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'm mostly in agreement with the pro-urbanism orthodoxy, but I'd like to play a little devil's advocate from time to time to test my own ideas. The Case Study here: Century City, Los Angeles.
Century City is a commercial/residential district about 10 miles west of the Los Angeles core. It's surrounded by primarily affluent residential areas like Beverly Hills and Westwood. By virtually every standard it's a successful urban development. It hits all the traditional marks: it's safe, it's an employment center, the schools are decent-to-good, the land is valuable and plenty of people would be happy to live around there. The density is nothing to write home about, but still 5000-15000 ppsm isn't bad 10 miles outside the downtown. There's even a nice skyline with multiple buildings around 500 ft.
But here's the thing: Century City should be anathema to the pro-urban crowd. It's car-oriented, defined by wide boulevards, irregular road layouts with comparatively few pedestrians or street-level retail. Most of the shopping is done in a giant mall. The nearby housing is in 2-3 story apartments and further out are disconnected single-family homes in large lots. There is little incentive to walk and consequently, not many people do. The local residents and politicians have been openly hostile to rail transit for decades and the only options for the concievable future are buses and private cars.
So let's say you're talking to a group of developers who want to replicate Century City in their metro. What argument would you have against it and towards more traditionally urban planning?
I'm mostly in agreement with the pro-urbanism orthodoxy, but I'd like to play a little devil's advocate from time to time to test my own ideas. The Case Study here: Century City, Los Angeles.
Century City is a commercial/residential district about 10 miles west of the Los Angeles core. It's surrounded by primarily affluent residential areas like Beverly Hills and Westwood. By virtually every standard it's a successful urban development. It hits all the traditional marks: it's safe, it's an employment center, the schools are decent-to-good, the land is valuable and plenty of people would be happy to live around there. The density is nothing to write home about, but still 5000-15000 ppsm isn't bad 10 miles outside the downtown. There's even a nice skyline with multiple buildings around 500 ft.
But here's the thing: Century City should be anathema to the pro-urban crowd. It's car-oriented, defined by wide boulevards, irregular road layouts with comparatively few pedestrians or street-level retail. Most of the shopping is done in a giant mall. The nearby housing is in 2-3 story apartments and further out are disconnected single-family homes in large lots. There is little incentive to walk and consequently, not many people do. The local residents and politicians have been openly hostile to rail transit for decades and the only options for the concievable future are buses and private cars.
So let's say you're talking to a group of developers who want to replicate Century City in their metro. What argument would you have against it and towards more traditionally urban planning?
Well for the near future yes. The conceivable future? No. There will be an HRT stop either at Constellation and Avenue of the Stars or at Santa Monica and A.O.T.S., depending on whether the loons in Beverly Hills win their multiple lawsuits (all signs point towards them losing). And actually, the local residents are for the most part very much in favor of the subway, with a few exceptions.
It's pretty pedestrian-hostile, though the city is trying to take steps to improve the pedestrian experience. We will see how successful they are.
Also, this is a bit nit-picky, but those SFH don't appear to be on large lots. Perhaps for Los Angeles they are large, but in general those are some close-together homes.
It's fine. There's other attractions on Route 66 that I prefer for sure, not much interest in malls so I'll leave them to those that are. There's some other cool cultural things. Fox Plaza is pretty much an icon in American culture thanks to Die Hard, plus you have MGM Tower which has its own fascinating history of which MGM Towers is but a small (and brief) chapter. Definitely a cut above your average office park.
There is no there, there. It is a place of nothingness.
Don't believe your lying eyes - there is nothing there. Century City doesn't really exist . It looks real enough to me, and the skyline does give it some character.
Well for the near future yes. The conceivable future? No. There will be an HRT stop either at Constellation and Avenue of the Stars or at Santa Monica and A.O.T.S., depending on whether the loons in Beverly Hills win their multiple lawsuits (all signs point towards them losing). And actually, the local residents are for the most part very much in favor of the subway, with a few exceptions.
I hope so on the transit, but it's been so long that I'm taking a wait and see approach. By the public, I refer mostly to the NIMBY crowds around Beverly Hills. But the local politicians and homeowner groups have consistently put up roadblocks to the subway expansion for decades, these latest lawsuits included, so I have to assume they have the tacit support of the locals. I'm not sure where they stood on Measure R though I'm guessing places further west like Westwood and Santa Monica were all for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kohmet
There is no there, there. It is a place of nothingness.
While I agree Century City isn't much of a destination on it's own, it's not completely without distinction. The skyline's been photographed plenty. Places like Nakatomi Plaza and the mall have featured in movies. It's probably better known and more recognizable outside of LA than Brentwood, actually although less visited if only because of the Getty Center.
LOL @ posters from the middle of nowhere who can't help themselves from taking pot-shots at Los Angeles.
The buildings aren't spectacular by any means, but hideous?
Outside of maybe the historic core, and carol Avenue, yes. Everything outside of the extremely sterile looking office towers. seems as If it could be plopped on some decrepit boardwalk, or in the most mass produced of suburbs, and plastic looking beach resorts. Also, the coloring of the entire city seems to be this overly whitewashed, or rainbow coloring, which adorns so many Styrofoam facades, making much of the city appear amazingly Cheesy, and too modern (in a sterile rather than high tech way). Lastly the entire city seems as if it has been hit on top of the head with a sledgehammer and overly stretched out (It is virtually suburban sprawl from downtown outward).
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.
. It looks real enough to me, and the skyline does give it some character.
