LA is past better than its future

[california_guy110]

I see how it can create problems but LA is the main city on the west coast and there are plenty of areas with lower density housing, basically from Orange County all down through San Diego so I think it'd be cool to have even more a "city" feel in LA but thats just me.

[visco7]

Originally Posted by junkman18

I don't think their is any doubt about that.

Actually, I do doubt that. I have lived here all my life (Southern Calif) and most of what others enjoy in this country or even around the world started here. Problems will come and problems will be dealt with. As far as smog goes, the difference now compared to when I was a kid is unbelievable. The smog problems is nothing like it was in the 60s and 70s. We have always had traffic and always will. Right now, I live 45 minutes from downtown L.A., I can be at the beach with my kids in 45 minutes, I can be at Disneyland in about 35 and I can take my Kids to the snow in just 30min. Every place you go has its positive and negatives. I have traveled a lot because of my job and I wouldn't trade So. Cal for anywhere else. No thank you to what many other places have to offer like low wages, hurricanes, dramatic weather, racial predjudice, etc. I live in a neighborhood where the houses sell (even in a slow real estate economy) at about 650,000. We are the only white family in the neighborhood (I like that). We have 2 black families, 2 asian families, 1 hispanic family and one Indian (country not Native) on our street. All are homeowners. So, say what you want but if this was such a bad place there wouldn't be so many people here. America might be the country of opportunity but California is the state with the most opportunity. Keep your mind open and if you come here than enjoy!

[majoun]

Originally Posted by fastfilm

I isolated this quote not to take issue with the poster, but to illustrate plainly how one person's utopia is another person's Hell on earth. I side with Malthus, the scientist who proved overcrowding populations created violence, be they mice or men.

That theory was debunked long ago. If that was true, than ANY European or Asian city - even the safest ones - would be more dangerous than L.A. is, not to mention that NYC would be more dangerous than L.A. which it is not (except when it comes to terrorism, which didn't exist in Malthus' time).

I personally don't think there should be as much of a push for high density housing until the light rail system is expanded and the Wilshire subway is built. There are a number of poor planning issues that could create problems, but density isn't a cause of violence, even within L.A. If density caused violence, it would mean that West Hollywood, Brentwood, and Beverly Hills would be very dangerous and South Central and North Hills would be very safe.

There are other factors at work. Density has little or nothing to do with violent crime, although it does create certain other problems.

[Californiaguy2007]

That's what I love about L.A and California is the Amazing Variety it offers.

L.A and California may have Problems,but the Positives far outweigh the Negatives in my opinion.

California is definately the State of Opportunities and New Ideas

Originally Posted by visco7

Actually, I do doubt that. I have lived here all my life (Southern Calif) and most of what others enjoy in this country or even around the world started here. Problems will come and problems will be dealt with. As far as smog goes, the difference now compared to when I was a kid is unbelievable. The smog problems is nothing like it was in the 60s and 70s. We have always had traffic and always will. Right now, I live 45 minutes from downtown L.A., I can be at the beach with my kids in 45 minutes, I can be at Disneyland in about 35 and I can take my Kids to the snow in just 30min. Every place you go has its positive and negatives. I have traveled a lot because of my job and I wouldn't trade So. Cal for anywhere else. No thank you to what many other places have to offer like low wages, hurricanes, dramatic weather, racial predjudice, etc. I live in a neighborhood where the houses sell (even in a slow real estate economy) at about 650,000. We are the only white family in the neighborhood (I like that). We have 2 black families, 2 asian families, 1 hispanic family and one Indian (country not Native) on our street. All are homeowners. So, say what you want but if this was such a bad place there wouldn't be so many people here. America might be the country of opportunity but California is the state with the most opportunity. Keep your mind open and if you come here than enjoy!

[fastfilm]

Sticking up for ol' Malthus: his acolytes were soundly disproved, what with their specific (and untrue) predictions of European famines and discounting of the Industrial Revolution, which threw equations of labor vs. resources into a tizzy. However, I like an elevation of ideas on this forum when relating problems or prognostication about Los Angeles. Los Angeles was, for instance, a far more negotiable city congestion-wise during specific traffic-mitigations, such as with the Olympics or the immigration rallies.

Would you rather compete with 1,000 applicants for the same job, or a mere 20? Would you rather drive along a freeway with less traffic like the 118 or one with perma-congestion (like permafrost!) such as the 405? Would you rather live next door to a family, or 300 per lot? Quantity does not mean quality. Especially quality of life. Big questions for the future of Los Angeles...

[KerrTown]

Will S.F. become the centre of the West again due to a weakened L.A.?

[jessemh431]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

Will S.F. become the centre of the West again due to a weakened L.A.?

lollollollollollollollollolthat will never happen. LA is definitely not weakening. where did you get that idea from?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by fastfilm

Sticking up for ol' Malthus: his acolytes were soundly disproved, what with their specific (and untrue) predictions of European famines and discounting of the Industrial Revolution, which threw equations of labor vs. resources into a tizzy. However, I like an elevation of ideas on this forum when relating problems or prognostication about Los Angeles. Los Angeles was, for instance, a far more negotiable city congestion-wise during specific traffic-mitigations, such as with the Olympics or the immigration rallies.

The immigration rallies had no effect on Westside traffic. OTOH, when one crossed La Brea, there was a noticeable difference. As for the Olympics, people in LA were so scared of the impending traffic nightmare that many left while they were on, which made traffic just fine. However, the level of traffic in the 80s was nowhere near what it is now. I can remember driving all the time from West LA to Hollywood in 20 minutes back then during rush hour- it can't be done now at any hour.

Would you rather compete with 1,000 applicants for the same job, or a mere 20?

Presumably more people would mean more jobs. I'm not saying greater density doesn't bring problems, particularly without a sufficient infrastructure.

Would you rather drive along a freeway with less traffic like the 118 or one with perma-congestion (like permafrost!) such as the 405?

Well, if North Hills, Sun Valley, and San Fernando became prosperous enough that employers were flocking to those areas like they are flocking to the West Side, the 118 would have a lot more traffic.
If LA's public transport infrastructure was better, then it wouldn't matter. I had no problems with the NY subways or London tube even as run down as they are, and wouldn't need to have a car. However the infrastructure isn't to that point yet. This is why I think it's better to hold off on the very high density until the new Metro lines open, and NOT before.

Would you rather live next door to a family, or 300 per lot? Quantity does not mean quality. Especially quality of life. Big questions for the future of Los Angeles...

Like those are the only two options? I don't want 300 per lot but otoh I feel no attachment to the single family home. As I've said in other threads, to me the distinctive type of LA housing is the bungalow court (unique to LA and sadly no longer built after the 50s) not the SFR.
As for quality of life, it is possible with greater density (SF is proof of that).
The US city with the highest quality of life is generally considered to be Portland - and the city planners there had a great idea years ago that LA should have picked up on - limit the size of the SFR lots.

I do think that there needs to be a happy medium between sprawl and extreme high density.