out of luck the back up lines would go on forever.
> 
> ...


It's no big secret that the areas around downtown (East LA, Pico-Union, Chinatown, Westlake, Koreatown, Echo Park) have large immigrant populations. I live in Westlake. Right outside of downtown Los Angeles. 90% of the people who live here are from Mexico, El Salvador, and Guatemala. However, I'm smack dab in the middle of 2 areas that are quickly gentrifying and merging (downtown and Koreatown). I expect Westlake to look very different in the coming years.

And white flight happened across the US. Not just Los Angeles.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

pbrdpbrd said:


> Second reason has to do with white flight... meaning the areas near the center of L.A. are full of inmigrants, meaning the older white populations run further away to the outskirts of the city to avoid the newcomers. May sound terrible, but the place is not the melting pot they want you to believe.


I think it is a pity that lots of central parts of LA are pretty ghettoized. Not necessarily poor neighbourhoods but pretty ethnically secluded. In some parts of Downtown I really felt more like being in a Mexico than the US. I mean, thats cool but for my taste a little bit more mix would be nice. 

Btw, how is the relationship between European Americans and Hispanics in LA? Is it better than lets say in Houston? It almost has to be.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

Slartibartfas said:


> I think it is a pity that lots of central parts of LA are pretty ghettoized. Not necessarily poor neighbourhoods but pretty ethnically secluded. In some parts of Downtown I really felt more like being in a Mexico than the US. I mean, thats cool but for my taste a little bit more mix would be nice.
> 
> Btw, how is the relationship between European Americans and Hispanics in LA? Is it better than lets say in Houston? It almost has to be.


From Wiki:



> Non-Hispanic whites were 28.7% of the population in 2010, compared to 86.3% in 1940. Mexicans make up the largest ethnic group of Latinos at 31.9% of Los Angeles' population, followed by Salvadorans (6.0%), Guatemalans (3.6%), Hondurans (0.6%), Nicaraguans (0.4%), Puerto Rican (0.4%), Peruvians (0.4%), Cubans (0.4%), Colombians (0.3%), Argentines (0.2%), and Ecuadorians (0.2%). The Latino population is spread throughout the city of Los Angeles and its metropolitan area but it is most heavily concentrated in the East Los Angeles region, which has a long established Mexican American and Central American community.


----------



## mongozx (Sep 30, 2005)

soup or man: Great work with all the posts throughout this thread. It has piqued my interest in one of my favorite cities once again. 

About that supertall, will it really become reality?


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

mongozx said:


> soup or man: Great work with all the posts throughout this thread. It has piqued my interest in one of my favorite cities once again.
> 
> About that supertall, will it really become reality?


work has started on the demolition. The excavation will start simultaneously with the demolition once its further along and actual construction of the super tall should start next year


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> Btw, how is the relationship between European Americans and Hispanics in LA? Is it better than lets say in Houston? It almost has to be.


I am not sure what you mean by this comment since the relationship between Hispanics and non Hispanics in Houston is relatively good compared with other US cities. :nuts:

Neighborhoods in Houston are segregated by income not race/ethnicity and many of the suburban areas/outlying neighborhoods are some of the most integrated in the country. In fact many wealthy Mexicans have been moving here, buying second homes, and are starting new businesses here as well as is illustrated by this New York Times article.

*New York Times: For Rich Mexicans, Parallel Lives in U.S*


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

diablo234 said:


> I am not sure what you mean by this comment since the relationship between Hispanics and non Hispanics in Houston is relatively good compared with other US cities. :nuts:
> 
> Neighborhoods in Houston are segregated by income not race/ethnicity and many of the suburban areas/outlying neighborhoods are some of the most integrated in the country. In fact many wealthy Mexicans have been moving here, buying second homes, and are starting new businesses here as well as is illustrated by this New York Times article.
> 
> *New York Times: For Rich Mexicans, Parallel Lives in U.S*


I don't know a lot about Houston personally, I was merely told by a Spanish-American that Houston is less welcoming to Spanish or Latin people than some other parts of Texas. Maybe this is a false prejudice, I don't know.

I was not talking about Hispanics belonging to a certain class or not, being wealthy or poor but about how the majority gets along with this minority and possible latent hostility.


----------



## -Corey- (Jul 8, 2005)

How would that be posible? If the majority of them are Hispanics?? I've been in Houston and didn't see any prejudice towards Hispanics.


----------



## diablo234 (Aug 18, 2008)

Slartibartfas said:


> I don't know a lot about Houston personally, I was merely told by a Spanish-American that Houston is less welcoming to Spanish or Latin people than some other parts of Texas. Maybe this is a false prejudice, I don't know.
> 
> I was not talking about Hispanics belonging to a certain class or not, being wealthy or poor but about how the majority gets along with this minority and possible latent hostility.


I would say that the person you talked to, has no idea of what he is talking about. :nuts:

Houston as a whole is very friendly to hispanics (and not just Mexicans or Mexican Americans, but Guatemalans, Salvadoreans, Hondurans, Colombians, Venezuelans, etc as well) and hispanics occupy numerous political/business positions here, and mun2 has even ranked Houston as being one of the best cities to live and work.

*mun2 News: The 15 best cities for young latinos*

Yes, you have a few on the bottom income scale but if you are either a)an illegal immigrant b)high school dropout or c)have a criminal record that would be the case in any city whether you in NYC, Chicago, Miami, or Los Angeles.

Anyways sorry to derail the thread, let's return to Los Angeles.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

This video really highlights the progress Los Angeles is making in terms of bettering it's public transportation. As well as what has already happened.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Ok, so maybe that was an unfounded rumor than. Thanks for the on the ground perspective. But lets get back to LA again. 

@soup or man
Nice vide, obviously a political commercial but nice nonetheless.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)




----------



## Gaven32 (Oct 31, 2012)

Beautiful Planning for the city Its great journey of success and development. Well planed rail structure shown in the images this will make the city more beautiful and develop.


----------

