So Many People in Los Angeles County I Can Barely Move (Anaheim: home, living in)

[nmnita]

or all those who gripe about the number or people in So CA and the traffic, it would be an eye opener for you to visit NYC.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by nmnita

or all those who gripe about the number or people in So CA and the traffic, it would be an eye opener for you to visit NYC.

True to some degree, but LA/OC occupy a far greater area with far more crowding.

[AnthonyJ34]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

And yet readers here will find angry, vociferous protest often on this forum, demanding the state and local governments slash regulations so developers can cram more and more and more people into the coastal state until we live like termites in a mound.

“Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.” - Edward Abbey

It’s not possible to expand infinitely in a finite paradigm. We don’t have a housing problem ... we have a population problem.

LA will have to start expanding upwards, just like New York City. When the sprawl reaches geographical or perhaps political boundaries, then the next step is to build skyward, which is actually a great idea in that it allows for vastly more population concentration on a given parcel of land. But if and when the BIG One strikes, that vertical development may be an issue.

[AnthonyJ34]

Originally Posted by bad debt

Despite what others on this forum seem to imply, millions of people people really really really like to live here and therefore have chosen to be in Southern California. The home building market has responded and built thousands of housing units to accommodate this demand.

It's actually probably better for the environment as well -- to build additional housing in the relatively mild climate of LA as opposed to building in less hospitable areas that require disproportionately large amounts of energy usage to both heat and cool homes, buildings, offices, schools, etc. The carbon footprint in highly concentrated areas tend to be much less than in rural areas. And in places like Manhattan or San Francisco, where a large majority use public transportation and don't even own cars, the carbon footprints are further reduced (even accounting for heating and cooling costs in a place like New York City). Those urban areas typically have houses and apartments and lofts which are generally much smaller and therefore require much less energy to both heat and cool than comparatively larger homes and buildings.

I do realize that environmental issues are not the only issue or perhaps maybe not even the most pressing issue, but it's food for thought.

[ryanthegoldengod]

Question from a total outsider who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about: how many people in LA could actually get where they need to go faster by taking mass transit but refuse to?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by AnthonyJ34

LA will have to start expanding upwards, just like New York City. When the sprawl reaches geographical or perhaps political boundaries, then the next step is to build skyward, which is actually a great idea in that it allows for vastly more population concentration on a given parcel of land. But if and when the BIG One strikes, that vertical development may be an issue.

You say this as if there is no option to perpetual growth. Perpetual growth, like cancer, identical to cancer in fact, kills its host. Every time. Unless stopped entirely. The alternative to perpetual growth is: sustainability.

LA doesn’t have “geographical boundaries” like NYC ... it has desert to expand into to and past the horizons. It is neither a good idea to go there ... or to build skyward. The only good idea is to incentivize population reduction.

Originally Posted by AnthonyJ34

It's actually probably better for the environment as well -- to build additional housing in the relatively mild climate of LA as opposed to building in less hospitable areas that require disproportionately large amounts of energy usage to both heat and cool homes, buildings, offices, schools, etc. The carbon footprint in highly concentrated areas tend to be much less than in rural areas. And in places like Manhattan or San Francisco, where a large majority use public transportation and don't even own cars, the carbon footprints are further reduced (even accounting for heating and cooling costs in a place like New York City). Those urban areas typically have houses and apartments and lofts which are generally much smaller and therefore require much less energy to both heat and cool than comparatively larger homes and buildings.

I do realize that environmental issues are not the only issue or perhaps maybe not even the most pressing issue, but it's food for thought.

The climate in LA is only “relatively mild” along the coast. And that is pretty much built out.

[AnthonyJ34]

Originally Posted by ryanthegoldengod

Question from a total outsider who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about: how many people in LA could actually get where they need to go faster by taking mass transit but refuse to?

You don’t see how mass transit could expedite people movement in and around the LA Area? Have you ever experienced LA-area rush-Hour traffic? That traffic would improve immensely with less cars on the road.

[AnthonyJ34]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You say this as if there is no option to perpetual growth. Perpetual growth, like cancer, identical to cancer in fact, kills its host. Every time. Unless stopped entirely. The alternative to perpetual growth is: sustainability.

LA doesn’t have “geographical boundaries” like NYC ... it has desert to expand into to and past the horizons. It is neither a good idea to go there ... or to build skyward. The only good idea is to incentivize population reduction.



The climate in LA is only “relatively mild” along the coast. And that is pretty much built out.

People will continue to move to So. Cal for many reasons, so perpetual growth is likely to continue — at least in the long term.

LA does have many geographical boundaries. And if new development occurs in the desert areas, then that is no longer LA. The ocean is a huge boundary, as are the San Gabriel and Santa Monica Mountains — along with some of the other local hills and mountains.

The mild climate extends for a good distance inland from the coast. Right on the coast things stay mild year round, but even 10-20 miles inland things stay relatively mild compared to much of the Inland Empire as well as the rest of the country. Even deep in the I.E winters aren’t like Chicago or Denver or NYC, and hot summers are not as swampy and stifling as they are in, what, 50% of the country (or thereabouts). And new development doesn’t necessarily require additional land, just repurposement of existing land.

[Count David]

This is what people put up with not to have humidity and/or snow.

It's a price you pay, in addition to all of the other prices you pay.

Originally Posted by ryanthegoldengod

Question from a total outsider who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about: how many people in LA could actually get where they need to go faster by taking mass transit but refuse to?

Are you kidding? Only "poor" people ride the train or the bus.

[Texamichiforniasota]

Originally Posted by ryanthegoldengod

Question from a total outsider who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about: how many people in LA could actually get where they need to go faster by taking mass transit but refuse to?

The answer to this question is very few. Even in traffic, driving is almost always considerably faster (usually less than half the time) than taking public transit.

The only transit that is competitive time-wise with cars is the rail lines right at rush hour, and even then only if you live next to one stop and work next to another one. If you have to change trains or catch a bus at either end, driving is going to be much quicker. Some people are either willing to or forced to make the tradeoff for financial reasons reasons or don't like th stress of driving. If it were faster than (or even just equal to) driving, more people would take it.