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.
Well, L.A. is huge so it's going to be hard to urbanize at the intensity of D.C. because of it's size. Too many hole's exist throughout L.A.'s core compared to D.C. The things is, D.C. has more mid-rise/high-rise building's rising in the core 20 square mile's than the entire 469 square mile footprint of L.A. proper. That's probably the biggest difference between D.C. and every other city in the country though. The hotel and office construction is getting out of hand and when combined with all the residential it's really out of control.
The development is so intense in the core here there just isn't anything like it. The boom in D.C. is about to get out of hand this year as we come out of the recession. The amount of development moving right now is just staggering. D.C. proper is about to enter the largest development boom it's probably ever seen in it's history.
Having said that, I like what L.A. is doing though, it's just too bad all those buildings in the city can't be restricted to downtown L.A. Can you imagine what that would look like?
Personally I prefer having widespread and diverse urban areas all over the metro, so I don't think I'd want to have all of the development restricted to DTLA.
It's also a bit misleading to throw out the entire 469 square miles of Los Angeles when comparing high-rises, because the vast majority of them are within that Wilshire - Santa Monica corridor from DTLA to Santa Monica via Hollywood and Century City + the Ventura Blvd corridor in the Valley. The continuous square mileage of that area is around 120 square miles (for a very rough boundary, try the area between the 101 in the Valley, 10 Freeway in Mid-City, Centinella / 405 on the Westside and 5 along the LA River), plus that includes about 60 square miles or so right in the middle that is just the Santa Monica Mountains.
It would be one thing if the high-rises were sort of lightly smattered across all 470 square miles, but that is definitely not the case. Even the high-rise districts outside of LA city limits are pretty closely clustered around this rectangle (Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank, Santa Monica with Beverly Hills + Sunset Strip actually within the rectangle).
Well, L.A. is huge so it's going to be hard to urbanize at the intensity of D.C. because of it's size. Too many hole's exist throughout L.A.'s core compared to D.C. The things is, D.C. has more mid-rise/high-rise building's rising in the core 20 square mile's than the entire 469 square mile footprint of L.A. proper. That's probably the biggest difference between D.C. and every other city in the country though. The hotel and office construction is getting out of hand and when combined with all the residential it's really out of control.
The development is so intense in the core here there just isn't anything like it. The boom in D.C. is about to get out of hand this year as we come out of the recession. The amount of development moving right now is just staggering. D.C. proper is about to enter the largest development boom it's probably ever seen in it's history.
Having said that, I like what L.A. is doing though, it's just too bad all those buildings in the city can't be restricted to downtown L.A. Can you imagine what that would look like?
Yea, it's hard to compare because of their different physical boundaries, though the 469 square miles doesn't make much sense as a comparison to a core 20 since a core 20 for LA including downtown and spreading down Wilshire would net you the majority of the midrises and highrises in LA and virtually all the skyscrapers.
Sucks to hear that the construction in DC is getting out of hand. I think it's probably bad if LA does do all its development in just downtown as it really needs to make its nodes better and do a better job of connecting them if it wants to really make use of the area's assets and infrastructure. It seems to be a better pattern to go down as there are a good number of cities that have followed that pattern which has been great such as Tokyo. Have you been to LA recently and downtown specifically?
Based on my rough count, Central LA has something like 10,000 housing units under construction just from mixed-use projects. Most are in the 5-7 story range, which is the ideal height for Los Angeles. That's pretty impressive considering LA isn't really booming just yet. There's definitely a rumbling though.
Amazingly enough, considering how dense and built up LA already is, it probably has the most potential to densify further, simply because its main commercial corridors are relatively untouched in terms of residential/mixed-use development. When though start to develop and the notorious surface lots get replaced little by little with mixed-use buildings, the perception of LA will absolutely change, even though it densified more meaningfully ages ago.
Yea, it's hard to compare because of their different physical boundaries, though the 469 square miles doesn't make much sense as a comparison to a core 20 since a core 20 for LA including downtown and spreading down Wilshire would net you the majority of the midrises and highrises in LA and virtually all the skyscrapers.
Sucks to hear that the construction in DC is getting out of hand. I think it's probably bad if LA does do all its development in just downtown as it really needs to make its nodes better and do a better job of connecting them if it wants to really make use of the area's assets and infrastructure. It seems to be a better pattern to go down as there are a good number of cities that have followed that pattern which has been great such as Tokyo. Have you been to LA recently and downtown specifically?
No, I haven't been to L.A. in a few years. I need to visit soon. My cousin lives in L.A. and I've been saying I'm coming to visit for two years now. I think one of the hardest things for urbanist proponents to do is be patient. Development that can move the needle needs to be concentrated. That's how development is forced to other area's. You don't want developers building in other area's because they can. You want them to build in other area's because the core is built out forcing development out of the core. That is a good problem to have and ensures development will be compact street by street and block by block without any breaks.
Based on my rough count, Central LA has something like 10,000 housing units under construction just from mixed-use projects. Most are in the 5-7 story range, which is the ideal height for Los Angeles. That's pretty impressive considering LA isn't really booming just yet. There's definitely a rumbling though.
Amazingly enough, considering how dense and built up LA already is, it probably has the most potential to densify further, simply because its main commercial corridors are relatively untouched in terms of residential/mixed-use development. When though start to develop and the notorious surface lots get replaced little by little with mixed-use buildings, the perception of LA will absolutely change, even though it densified more meaningfully ages ago.
That is 100% true. There isn't a city in the U.S. with more potential for urban infill than Los Angeles. The next 150 years will belong to L.A. in the development of infill. It's kind of a catch 22 though. Having that much potential for infill means the city isn't built out. That is a good things and a bad thing depending on how you look at it. Half full glass or half empty glass if you will.
As a planner, I see the glass half full and believe L.A. will infill more than any other city over the next 100 years because it's basically clear land of low intensity development waiting for redevelopment. 99% of the city could realistically be redeveloped considering what is there now and the intensity of that development. Just loads and loads of potential. There will be urban planning jobs in L.A. for the next 100 years. The only problem is, residents into urban environments from other cities may not want to wait that long. People are inpatient unfortunately.
The apartment buildings across the city will probably all fall at some point and be replaced with buildings befitting a city. L.A. is about to be on fire for years.
That is 100% true. There isn't a city in the U.S. with more potential for urban infill than Los Angeles. The next 150 years will belong to L.A. in the development of infill. It's kind of a catch 22 though. Having that much potential for infill means the city isn't built out. That is a good things and a bad thing depending on how you look at it. Half full glass or half empty glass if you will.
As a planner, I see the glass half full and believe L.A. will infill more than any other city over the next 100 years because it's basically clear land of low intensity development waiting for redevelopment. 99% of the city could realistically be redeveloped considering what is there now and the intensity of that development. Just loads and loads of potential. There will be urban planning jobs in L.A. for the next 100 years. The only problem is, residents into urban environments from other cities may not want to wait that long. People are inpatient unfortunately.
Yeah, I'm not sure what this statement means because there are tons of people from other cities moving into LA's urban neighborhoods - LA is a very transient city and a lot of that is from the East Coast. In fact most of the LA "boosters" on these threads have lived or are from urban neighborhoods in other cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MDAllstar
The apartment buildings across the city will probably all fall at some point and be replaced with buildings befitting a city.
I also disagree with this statement. You may have a problem with the set-backs and "suburban" appearance of some of LA's apartment buildings, but I don't see much of a push locally to replace these buildings or much criticism of their urban "intensity". These buildings have a much more "intense" quality than I think you really understand - sure some (a lot) of them are butt-ugly, but stucco walls and a 15 foot setback does not offset the density of units these buildings pack in.
Besides, they aren't the problem or what is holding LA back from being considered a walkable or highly-urban place. The problem is the strip malls, gas stations, drive-thru restaurants and one-story retail / light industrial along the major arteries, which is where you are seeing nearly all of the redevelopment in Los Angeles right now. Not sure if I can think of any examples of apartment buildings being torn down and replaced by new apartment buildings - any new purely-residential is typically on empty lots.
I totally agree with you that a streetwall is important on commercial streets, but I don't really see why it is important on residential streets as long as the buildings are oriented towards the street and not inward-facing (which describes most LA apartments). In fact it seems there are examples in DC and Seattle where there really is not a streetwall on the residential streets but I would consider the area to be intensely used and urban.
Last edited by munchitup; 03-14-2014 at 04:45 PM..
Yeah, I'm not sure what this statement means because there are tons of people from other cities moving into LA's urban neighborhoods - LA is a very transient city and a lot of that is from the East Coast. In fact most of the LA "boosters" on these threads have lived or are from urban neighborhoods in other cities.
I also disagree with this statement. You may have a problem with the set-backs and "suburban" appearance of some of LA's apartment buildings, but I don't see much of a push locally to replace these buildings or much criticism of their urban "intensity". These buildings have a much more "intense" quality than I think you really understand - sure some (a lot) of them are butt-ugly, but stucco walls and a 15 foot setback does not offset the density of units these buildings pack in.
Besides, they aren't the problem or what is holding LA back from being considered a walkable or highly-urban place. The problem is the strip malls, gas stations, drive-thru restaurants and one-story retail / light industrial along the major arteries, which is where you are seeing nearly all of the redevelopment in Los Angeles right now. Not sure if I can think of any examples of apartment buildings being torn down and replaced by new apartment buildings - any new purely-residential is typically on empty lots.
I totally agree with you that a streetwall is important on commercial streets, but I don't really see why it is important on residential streets as long as the buildings are oriented towards the street and not inward-facing (which describes most LA apartments). In fact it seems there are examples in DC and Seattle where there really is not a streetwall on the residential streets but I would consider the area to be intensely used and urban.
Well for one, the whole post was a compliment to L.A. Also, I'm talking about L.A. running out of space and the effects of that phenomenon over the next 150 years which I mentioned. When L.A. runs out of space, the only place to go is up like every other city. I was talking about the future. The apartment building aesthetics was not what was talking about. The height of those buildings is what I was talking about.
I think people misunderstand what I'm talking about when I say core development. I'm talking about the height of buildings. I don't think a core should have a majority of buildings in the 1-4 story range. I think they should be in the 5-100 floor range.
Well for one, the whole post was a compliment to L.A. Also, I'm talking about L.A. running out of space and the effects of that phenomenon over the next 150 years which I mentioned. When L.A. runs out of space, the only place to go is up like every other city. I was talking about the future. The apartment building aesthetics was not what was talking about. The height of those buildings is what I was talking about.
No I know it was complimentary. Sorry If I came off as defensive - I still disagree I'm not sure LA will keep building up and up on its residential streets. The NIMBY force is strong here, and there are quite a few HPOZs throughout the city that will prevent that.
It would be an interesting day when there are people fighting to save the dingbats and stucco monsters. That day will come and it is probably not too far off.
No I know it was complimentary. Sorry If I came off as defensive - I still disagree I'm not sure LA will keep building up and up on its residential streets. The NIMBY force is strong here, and there are quite a few HPOZs throughout the city that will prevent that.
It would be an interesting day when there are people fighting to save the dingbats and stucco monsters. That day will come and it is probably not too far off.
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.
