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.
That's Bogus. If you don't believe it, then, google map any major Euro city with a subway system and you will find plenty of apartments within 2,3, 4 blocks of a subway entrance. Many times, people live just a few feet away from an entrance. In LA though, most have to walk far. Far as LA's aversion to walking, people do their cardio on a treadmill or jog around a track--not as a primary method of transportation.
I have visited multiple major Eu cities and I stated that as a fact.
I stayed at my friend's apartment in central Paris, which is about 700 meter from the closest subway station. And Paris is considered to have the most tightly knit metro system in the world as the city itself is very small.
It is really a general misconception that most Europeans have a subway station 3 minutes from their door. Most people have to walk 7-10 minutes at least (I myself am about 1 minute from a station, luckily).
Yes, LA folks don't have the luxury, but the Europeans sacrificed living space and pay higher taxes. Most urban Europeans don't live in houses with a backyard. Are Los Angelenos willing to give up their two story houses for apartment living (where a family of 4 live in a 1000sf condo)? People in LA have to walk far to get to a transit stop because the density near those stops is too low. If you replace each house near a subway stop with a 4-12 story apartment building, then the number of people who are within easy access to subway stops would easily be 5-6x high.
No, I wouldn't give up my car completely - and I wouldn't move into an apartment or condo that didn't have a parking space. At some point, though, L.A. really needs to address how car-centric this area is, not only due to a growing population, but also an aging one.
I can't believe there's still no rail line directly from the San Fernando Valley to LAX. That would relieve so much of the 405 congestion, and yet nothing has been done. Instead, "Let's widen the 405!" Really? What a great solution!
There are certain safety issues to would preclude me from taking public transportation (I'd be walking to work while it's still dark in the winter), and I can't see myself lugging groceries from the bus stop either. Fortunately, except for commuting to work 26 miles round trip, I don't normally do a lot of driving. The traffic alone on a Saturday is usually enough to keep me home unless I go out very early in the morning or very late at night.
I will have to say that I don't think people are ready to abandon their vehicles yet and the city needs more rail lines to make the city easier to get around. Since I do many visit to the city, It not too bad getting around public transit here and it is quite fun to get around. It is definitely possible to live without a car in certain neighborhoods such as Old town Pasadena, Hollywood, Downtown, Koreatown, Silverlake/ Echo Park, North Hollywood, Glendale, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Venice Beach, etc however I agree that they need to built more density and apartments in order for people to not depend too much on their vehicles. Plus the Metro System needs a lot of work as well.
The thing that the Metro System needs to improve is:
1. Provide "Free" Transfer at subway stations and to board the buses
2. Build Booths for MTA agents at subway station to help out people in terms of buying fares and ways to get around
3. Have constant security guards at subway stations
4. Make the Tap card more efficient and easier to use.
5. Fix the screens on the Subway stations that indicate the times
6. Officially lock the Turnstiles and have MTA agents guard it at all times.
7. Change the voice on the subway announcements and on the buses.
8. Clean those damn buses and change the seating on it as well. Same goes for the subway seats. It is disgusting to sit on those seats.
9. Have subway lines extends to Santa Monica, West Hollywood, along sunset blvd, mid city, Fairfax district, LAX, Echo Park, Monterrey Park, Glendale, Burbank, Miracle Mile, and build a subway/Metrolink service along the 405 freeway.
There are more but that is all I could think of. But for now, I don't believe that Los Angelenos are willing to give up their cars yet. Plus they should begin to just integrate the whole system into one and not have people pay again because it is a different bus line which doesn't make any sense.
I can't believe there's still no rail line directly from the San Fernando Valley to LAX. That would relieve so much of the 405 congestion, and yet nothing has been done. Instead, "Let's widen the 405!" Really? What a great solution!
As the 405 project is somewhat starting to wrap up, I am finding the same traffic jams as there was prior to the project. This widening of the frwy was a waste of a lot of money and it took away valuable land that could have been utilized for a few rail lines to and from san fernando valley, to downtown LA, Santa Monica, LAX and beyond..
We cater to the solo commuter, by spending billions on frwy expansion, which encourages people to live further and further away from work. At the same time the general condition of all the streets across the entire county are getting worse and worse. Potholes, erosion are damaging more and more tires/suspension..
you need very high density and a real city to make mass transit work. los angeles is just one gigantic suburb, it'll never fly. at best, you'll just have a bunch of low-utilization commuter style setups, things like metrolink, the varios metro lines, etc.
also, that whole idea about young people moving into the city (along with retired people downsizing) definitely isn't materializing. the fact of the matter is the vast majority of the population prefers to live in suburbs/exurbs.
i don't believe that hollywood/downtown is going to substantially increase its population. los angeles is a city that has been on the decline for a long while now, is very overcrowded, has a low quality of life, etc. young people with their **** together looking for that type of experience have countless, far superior options in this world available to them today.
I think there's definitely a shift in cultural attitudes to one that now favors urban living, especially among young people. The racial subtext that underlied the suburban tendencies of the older generations isn't nearly as present nowadays. Plus, people seem to consider recreation a more significant aspect of life nowadays as the culture of domesticity has receded and we are having fewer kids and at later points in life.
However, despite our shifting cultural attitudes and greater participation in biking and walking, Angelenos are not going to significantly inconvenience themselves by relying on a trash public transportation system. Thankfully we're enough of metropolis to have appropriate levels of density consistent throughout our city to support more transit lines. Places like Phoenix and Vegas are good examples of the catch 22 of the desolate Sun Belt wasteland model of urban planning in that they need (or will soon need) more effective mass transit but don't have adequate density (and therefore ridership) to make it worthwhile to fund. I think once the Purple is at least at La Cienega, the Crenshaw connects to at least the Purple, the Regional Connector is done, and the knuckle draggers at the MTA stop making you pay to transfer between lines, we will see a turning point where a much larger percent of people, up to ~25% maybe, will choose to live here without a car. Hopefully this will be sooner rather than later. We need to reintroduce Measure J either this year or in 2016 as well as a fuel tax to speed these projects the hell up.
Also, I think a lot of this New Urbanism trend has become a neoliberal sham that does nothing to promote transit. The developers have set the price point stupidly high for their stucco ****boxes and provide more than 1 parking space per unit, so the only ones who can afford it are upper middle class yuppies who are driving their Infinitis and Priuses everywhere anyway. Developers need to stop artificially raising the bar on the market rate. When they're build buildings w/ $1500+ studios in neighborhoods filled mostly with single family homes they don't have to compete with an adequate supply that would drive the prices down. The New Urbanist density model will crash and burn unless they build more affordable housing.
Last edited by Count David; 03-20-2014 at 07:58 PM..
Reason: profane.
I think there's definitely a shift in cultural attitudes to one that now favors urban living, especially among young people. The racial subtext that underlied the suburban tendencies of the older generations isn't nearly as present nowadays. Plus, people seem to consider recreation a more significant aspect of life nowadays as the culture of domesticity has receded and we are having fewer kids and at later points in life.
However, despite our shifting cultural attitudes and greater participation in biking and walking, Angelenos are not going to significantly inconvenience themselves by relying on a trash public transportation system. Thankfully we're enough of metropolis to have appropriate levels of density consistent throughout our city to support more transit lines. Places like Phoenix and Vegas are good examples of the catch 22 of the desolate Sun Belt wasteland model of urban planning in that they need (or will soon need) more effective mass transit but don't have adequate density (and therefore ridership) to make it worthwhile to fund. I think once the Purple is at least at La Cienega, the Crenshaw connects to at least the Purple, the Regional Connector is done, and the knuckle draggers at the MTA stop making you pay to transfer between lines, we will see a turning point where a much larger percent of people, up to ~25% maybe, will choose to live here without a car. Hopefully this will be sooner rather than later. We need to reintroduce Measure J either this year or in 2016 as well as a fuel tax to speed these projects the hell up.
Also, I think a lot of this New Urbanism trend has become a neoliberal sham that does nothing to promote transit. The developers have set the price point stupidly high for their stucco ****boxes and provide more than 1 parking space per unit, so the only ones who can afford it are upper middle class yuppies who are driving their Infinitis and Priuses everywhere anyway. Developers need to stop artificially raising the bar on the market rate. When they're build buildings w/ $1500+ studios in neighborhoods filled mostly with single family homes they don't have to compete with an adequate supply that would drive the prices down. The New Urbanist density model will crash and burn unless they build more affordable housing.
lmfao, oh boy.
do tell, who are these developers who magically have a monopoly on new condo/apartment construction? how are they able to "artificially raise the bar" again?
lets look at a really simple example, lets say a mid-rise property with 100 units (1k sqft. each) along with subterranean parking. this kind of **** would never get built in los angeles, you know, 'cause environmentalists/nimbys/rent control activists/snivel rights leaders/etc. would shut it down.
but lets just pretend.
one acre of land in los angeles: $20mm
construction cost at $200/ft: $20mm
that's $40mm to get the thing built, or approximately $400k per unit.
i'm curious, which course in your urban studies / transportation curriculum explained how to:
1. get private landowners to give away property for free
2. convince taxpayers to willingly give up even more of their paycheques to help the "poor and needy".
3. get material suppliers to donate **** for free
4. find labourers who'll break their ass for the goodness of mankind
?
well?
lets partner up comrade, you and me, we'll make a trillion dollars in the next week with your top-secret knowhow. free housing for all!
from each according to his ability, to each according to his need! lets go smoke some marijuana and go listen to the exciting new ideas in the lecture hall!
Last edited by Count David; 03-20-2014 at 07:59 PM..
do tell, who are these developers who magically have a monopoly on new condo/apartment construction? how are they able to "artificially raise the bar" again?
lets look at a really simple example, lets say a mid-rise property with 100 units (1k sqft. each) along with subterranean parking. this kind of **** would never get built in los angeles, you know, 'cause environmentalists/nimbys/rent control activists/snivel rights leaders/etc. would shut it down.
but lets just pretend.
What the F are you talking about? Most of the new construction in LA is 100+ units with subterranean parking. Most of the construction over e last few decades has been multi family with subterranean parking.
You really come off as someone with zero knowledge of LA... I mean did you really say you don't see DTLA's popularity increasing? I guess e can just ignore the population gains, new retail and restaurants and influx of construction.
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.
