More urban LA, SF, DC, Philly, and Boston? (living, cost, better)

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

All good steps to take.

But the issue is that Los Angeles has fundamental design issues that will make it very challenging to offer a lifestyle anything close to Boston, Philly or DC. For example, what do you do with all of the restaurants that have parking lots? Do you confiscate the property by eminent domain so that something else can be built there? That's obviously not going to happen. And the existing houses on single-family lots...what are you going to do with those? You just can't bulldoze them and build a whole bunch of 8-floor apartment complexes with retail on the bottom because a few guys on C-D want to have more fun. What about commercial strips that have no residences on top? Do you raze those and then build apartments on top of them so people can have easier access to amenities? How do you address those design issues?

Zoning was changed, property values went up and it was profitable to develop lots that were empty, parking lots, or less dense into greater density--that was pretty much it. Things changed. Also, there was some kind of silver lining with the LA riots in that a lot of the bombed out, more sprawling commercial strip mall lots were redeveloped much more densely than before.

Also, the SFH are only in small pockets in the core, and that's where most of the change is happening. Apartment complexes are where the majority live. It still effectively makes for dense housing. Los Angeles generally has corners and arterial roads for commercial activity, but the dense residential areas are immediately right off of those arterial roads (and oftentimes, you can walk to several of these arterial roads from your home) rather than building residences directly on top of the commercial buildings (also, a lot of these corner/arterial road commercial places are multiple stories or complexes of commercial/retail). It doesn't look the same as east coast cities (though in places within the heart of downtown do look like east coast cities), but it still functions very similarly in terms of dense development and walkable areas.

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

You might want to check that. I'm not really in the "track down people's quotes and throw them back in their face" mood today. The biggest problem is that people don't understand the difference between "greater than" and "less than." Saying that Los Angeles is less urban than Boston does not mean that's it's not urban at all.

Fine, maybe some did, I don't agree with them and probably most people, even those are arguing that LA is urban, has stated that it blows the other cities out of the water.

[BajanYankee]

OyCrumbler is the only person on here with any semblance of objectivity. This discussion would be much more interesting and thoughtful in the urban planning forum.

[Fitzrovian]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

OyCrumbler is the only person on here with any semblance of objectivity. This discussion would be much more interesting and thoughtful in the urban planning forum.

It took you 50 pages to realize that?

[jorge112597]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

What about commercial strips that have no residences on top? Do you raze those and then build apartments on top of them so people can have easier access to amenities? How do you address those design issues?

W hotel hollywood condominiums - Google Maps
has residences on top, and has stores on the bottom and many things in a walking distance

sorry, it doesnt redirect you properly

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Zoning was changed, property values went up and it was profitable to develop lots that were empty, parking lots, or less dense into greater density--that was pretty much it. Things changed. Also, there was some kind of silver lining with the LA riots in that a lot of the bombed out, more sprawling commercial strip mall lots were redeveloped much more densely than before.

In Paris, you know, they just knocked it all down and started over. It's hard to retrofit something to make it function in a way that it wasn't designed to function. It would be like putting an N54 engine in a minivan and expecting it to handle the twists and turns of the Black Forest like a BMW M5. Sure, you'd get increased performance, but it wouldn't be the same as actually driving a BMW M5.

[RaymondChandlerLives]

I don't see how being more car friendly makes L.A. less urban. It's just a lame aesthetics argument.

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Zoning was changed, property values went up and it was profitable to develop lots that were empty, parking lots, or less dense into greater density--that was pretty much it. Things changed. Also, there was some kind of silver lining with the LA riots in that a lot of the bombed out, more sprawling commercial strip mall lots were redeveloped much more densely than before.

Also, the SFH are only in small pockets in the core, and that's where most of the change is happening. Apartment complexes are where the majority live. It still effectively makes for dense housing. Los Angeles generally has corners and arterial roads for commercial activity, but the dense residential areas are immediately right off of those arterial roads (and oftentimes, you can walk to several of these arterial roads from your home) rather than building residences directly on top of the commercial buildings (also, a lot of these corner/arterial road commercial places are multiple stories or complexes of commercial/retail). It doesn't look the same as east coast cities (though in places within the heart of downtown do look like east coast cities), but it still functions very similarly in terms of dense development and walkable areas.





Fine, maybe some did, I don't agree with them and probably most people, even those are arguing that LA is urban, has stated that it blows the other cities out of the water.

I put LA at third on this list. The LA posters that are the west coast equivalent of you have stated that it blows all other cities out of the water (Oops didn't mean you Oycrumbler .)

I think I am being fairly objective and have in-depth experience on both coasts.

[BajanYankee]

Originally Posted by Fitzrovian

It took you 50 pages to realize that?

Haha. I gotta stop feeding the trolls, I guess.

[jorge112597]

Originally Posted by munchitup

I put LA at third on this list. The LA posters that are the west coast equivalent of you have stated that it blows all other cities out of the water (Oops didn't mean you Oycrumbler .)

I think I am being fairly objective and have in-depth experience on both coasts.

i said LA is the most urban, but not that its a whole new level of urban, they are close but i believe LA is the most urban

[jorge112597]

Originally Posted by BajanYankee

Haha. I gotta stop feeding the trolls, I guess.

look who is talking, the biggest troll on this thread