Is L.A. zoned and planned poorly? (Los Angeles, Brea: apartment complex, city hall)

[BRinSM]

In hindsight, I don't think anyone would disagree that LA was poorly planned. But at the time of the transition from street car to freeway, LA was the most progressive city in the country (if not the world), building freeways all over the region. Unfortunately, this progressive attitude was short lived as we now see with our clogged freeways.

[DontH8Me]

Originally Posted by BRinSM

In hindsight, I don't think anyone would disagree that LA was poorly planned. But at the time of the transition from street car to freeway, LA was the most progressive city in the country (if not the world), building freeways all over the region. Unfortunately, this progressive attitude was short lived as we now see with our clogged freeways.

I don't think the failing was in our city planners and their collective progressive attitude - I just don't think that they ever had an inkling of the tidal wave of unexpected dwellers or that said influx would be sizeable enough to stymie the infrastructure we have.

[BRinSM]

Originally Posted by DontH8Me;

I don't think the failing was in our city planners and their collective progressive attitude - I just don't think that they ever had an inkling of the tidal wave of unexpected dwellers or that said influx would be sizeable enough to stymie the infrastructure we have.

wouldn't this lack of foresight be considered a failure?

[the one]

man some of you guys got it twisted. LA is planned pretty well. and when i refer to LA is mean downtown and a 10 mi radius. otherwise you get into those bigger cities like pasadena, ING, CPT, SaMo that are there own entities. and the valley might as well be its own entitiy. but in LA it is very easy. if you live at 10310 S central av, then you live down on 103rd and central. if you live at 1700 east florence then you live on florence 17 blocks east of main street. its a very easy grid to read. if you are at north figueroa then you are north of 1st street/temple. if it is south broadway then you know you are south of there. if it is west slauson then you know you are west of main. its pretty simple in terms of planning. even where i live, which is not in LA proper, the grid still adheres to these rules. the 6100 block of my street.
when you start moving out of the city center then it becomes confusing. but that is a testament to the fact that the southland or southern cali was a dense downtown area with municipalities that have been around since the 1800's and early 1900's. as was said they grew up together, most population booms happening in the 20, 30's and like everywhere else after the WWII. what also helped in LA was all the southern folk and oakies coming to LA in the 40's and 50's, and well naturally they populated the remaining farms far from the city center. further out of LA you have cities that didnt incorporate until the 60's or 70's and even further away from LA it didnt happen till the 80's and 90's.
but historically the center of LA HAS been downtown. a review of early public trans would support this. the transit system we had with street cars was the best in the country. all lines lead to DT. but with the accesibilty of cars came the death of good PT in LA and it also brought the desire to leave the city center and move to areas further out. a desire to move to suburban areas that themselves were becoming more urban. it was a matter of land scape.
as for water and power here, well it was pretty rough going but even then the city and the larger region have water and power.
the biggest difference between LA and chicago or SF or any other city is the age of the city. LA has an old history, but in most respects is still pretty young. actually the whole US is only what? 200 300 years old? thats young. LA is is different from most places in that it saw a boom in population after most places had been thru it. the countless waves of immigrants that inundated the east coast didnt get to LA or the west coast till many decades later. in that sense LA is still tryin to catch up to the precendent established by the east coast.
LA was also a pioneer in expressway planning for a whole region. a great map from 1957 shows the "industrial freeway" the "olympic" freeway and the "slauson freeway", these are ones that didnt make the cut.

LA has its own style image and history. and influences a lot of the country.
it is only logical that it have its own planning as well. and if you ask me it was planned pretty well.
the city is easy to navigate. each part of town has its own charm and style. the freeways (when not congested) are very efficient. our current PT system is a bit lacking but with time it will change. i love what LA has been, what it is and what it is becoming.

[DontH8Me]

Originally Posted by BRinSM

wouldn't this lack of foresight be considered a failure?

Perhaps a failure; I would consider it a failure of our Federal government in enforcing our immigration laws, not a shortcoming of the city planners.

[Nowheres_Home]

[quote=amc760;3184490]

It has its own unique culture.

And history? Uh....Hollywood?

Hollywood is not history... maybe you could stretch the word and call it history of modern art. L.A. is like an infant when it comes to historical cities. Before the 20th century, L.A. was a tiny little town of little importance. No battle has been fought here and other than a few massacres of Chinese immigrants you will not find much mention of L.A. in your history books before World War II. New York, D.C., Boston, and Philadelphia have more American history than L.A. probably ever will and still these cities are like teenagers in the historical sense. I would say the city with the most history on the west coast is San Francisco. Most major cities in the world have even more history. Rome, Paris, London, Dublin, Tokyo, Istanbul, Jerusalem... these cities have real history, real culture, real soul that has developed over centuries, not decades.

The culture of L.A. is plastic and the city has no historical sense of itself... I just can't describe how ridiculous it sounds to me that you present Hollywood as the history of L.A. I give L.A. a little more credit than that!... there is plenty of Asian-American history here, there is Catholic history... civil rights history... there is a growing Mexican-American population that will hopefully preserve some important sites for future generations to visit and look back on. There is more to L.A. than Hollywood. L.A. is a relatively new city and it will grow in history and culture through time.

[BRinSM]

Although I mostly agree with you Nowheres_Home, I think most people will agree that Hollywood will be piece of international history in the years to come. The movie industry transcends international borders and Hollywood is the heart of it. Although the "glory days" may be over, I'd imagine that even in future centuries to come, people will look back (for better or for worse) and see the impact that Hollywood has had on global cultures.

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by DontH8Me

Perhaps a failure; I would consider it a failure of our Federal government in enforcing our immigration laws, not a shortcoming of the city planners.

Scapegoating again? Most of the problems are caused by outsiders from other states. Maybe California should secure the borders by converting the agricultural checkpoints? But on second thought California is such a welcoming place. After all, that high population makes it one-of-the-largest (if not the largest) economies in the U.S.

[Nick682]

Is L.A. zoned and planned poorly?

Yes!

[BreaOC]

Originally Posted by Nick682

Is L.A. zoned and planned poorly?

Yes!

Do expand on your opinion...