Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what about an academic who has spent over 30 years studying Los Angeles' urban design and concludes that:
(1) Los Angeles has more parking per capita than any city in the world; and
(2) Los Angeles does not have the "vital urban core we associate with older urban centers" due to...
(3) The city's "relentless accommodation of the automobile."
Ray, has anyone ever told you that you argue like a 5 year old?
"all this hate of LA's car culture"... "2 square miles o' fun" ... "cars are a burden".. Blah blah blah. What you are doing is called psychological projection. You must have deep insecurities about your hometown, otherwise you wouldn't keep playing this losing game by our rules and deluding yourself that LA is this super urban, super dense, walkable metropolis. Your claims are laughable to any 5 year old.
And there you go again with your density BS. We already saw what your dense neighborhoods look like. Quite a sorry sight.
look into the mirror and see whos the 5 year old, if i were you i would just be quiet because you ar making your self look like a dumbass, because ray burned you and your friend bajan hard on post 1041
It's hard to change an urban model overnight. Compactness was a practical necessity for eastern cities at the time they were built. What other means of transportation did most people have besides walking? So you had large urban cores in Boston, Philadelphia, NYC and DC that were built specifically and primarily for pedestrian life.
You'd have to change the whole infrastructure of Los Angeles to make it as pedestrian-friendly as Boston or DC. You'd have to eliminate 95 percent of its off-street parking. You'd have to put residences on top of the retail on commercial corridors in order to promote greater walkability. You'd have to scale down the size of the streets. You'd have to provide incentives for about 60% of the businesses in the outer areas to relocate to downtown. It's a tall task.
look into the mirror and see whos the 5 year old, if i were you i would just be quiet because you ar making your self look like a dumbass, because ray burned you and your friend bajan hard on post 1041
Donald Shoup, the Chair of UCLA's Urban Planning Department, has already written that Los Angeles does not have the "vital urban core associated with older urban centers." That pretty much ends the argument.
Donald Shoup, the Chair of UCLA's Urban Planning Department, has already written that Los Angeles does not have the "vital urban core associated with older urban centers." That pretty much ends the argument.
Check and mate.
just because donald shoup said so doesnt mean it true
like ray said is he god to know if or if not LA will have a vital urban core
I see L.A. built two (2) 400+ foot buildings since 2004. Philly built five (5). SF built four (4). If L.A was becoming more urban, surely it would enjoy the kind of development Philly and SF enjoy, but I guess in a city where the #1 industry is sweat-shops you really don't need, or can't afford skyscrapers. Philly wins this poll, and SF is deservedly second. Philly wins this any way you look at it, but this fact about tall building construction is telling. L.A. Has not changed that much in the past 8 years. You've been called out on this phony line of argument before.
its giong to seem like a different skyline once wilshire grand towers are built also many other projects.
Skylines having nothing to do with all the infill that has taken place in DTLA since that article was written. It's completely outdated. L.A. Live was still years from breaking ground, for chrissakes. But you knew that, I'm sure.
L.A. Live? You mean LA's version of Atlantic Station in Atlanta? Basically a big indoor entertainment complex that doesn't even rival the National Harbor in Fort Washington, MD? I'll take TriBeCa, NoLita, and SoHo thank you.
I see L.A. built two (2) 400+ foot buildings since 2004. Philly built five (5). SF built four (4). If L.A was becoming more urban, surely it would enjoy the kind of development Philly and SF enjoy, but I guess in a city where the #1 industry is sweat-shops you really don't need, or can't afford skyscrapers. Philly wins this poll, and SF is deservedly second. Philly wins this any way you look at it, but this fact about tall building construction is telling. L.A. Has not changed that much in the past 8 years. You've been called out on this phony line of argument before.
LA has built new apartments/condos and renovated many old existing buildings into apts/condos in and around its core. That is the kind of development that is needed. The Wilshire Grand project will be spectacular when completed but I love what is taking place with the old and new, especially the old buildings. Not a bunch of new skyscrapers.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
