I know where the majority of the sub leans. But who here leans to a more suburb L.A. and who leans to a more urban L.A.? (Los Angeles: apartment, landlords)

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by Spiderwater

Suburban low population density living is preferred by most. In the 1940s to 1990s, that's why people came to LA.

Those that like crowded shaded streets went to Manhattan.

The irony is that the aspect that made L.A. appealing essentially destroyed itself.

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

I see, turning it into an even bigger mega Houston (sprinkled with a touch of Chicago and a dash of NYC) will "save it" and certainly won't render it unlivable...

I want LA to keep investing in rail and allow more density, especially in rail corridors. If that’s what you describe in your city comparisons, then yes, I’m for it. But I’d say that DC is a better example of what LA is trying to do.

[l1995]

Originally Posted by Spiderwater

Suburban low population density living is preferred by most. In the 1940s to 1990s, that's why people came to LA.

Those that like crowded shaded streets went to Manhattan.

But LA is a major city, there is already endless suburbia in California and most US states.

[Tex?Il?]

Even if I live in an apartment building, I still enjoy having places like Hancock Park/Larchmont to drive through, all the hilly areas of Silver Lake and Echo Park, where you actually have weak cell reception on a couple canyon streets, with Elysian Park.

I agree that parking lots, etc. are great places to build high rises, and seeing the expansion of public transit is great. Nonetheless I really enjoy seeing older houses on leafy streets even in the heart of LA that have been used for filming movies over the decade that were set in a much smaller city or town.

Overall I think LA has a good balance. There is increase density where it is appropriate, yet character is preserved where it is appropriate.

And you really don't have to have high rises to have density. Look at European cities. Paris has a population density substantially higher than NYC believe it or not, and yet is dominated by early-mid 19th century buildings that are only a few stories high. (Though Paris has next to no single family homes).

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by pwright1

LA is where I choose to live, just not the LA of the 70s, 80s and part of the 90s. Sprawly, lowrise buildings, hideous parking lots and a rundown Hollywood and downtown with no adequate public transportation system and 10x more crime. This place was the worst. Use to visit my brother here back in the 80s and I was not impressed.
Public transportation is a thousand percent better. Its actually cleaner here now imo. I see more people walking in dense walkable neighborhoods especially around subway stations. LA is not trying to be NY. Its just being smart. As a large city it simply could not remain stuck in those dreadful years as more and more people are moving here.

True. I generally agree on those points, like revitalization, public transit, etc., though there is still some things from back in those days that sound very appealing and nostalgic.

Those include:

1. More affordable for middle class people
2. Less homeless problem
3. Maybe a little more balanced politics? (I lean left, but prefer political balance as its good for discourse, and am curious about the days of Reagan support). I feel that LA is more and more like San Francisco - politics-wise. You know - more uncompromising and tribal.
4. Many more manufacturing jobs in aerospace and defense for those less talented. (Lets be real, most people are not bright enough to be finance wizzes and tech entrepreneurs, and decline of manufacturing is at the root of a lot of our problems today). I'm disgusted by Trump as much as the next person, however the core issues as it relates to free trade, globalization, even yes . . illegal immigration depressing wages, etc. were ALL core liberal issues that have been abandoned in favor of identity politics obsession.

[l1995]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Even if I live in an apartment building, I still enjoy having places like Hancock Park/Larchmont to drive through, all the hilly areas of Silver Lake and Echo Park, where you actually have weak cell reception on a couple canyon streets, with Elysian Park.

I agree that parking lots, etc. are great places to build high rises, and seeing the expansion of public transit is great. Nonetheless I really enjoy seeing older houses on leafy streets even in the heart of LA that have been used for filming movies over the decade that were set in a much smaller city or town.

Overall I think LA has a good balance. There is increase density where it is appropriate, yet character is preserved where it is appropriate.

And you really don't have to have high rises to have density. Look at European cities. Paris has a population density substantially higher than NYC believe it or not, and yet is dominated by early-mid 19th century buildings that are only a few stories high. (Though Paris has next to no single family homes).

NYC has neighborhoods with no little to no high rises and extremely high density

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by 2Easy

Because cities either grow or die and LA has been slowly dying for 40 years. Urbanization is the only thing that can save it.

How has it been slowly dying for 40 years? How?

Population has gone up. Housing prices have gone way up.

There are cities where population has declined significantly over the years . Cities like Detroit .

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by l1995

But LA is a major city, there is already endless suburbia in California and most US states.

What do you consider the suburb areas of L.A? Or of California .

Some people choose to live in suburbs while others choose to live in urban areas. There are pros and cons to both .

Example if one wants to move to a suburb area because they want their kids to go to decent schools and can't afford to send their kids to live in the city and send their kids to private schools .

At least in the SoCal suburbs crime is also much lower . Places like Simi Valley ,Thousand Oaks .

Does living in a very urban environment like Manhattan make one smarter or better ?

[2Easy]

Originally Posted by jm1982

How has it been slowly dying for 40 years? How?

Population has gone up. Housing prices have gone way up.

There are cities where population has declined significantly over the years . Cities like Detroit .

Population has gone up slightly but only because of massive immigration. The city has become poorer with a large part of the city being very poor and living in cramped, substandard housing. Hardly any new housing was built in the basin of LA between 1990 and 2010 which meant that we paid a lot for old, crappy apartments. Companies have been leaving. Good jobs harder to find.

It’s really only started to change in the last few years. You must live in a bubble to not see how crappy most of LA became. Even the relatively nice areas were unattractive. Detroit was not so much a city in decline as a city that fell off a cliff. LA’s decline has been more gradual, but steady.

[jm1982]

Originally Posted by 2Easy

Population has gone up slightly but only because of massive immigration. The city has become poorer with a large part of the city being very poor and living in cramped, substandard housing. Hardly any new housing was built in the basin of LA between 1990 and 2010 which meant that we paid a lot for old, crappy apartments. Companies have been leaving. Good jobs harder to find.

It’s really only started to change in the last few years. You must live in a bubble to not see how crappy most of LA became. Even the relatively nice areas were unattractive. Detroit was not so much a city in decline as a city that fell off a cliff. LA’s decline has been more gradual, but steady.

I've lived all over the city , I don't live in a bubble . You said urbanization was the answer.
But as L.A has gotten denser parts have gotten worse . Good example are the valley areas like Van Nuys ,Reseda ,Panorama city etc . They used to be nice decent areas but not so much anymore .

They aren't like Watts or the rough parts of South L.A but still not that nice .

Would you be for getting rid of rent control ? Because that would change things quickly .

Many landlords would update or redevelop their properties but if it's a rent control building they have zero incentive .

Also look at NYC it's definitely urban but there is a lot of poverty there .

So it's not urbanization that would change this but it's more public policy and perhaps improving education .
CA has the highest poverty rate in the nation if adjusting for cost of living .
CA also gives out more than our share in welfare .