LA's continuous population growth and its infrastructure (Irvine, Pasadena: real estate, 2009)

[jzt83]

As LA continues to increase in population, it will face many challenges to accommodate the growth. I used to live in LA for a year back in 2004 - 2005 and am currently visiting for a vacation. The thing that struck me is the number of cars everywhere and the insufficient amount parking/vehicular capacity. The city is mostly built out yet the population keeps compounding year after year. I've been riding public transit everywhere, and it's decent but could be more improved, and I suppose the improvement of the public transit system is the only logical next step to accommodating the growth. How will LA's infrastructure be able to growth keep up with the population growth? Will Angelenos have give up their obsession with their cars? Perhaps the city/county will have to start charging tolls?

[happ]

I believe your perception is correct & why light rail is the main focus in LA. Freeways are obsolete before they are even built. Cities like Pasadena are concentrating housing\ shopping near train stations [even have apartment buildings over the stations].

[bhcompy]

two words: personal helicopters

[EscapeCalifornia]

The infrastructure will not keep up. Freeways will be turned into toll roads. People will wind up paying to sit in bumper to bumper traffic instead of doing it for free. Taxes collected for road maintenance will continue to be diverted to salaries, healthcare, and pensions for union government employee and social programs for people who shouldn't even be here. Quality of life will continue to decline as it costs more.

[vegaspilgrim]

I agree with EscapeCalifornia 100%. What will happen is more and more people who are fed up with the crowding in LA will decide to toss in the towel and move to a smaller city. And people fed up with those smaller cities that Californians are flocking to will move to cities even smaller yet.

What's the point of more and more population growth? How is LA going to become a better city than it is now by attempting to imitate New York City? Those apartments next the light rail stations in Pasadena are beautiful, but are absolutely expensive. Where do people get that kind of money just to blow on rent? And it's not like the people moving into those trendy apartments don't also have cars. I actually took a long walk last night in Pasadena up and down Colorado Blvd and Lake Ave. Impressive. The question I was asking myself is, where does all this money for all this stuff come from? Is Pasadena really some economic powerhouse? Will there be future economic growth, new industries moving in and expanding, new wealth being generated, or just continued population growth with a stagnant or declining economic base?

[motoman]

LA's traffic infrastructure is woefully inadequate and incredibly poorly maintained given how heavily it is used.

I am visiting my family in Dallas right now, where I am originally from, and my parents said they are talking about digging under a major freeway here to add additional lanes to ease congestion. And let me tell you, the worst congestion in Dallas is nowhere near as bad as the normal congestion in LA.

So imagine what kind of money LA would have to spend to reasonably reduce congestion on its roads. The taxpayers wouldn't be willing to pay for it.

Something that has struck me as incredibly odd with large cities such as LA and NY is that it seems to me the greater the density of the population the lower the standard of living. In other words, people are willing to pay more to receive less for many things, and are more willing to put up with greater headaches, like endless traffic. Presumably this is offset by some benefit elsewhere, but I am not so sure. I think more times than not people lose sight of what they are giving up and simply settle for a below average standard of living just so they can say they live in LA or NY.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by motoman

Presumably this is offset by some benefit elsewhere, but I am not so sure. I think more times than not people lose sight of what they are giving up and simply settle for a below average standard of living just so they can say they live in LA or NY.

I wonder if TV or movies glamorize LA in such a way that it artificially increases the demand to live in LA.

[Userdavey]

Originally Posted by Charles

I wonder if TV or movies glamorize LA in such a way that it artificially increases the demand to live in LA.

As an outsider living in Colorado Springs, I can tell you that most young (18-25) people in this town would love to live there. These are the types who would not mind shacking up with others and just think about parties though. And most conservatives here think that LA is pure evil. And that is a very widely held belief. My dad thinks that everyone out there is crazy. So I would figure that a good chunk of society feels that LA (And all of California really) is no where they want to be.

However, the glam of Hollywood is everywhere too. I often wonder if all the celebs live there to be close to the work or if they actually love it. Strangely though, I have never seen any TV show or movie that captured the feel of LA accurately. The fact is though that people flock to California almost non stop. I looked at the population growth over the years and it is something like 50 people per hour for fifty years. That's not exactly what it was but it might as well have been.

[hsw]

High taxes and costs will drive out low-wage/skill jobs and people that make no sense to be located in any region like LA (or NYC or SF)....let free market choices prevail

That said, it's all relative....anecdotally, LA fwys are much faster (and air far cleaner) than back in early '90s when far fewer people and cars; LA fwys are far faster than comparable routes in NYC or Chic regions, which have more mass transit but slower fwys and worse weather

Most workers who are paid enough such that their time is more valuable also live <20mins from their office in corridors like CentCity or Irvine or 1000 Oaks...in fact, many comparable commuters in NYC or Chic have a >45min drive to office from upscale suburbs which are ~30 miles from Midtown or Loop

Most Americans (or anyone w/bucks) prefer safety/convenience/comfort/privacy of own private automobile, not mass transit...just like most don't desire to live in public housing or on public welfare...and most would prefer own private plane over flying commercial if could afford it...private automobile is poor man's version of private plane...and much of why std of living is so much higher in CA than in NYC or EU or anywhere else in world

[vegaspilgrim]

Originally Posted by Charles

I wonder if TV or movies glamorize LA in such a way that it artificially increases the demand to live in LA.

Exactly. A good example of this is the new movie I Love You Man. Notice how in all these movies set in LA nobody actually works? In that movie the main character supposedly "works" as a real estate agent in an office where the guys exchange porn all day, taking hours off in the middle of the day to go to Venice Beach. And his buddy in Venice who does nothing all day but play guitar and take his dog for walks, as we find out at the end of the movie is supposedly an "investor" with some magical stream of income coming in. Yeah right. And there's never a traffic jam, there's never any ugly people (unless if they're put there specifically to be made fun of), nobody lives in crummy apartments, everybody mysteriously happens to commute down Sunset Bl on their way home from work (), everybody lives like they're a millionaire, there's never smog and it's always sunny. The movie Yes Man followed almost the same exact formula. Even in 2009... nothing has changed.