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.
Well, it just is. Thats basically very well known, it's no secret. It's not an opinion it's a simple fact.
Anytime you have square block after square block of massive sprawling (industrial/buisness/residential) infrastructure that resembles a patchwork of squares and goes on forever in one direction with no rhyme or reason. It is considered irresponsible development. In LA you can go one block and have some type of manufacturing biz, then a block later there is an apartment complex.
If LA was developed more responsibly they could have made room for three times the amount of infrastructure by building upwards and concentrating density. They could have actually organized business and residential and industrial areas with much more care. This would have left room for large parks, more sensible roadways and direct routes in and out of dense suburban/industrial areas.
LA was haphazardly and quickly developed and it is evident everywhere in the sprawl of low buildings and Blvd's that resemble freeways, and run through a grid system. LA basically spilled out into the basin as quickly as people could gobble up the land. Builders had little regulation so they built residential right next to business and industrial.
The wealthier areas are not as bad because wealthier people have more time to fight the legal battles involved with having areas rezoned. So that blend and they make sense with the local infrastructure. SD is not a shining example compared with the nation. However, it is a much better example of how planned developments can merge to coincide with future plans and make for a much more sensible looking and functioning city.
Anyway, maybe that helps explain it, but there is no debate. LA is one of the most irresponsibly developed cities in the nation if not the most.
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.
Call it what you will (from Texas, no less). You apparently didn't see the freeways in SoCal on the illegal immigration protest/walk-out day. It was beautiful.
Well, it just is. Thats basically very well known, it's no secret. It's not an opinion it's a simple fact.
Anytime you have square block after square block of massive sprawling (industrial/buisness/residential) infrastructure that resembles a patchwork of squares and goes on forever in one direction with no rhyme or reason. It is considered irresponsible development. In LA you can go one block and have some type of manufacturing biz, then a block later there is an apartment complex.
If LA was developed more responsibly they could have made room for three times the amount of infrastructure by building upwards and concentrating density. They could have actually organized business and residential and industrial areas with much more care. This would have left room for large parks, more sensible roadways and direct routes in and out of dense suburban/industrial areas.
LA was haphazardly and quickly developed and it is evident everywhere in the sprawl of low buildings and Blvd's that resemble freeways, and run through a grid system. LA basically spilled out into the basin as quickly as people could gobble up the land. Builders had little regulation so they built residential right next to business and industrial.
The wealthier areas are not as bad because wealthier people have more time to fight the legal battles involved with having areas rezoned. So that blend and they make sense with the local infrastructure. SD is not a shining example compared with the nation. However, it is a much better example of how planned developments can merge to coincide with future plans and make for a much more sensible looking and functioning city.
Anyway, maybe that helps explain it, but there is no debate. LA is one of the most irresponsibly developed cities in the nation if not the most.
Ironically, Los Angeles is so spread out because of it's vast transit system (dismantled completely in 1963). It allowed sprawl from the mountains to the sea.
Ironically, Los Angeles is so spread out because of it's vast transit system (dismantled completely in 1963). It allowed sprawl from the mountains to the sea.
That's a cool map and a pretty thought provoking point too.
thats one of the maps i been referencing!!! its an early PE one and does not include the Los Angeles railway system which had 5 times as many lines if not more. and it was all the way up until the 60's!
anyhow, if i am understaning correctly the gentleman a few spaces above feels that LA was planned poorly because it didnt build upwards? or because residential is next to industrial? what areas are you talking about? i have seen a lot of LA and while some areas (nicer, richer) resemble more suburban tree lined communities, most other hoods have a working grid that does allow mobility in and out of densley populated areas and still have that tree lined feeling, tho not as clean.
and why do people always saw LA sprawled? all these cities grew up together. LA and its surrounding cities were up and running by the late 1800's and early 1900's. they grew into eachother. yes they are realatively young, but that does not mean they was haphazardly planned.
there is a rhyme and a reason to it all, i already talked about how easy it is to know where you are in LA by lookin at street numbers. now if you are reffering to cities like covina, santa clarita or places east and norht of LA, well thats not really LA. its part of the metropolitan area and what metro area really comes together in a cohesive manner. if we are talkin about LA, then it is DT and a 10 mile radius. not those tract housing communities. the only place in LA that will be confusing to navigate is up in the hills. stick me in Mt wash, or el sereno or the hlywd hills and im lost!!!!! but thats a matter of geographic taste and aesthetic. i think if you want to live in the hills then dont complain about mud slides, fires and cougars eating your babies. that is poor judgement that leads to dangerous conditions and can be considedered poor planning. but as you know, most of LA does not live in the hills.
further, most of LA is not industrial smashed up against houses. you have industrial cities like vernon and commerce were factories are placed and then outside of that you have residential areas. not the richest neighborhoods of course so we agree on that. but you make it seem as if in LA we have smoke stacks on every block. this is not the case. you want smoke stacks and big box, cold storage factories, go to vernon.
also commercial development in communities is not a bad thing. in my neighborhood all i have to do is walk to the corner or to the main boulevard to find my cleaners, meat market, liqour store, plenty of food options, bike shop, barber, etc. why would i want to drive somewhere for these basic necessities. this actually provides more of an "urban" feeling, makes it more "walkable". during the day its busy, but by 11 pm its relatively quiet.
so i still dont see how it was planned poorly. and im not trying to be bull headed, i just have not seen a good argument.
one thing we do agree on is that not enough green space exists. the early developers did not leave enough options for parks. some of the "south central suburbs" are the most dense and park poor places in the country! but i think that early on inthe 20's, 30's and 40's they figured that the rail system would offer a quick visit to the beach or the mountains. voila, that was your natural open space. your parks. they didnt realize that once the rails were gone and the freeways in place it would be harder to get to the beach or to elysian or wherever they left us some greenery. this is the only way that i see that might serve as an example of poor planning. but then i guess we would blame the tire and cement companies and all them other people who killed the rails in LA. the poor judgement came in not fighting for our rails that were the most effective in the country at the time. i suppose we have the most effecctive freeway system...when not congested, but i would take rails any day over cars.
Dude, i think its great that there are LA boosters out there, but lets not kid ourselves. LA is a very spread out and segregated city that has led to crime, traffic, and an overall disconnect among differnt parts of the city. I still think LA is a great place to live, dont get me wrong, it just has some serious issues that it may never get past. See this article to get a better understanding of the planning history of LA CityWatch - An insider look at City Hall - Revisionist History-the Art of Planning in LA (http://www.citywatchla.com/content/view/1094/ - broken link).
Dude, i think its great that there are LA boosters out there, but lets not kid ourselves. LA is a very spread out and segregated city that has led to crime, traffic, and an overall disconnect among differnt parts of the city. I still think LA is a great place to live, dont get me wrong, it just has some serious issues that it may never get past. See this article to get a better understanding of the planning history of LA CityWatch - An insider look at City Hall - Revisionist History-the Art of Planning in LA (http://www.citywatchla.com/content/view/1094/ - broken link).
My two cents: I think the automobile has turned our fair city from a paradise (first half of the 20th Century), into a concrete mess. That is, of course, one helluva overstatement, but look what cars have done to us: parking lots where businesses used to be and that people walked and took trains to. That's a big deal, especially downtown where parking has become so precious. If you look at maps of downtown from the 1950s on up, you see the beginnings of this: every 2 or 3 buildings demo'd for parking. Once rail was dead, there was just busses (hardly preferable to car or train), and auto commuters, who demanded parking or else they wouldn't go anywhere NEAR downtown.
Now we are drawing people back with lofts and a nice subway, but it's gonna take a long time to reverse this mindset. And yes, I love this town, warts and all. You could do far worse, but it's certainly a work in progress.
thats one of the maps i been referencing!!! its an early PE one and does not include the Los Angeles railway system which had 5 times as many lines if not more. and it was all the way up until the 60's!
anyhow, if i am understaning correctly the gentleman a few spaces above feels that LA was planned poorly because it didnt build upwards? or because residential is next to industrial? what areas are you talking about? i have seen a lot of LA and while some areas (nicer, richer) resemble more suburban tree lined communities, most other hoods have a working grid that does allow mobility in and out of densley populated areas and still have that tree lined feeling, tho not as clean.
and why do people always saw LA sprawled? all these cities grew up together. LA and its surrounding cities were up and running by the late 1800's and early 1900's. they grew into eachother. yes they are realatively young, but that does not mean they was haphazardly planned.
there is a rhyme and a reason to it all, i already talked about how easy it is to know where you are in LA by lookin at street numbers. now if you are reffering to cities like covina, santa clarita or places east and norht of LA, well thats not really LA. its part of the metropolitan area and what metro area really comes together in a cohesive manner. if we are talkin about LA, then it is DT and a 10 mile radius. not those tract housing communities. the only place in LA that will be confusing to navigate is up in the hills. stick me in Mt wash, or el sereno or the hlywd hills and im lost!!!!! but thats a matter of geographic taste and aesthetic. i think if you want to live in the hills then dont complain about mud slides, fires and cougars eating your babies. that is poor judgement that leads to dangerous conditions and can be considedered poor planning. but as you know, most of LA does not live in the hills.
further, most of LA is not industrial smashed up against houses. you have industrial cities like vernon and commerce were factories are placed and then outside of that you have residential areas. not the richest neighborhoods of course so we agree on that. but you make it seem as if in LA we have smoke stacks on every block. this is not the case. you want smoke stacks and big box, cold storage factories, go to vernon.
also commercial development in communities is not a bad thing. in my neighborhood all i have to do is walk to the corner or to the main boulevard to find my cleaners, meat market, liqour store, plenty of food options, bike shop, barber, etc. why would i want to drive somewhere for these basic necessities. this actually provides more of an "urban" feeling, makes it more "walkable". during the day its busy, but by 11 pm its relatively quiet.
so i still dont see how it was planned poorly. and im not trying to be bull headed, i just have not seen a good argument.
one thing we do agree on is that not enough green space exists. the early developers did not leave enough options for parks. some of the "south central suburbs" are the most dense and park poor places in the country! but i think that early on inthe 20's, 30's and 40's they figured that the rail system would offer a quick visit to the beach or the mountains. voila, that was your natural open space. your parks. they didnt realize that once the rails were gone and the freeways in place it would be harder to get to the beach or to elysian or wherever they left us some greenery. this is the only way that i see that might serve as an example of poor planning. but then i guess we would blame the tire and cement companies and all them other people who killed the rails in LA. the poor judgement came in not fighting for our rails that were the most effective in the country at the time. i suppose we have the most effecctive freeway system...when not congested, but i would take rails any day over cars.
next? any more examples of poor planning?
This may interest you. I actually found the complete map on e-bay for $15 or so. It really shows how many shops and stores and hotels were downtown before the cars and their parking lots would take over.
Ironically, Los Angeles is so spread out because of it's vast transit system (dismantled completely in 1963). It allowed sprawl from the mountains to the sea.
I gotcha? Didn't know that.
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.
circa 1950
