Would you care if L.A. eventually started killing it's inner suburbs to make way for more density? (Los Angeles: apartment complexes, houses)

[Chicano3000X]

Or do you feel it's wrong? Like a whole section of single family homes destroyed to make way for apartment complexes and mid to highrise buildings?

Would it be inevitable? And I'm talking within the basin.

IMO, I'd care, but also not care. Mainly because my neighborhood has alot of history so it would suck to see it go. But at the same time, I never liked the suburbs, but then again, the LA metro area never truly felt suburban.

[Cream1]

Why are so many people so infatuated with population density?

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by Howiester

Why are so many people so infatuated with population density?

City-Data.com


TBH, IDK..

I just think it's the idea of suburbia being a joke.

Think of it as a kid who grew up in the city vs a kid who grew up in the suburbs. Who's gonna have more mental toughness at the end of the day? More cultural experiences? A more realness in their upbringing? Suburbanites are considered sheltered while city dwellers are in the middle of it all.


Not to mention suburbia has alot to do with white flight and the decline of our downtown areas. So suburbia is a spoiled mentality that killed our cities for decades. Now everyone wants back in. Younger people want out of the dull existence in the suburbs and experience something more real.

[Harrier]

This sounds like another "why can't Los Angeles be more like New York" thread.

[MB8abovetherim]

Originally Posted by Harrier

This sounds like another "why can't Los Angeles be more like New York" thread.

I think we can all agree that Chicano just happens to love his city. I more or less don't really care if those houses were torn down. I don't really see the major difference in replacing all those single family homes with apartments and the like as those neighborhoods would still basically be the same. I for one do not adhere to the notion that looking "eastcoast" makes a place anymore urban than it already is. It is what it is, so who really cares. Now if there was a real need to make room for large population growth then I think it would be a slightly different story. But I still don't see most of those homes and neighborhoods beeing torn down as a result.

[mrsltd]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

Or do you feel it's wrong? Like a whole section of single family homes destroyed to make way for apartment complexes and mid to highrise buildings?

Would it be inevitable? And I'm talking within the basin.

IMO, I'd care, but also not care. Mainly because my neighborhood has alot of history so it would suck to see it go. But at the same time, I never liked the suburbs, but then again, the LA metro area never truly felt suburban.

Do you mean City of Los Angeles neighborhoods that ring the downtown, or the separate communities such as Bell, Huntington Park, etc.?

The second is not something that LA could really do, because it has no jurisdiction over those places.

The first......well......it wouldn't be the first time or place that this would be done. Often, it is single family homes being replaced with new single family homes, or duplexes or fourplexes.

But.......

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

City-Data.com


TBH, IDK..

I just think it's the idea of suburbia being a joke.

Think of it as a kid who grew up in the city vs a kid who grew up in the suburbs. Who's gonna have more mental toughness at the end of the day? More cultural experiences? A more realness in their upbringing? Suburbanites are considered sheltered while city dwellers are in the middle of it all.


Not to mention suburbia has alot to do with white flight and the decline of our downtown areas. So suburbia is a spoiled mentality that killed our cities for decades. Now everyone wants back in. Younger people want out of the dull existence in the suburbs and experience something more real.

Rich people stay rich people even in the city. Maybe John Q. Yuppie and his kids know how to navigate the metro, but does that make a person mentally tough, and more real? Heck most of the city folk I know don't know how to cook and can't drive, is that "keepin it real"?

[OyCrumbler]

We have more than enough parking lots and brown lots we can fill without touching any historic architecture. I like some of the SFHs that exist in Los Angeles and think they're good to keep as historic reminders of what they are as well as giving future generations patches of interest in the city.

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious

Rich people stay rich people even in the city. Maybe John Q. Yuppie and his kids know how to navigate the metro, but does that make a person mentally tough, and more real? Heck most of the city folk I know don't know how to cook and can't drive, is that "keepin it real"?

I guess not, the driving depends though. In L.A. maybe not but in othe cities you might not even need a car.

Overall I meant real is in there's always something happening(good or bad). Not in terms of the person himself keeping it real but the person living in an environment that is beyond any typical suburnite or rural dweller's comfort zone. People everywhere, homeless(it's part of it unfortunately), authentic places, public transit seeing so many different people, different neighborhoods with different feels.



I dont want LA to become new york. But I do admire many aspects of New York that I wish L.A. had. Mainly public transit and overall vibrancy.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

Overall I meant real is in there's always something happening(good or bad). .

Limiting the happenings that are bad is good.