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.
I get that the chances of that happening in LA is more likely than elsewhere (though it seems like it would be a strange situation - since as I said most people in LA aren't looking for work in Santa Ana, much less Irvine), but you could say that for any metro area. Hell I would look up in the Bay Area before I looked in southern OC.
One of my parents had a 40 mile commute. 4 mile drive to train station, then 36 mile train journey to Penn Station. Got house before that job (previous was in the suburbs). On the drive, the two lane road merges to one a bit before the station. Her usual tactic is stay on the right lane that's about to end, go fast and then merge in, getting further ahead and probably cutting off some drivers. Best way to make the train.
Hmm not sure about LA, every single job of the 6 I worked in Chicago has been downtown, and I used to work contract IT jobs has been in the Chicago downtown either in the Loop or River North, in fact, I would turn down jobs that are not downtown. There are tons of jobs in the loop as well but not sure LA works like that. People in Chicago WANT to work downtown, there is a lot to do there, it's fun for lunch (a social affair almost everyday) , etc. It's a lifestyle I wouldn't want to give up.
Yes Chicago is much, much more centralized - so is Boston, the last place I lived - I worked mostly downtown but did work all over.
Just because Downtown isn't the place in LA, that doesn't mean people don't want to work downtown (my wife is pretty psyched) - it's just another job center at this point and in the 80s it was a place people did not want to work and you saw a huge migration of jobs to the Westside, so it's a place in transition (at least it's transition for the positive). As early as the late 70s, there was three times the daytime population in downtown Los Angeles. The extreme job de-centralization is a relatively recent thing, though Los Angeles has always been a decentralized city.
Yes Chicago is much, much more centralized - so is Boston, the last place I lived - I worked mostly downtown but did work all over.
And NYC is more centralized than either, and probably has increased a bit lately.
Quote:
Just because Downtown isn't the place in LA, that doesn't mean people don't want to work downtown (my wife is pretty psyched) - it's just another job center at this point and in the 80s it was a place people did not want to work and you saw a huge migration of jobs to the Westside, so it's a place in transition (at least it's transition for the positive). As early as the late 70s, there was three times the daytime population in downtown Los Angeles. The extreme job de-centralization is a relatively recent thing, though Los Angeles has always been a decentralized city.
Interesting. I assumed DT LA had never declined in absolute job numbers, just that shopping and residences fled.
And NYC is more centralized than either, and probably has increased a bit lately.
It's important to note that centralization is not exclusively about jobs. It's also about the concentration of "things to see and do" in a small area. Most visitors to NYC, Paris, London, San Francisco, Boston, DC or Philly spend the majority of their time in a small part of the city.
The point wasnt to compare Central L.A. to Manhattan, especially in terms of car-free living. Geez.
All I was saying is that Central L.A. (or better yet, the 66 sq mile area munchitup referred to) is the best area in the region for a car-free or car-lite lifestyle, if you insist on not driving in L.A. I wouldn't recommend it, but it can be done, and there is lots to do there.
All I was saying is that Central L.A. (or better yet, the 66 sq mile area munchitup referred to) is the best area in the region for a car-free or car-lite lifestyle, if you insist on not driving in L.A. I wouldn't recommend it, but it can be done, and there is lots to do there.
When has this point ever been the subject of dispute? You can live in almost any major city without a car if you live in the right place. The real question is "How easy is it to live in X city without a car?" That's a more relevant question.
The point wasnt to compare Central L.A. to Manhattan, especially in terms of car-free living. Geez.
All I was saying is that Central L.A. (or better yet, the 66 sq mile area munchitup referred to) is the best area in the region for a car-free or car-lite lifestyle, if you insist on not driving in L.A. I wouldn't recommend it, but it can be done, and there is lots to do there.
Yes, it can be done, but even in Chicago, and I'd say anywhere BUT NYC you have to work at it despite the obvious high # of options. While I haven't lived in LA, I can't imagine being there without a car, even within that zone given the lack of transit options alone. Sure I could get to work and back, but what about everywhere else, a party over here, going to that shop there, going to this park, etc. You'd have to use the bus most of the time, which gets clogged in traffic and far slower than heavy rail subway options (if they were to have them there)
I have a car right now only b/c of my gf, when I was single I didn't have one, and I don't actually own one... However, we don't WANT to use it... it's more for the security of having a car if we ever needed it, we never like actually using it unless it is leaving the city or something for a road trip.
Maybe LA should just build their subway lines all through downtown, and not worry about going so far out with it... concentrate on a singular area... don't think it would happen, but I think it could work and LA still has a lot to work with. I just don't see that whole 2030 plan helping so much, because basically what they are building is the equivalent of a suburban commuter lines like Metra and Metro North/PATH, and not an inner city subway line. Even with 100s of stops for Metra, I would never use it as a sole means of transportation given the distance between lines which seem similar to what LA is about to build...
I do think, it will give people work commute options and cut down on car commutes, but it still won't make it easy to go from point a, to point b, to point c in an efficient manner car free.
Where LA wins of course, is overall amenities, which is easily #2 in the U.S. despite any urban infrastructure demerits..
Yes, it can be done, but even in Chicago, and I'd say anywhere BUT NYC you have to work at it despite the obvious high # of options.
You don't have to work on the "car free" part as hard, but you do have to put a little work into finding a place that's located off the line that's quickest to work.
When has this point ever been the subject of dispute? You can live in almost any major city without a car if you live in the right place. The real question is "How easy is it to live in X city without a car?" That's a more relevant question.
Exactly... it's easy, and how many options. Most college towns you can live without a car if you live near campus, but that isn't the point. The point is to enjoy all teh amenities a city has to offer car free, and in an easy manner.
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.
