Would you care if L.A. eventually started killing it's inner suburbs to make way for more density? (Los Angeles: sales, affordable apartments)

[Those Who Squirm]

Originally Posted by sll3454

Who is this "Los Angeles" and does he own the buildings this thread talks of razing?

If you (plural) are talking about developers seeing an opportunity, buying property from owners willing to sell, and building something, some of that could be good.

If it would involve use of eminent domain, then No, it shouldn't be done, and Yes, I would care.

No, it's usually not done through eminent domain.

Palms is a good example. It began as one of the earliest suburbs in the area, though it was annexed to L.A. in 1915. Until the 1960s it was mostly SF houses and many of those had stood since before 1880s. From the Wikipedia article, until the early 1960s...

...most of Palms was single-family homes[23] and small duplexes and triplexes, most of which were built in the Craftsman and Spanish Colonial styles that dominated Southern California in the first quarter of the 20th century. Under pressure to provide affordable housing, the city of Los Angeles rezoned most of the district for large multifamily dwellings.

So it's usually not a case of the city simply showing up with the bulldozers; rather it's a change in the zoning laws which tends attract the developers of rental property and motivates the owners of the old houses to sell out. Sure, I regret the loss of all the historic houses and wonder what this place must have looked like back in the day. It was probably a lot prettier and more interesting architecturally. But the other side of the coin is that large MH housing developments do provide an out for those who want to remain in the city and can't afford to buy a house at 21st century prices. You have to remember that when Palms was founded there were far fewer than 100K people in the entire county. It was truly a suburb in every sense of the world. Now there are 100 times that many people and Palms is just another area of L.A.

Nothing is worse for a city than when entrenched special interests prevent it from reinventing itself as the population grows and makes the old patterns of housing distribution unsustainable.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by mattk92681

People move to the suburbs for the "three S's": Space, Safety and Serenity. And because you can get something that wasn't built during the Prohibition Era. Yeah, I'm a cheerleader for the suburbs. Can't deny it...

Safety and serenity are no longer guaranteed in the suburbs, and even space isn't something that one will necessarily find there

But at the end of the day, unless you live in and own your own house on a parcel in the Santa Monica mountains or Laural Canyon, you're always going to be subject to rising rent, rising HOA fees, the clatter of footsteps overhead, the noise of sirens, helicopters and car horns.

Because NONE of those things exist in the suburbs....

[Those Who Squirm]

Originally Posted by majoun

Safety and serenity are no longer guaranteed in the suburbs, and even space isn't something that one will necessarily find there



Because NONE of those things exist in the suburbs....

Believe me, even living in one of the canyons doesn't guarantee serenity. I mentioned this in the other thread about Granito Drive; back when those streets were first laid out the greater priority was providing more routes over the Santa Monica Mountains and the Hollywood Hills. If you're on one of the through streets, and a lot of them don't look like they should be, but are, you will hear vehicles driven by your house constantly, in low gear and at high revs, because you're generally on a hill. I grew up on a route from West Hollywood to Coldwater Canyon, itself a major route from Beverly Hills to Studio City. Take my word, the noise of traffic was nearly constant.

[hipcat]

No. It's about time LA steps up and becomes the premier city of the West Coast not only in population, but in urban design.

[PDF]

Originally Posted by hipcat

No. It's about time LA steps up and becomes the premier city of the West Coast not only in population, but in urban design.

Aren't things kind of headed that way? I think LA is doing the best they can with what they have to work with.

[Harrier]

Originally Posted by hipcat

No. It's about time LA steps up and becomes the premier city of the West Coast not only in population, but in urban design.

Newsflah - it already is, and has been for some time.

[taydigga]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

City-Data.com


TBH, IDK..

I just think it's the idea of suburbia being a joke.

Think of it as a kid who grew up in the city vs a kid who grew up in the suburbs. Who's gonna have more mental toughness at the end of the day? More cultural experiences? A more realness in their upbringing? Suburbanites are considered sheltered while city dwellers are in the middle of it all.


Not to mention suburbia has alot to do with white flight and the decline of our downtown areas. So suburbia is a spoiled mentality that killed our cities for decades. Now everyone wants back in. Younger people want out of the dull existence in the suburbs and experience something more real.

But the thing about LA is that it's not really suburban! It's still a big city! Urban isn't always gonna look like NYC, urban is just the opposite of rural, LA is definitely that, it just looks different than NYC. I like that about LA. I like that LA's density dies down at certain hours and you can actually get places at most times of the day.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

Or do you feel it's wrong? Like a whole section of single family homes destroyed to make way for apartment complexes and mid to highrise buildings?

Would it be inevitable? And I'm talking within the basin.

IMO, I'd care, but also not care. Mainly because my neighborhood has alot of history so it would suck to see it go. But at the same time, I never liked the suburbs, but then again, the LA metro area never truly felt suburban.

Density is already on the high side and the infrastructure can barely handle it.

Sounds like a bad idea to me.

[hipcat]

Originally Posted by PDF

Aren't things kind of headed that way? I think LA is doing the best they can with what they have to work with.

Hopefully when these proposed Metro Line plans are completed, this city finally has decent public transportation for a an area of 12 million people. This would be an awesome alternative from driving in clogged freeways.

[hipcat]

Originally Posted by Harrier

Newsflah - it already is, and has been for some time.

But it doesn't look like it "yet". This skyline is a joke for a city of almost 4 million people, and a urban area of 17 million.



Look at how Miami's skyline has changed in the last 30 years.



It


I'm hoping LA's developers could step it up and start having more highrises and skyscrapers to finally look like a Alpha World City.