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's changing right now. LA ran out of "sprawl space" years ago. The only way now to develop is from within. That's what is already happening. You know, Manhattan used to have sleepy and even rural parts hundreds of years ago. I think it's the natural order for which cities (at least American ones) are built: They build out till they run out of room then, if they are still growing they become more and more dense. Los Angeles is very much a young city by East Coast standards. And now we are seeing that evolution to the next step. The silver lining in LA are it's mountains and oceans. They are what kept LA from perpetually sprawling like Houston, a city that seemingly has endless space by comparison. Now LA is left with no choice but to become more and more dense. The best part is it's a natural change.
You can change it, but it takes a long time and it's as much a political question has an economic one (zoning, messaging, public consultation process etc). Vancouver was worse, but on a smaller scales, in 1980 than LA was. It's been a very difficult transformation, but it's been achieved. The result is not an old industrial east coast city or pre-industrial European capital. At the same time, it's a better, greener model for a new city than auto world. If LA endeavoured to transform, the legacy of it's past would always remain, but you'd have a new type of urban metropolis too, one that might serve mankind and America better than what there is now (not to belittle the things LA's millions have achieved in the current model, just saying there might be potential for something even better).
Fast forward to now. L.A. is trying to fix it's past mistakes, working on transit and trying to urbanize the city more. Is it possible to curb the autocentric nature of the city? Both the mentality, and the physicality? In other words, making PT more appealing and efficient than the car, and getting people to see that and not be afraid to leave their cars at home and walk a few blocks to a subway station.
This sounds like a plan to ruin the fabric of LA. What makes LA so great is that it is easy to get around by car with a great network of freeways and surface streets.
This sounds like a plan to ruin the fabric of LA. What makes LA so great is that it is easy to get around by car with a great network of freeways and surface streets.
Then why are Angelenos always complaining about traffic?
Then why are Angelenos always complaining about traffic?
They blindly follow dumb directions on their navigation systems. For example many times I was cruisng at 35 mph on Telegraph Rd. while watching the jammed traffic on the 5 freeway go about 5 mph. Getting around LA becomes more doable if one studies all the maps and knows all the alternate freeway and surface routes.
This sounds like a plan to ruin the fabric of LA. What makes LA so great is that it is easy to get around by car with a great network of freeways and surface streets.
But still beats public transit. LA has much shorter average commute times than NYC or Toronto where people are relying more on public transit where even good systems are usually pretty slow just because they do have to stop every half mile or so for a minute or two to unload/load, transfer time from route to route. There's also personal preference. I'd rather drive, even in traffic, than take public transit. I never enjoyed taking the subway in South Korea, especially during rush hour jammed in like a sardine, face smashed up again the window, pushing your way through people to get to an exit. I wouldn't say I had panic attacks like many of the people here say they do every time they get behind the wheel, but I sure didn't enjoy it. Like traffic, it's something I would tolerate if I really loved a city. For example, if I had a job that required me to work both in Bellevue and Seattle, I would tolerate the traffic or public transit. Same with the Bay Area. You take the good with the bad.
Yep and it was done many times in the 20th century
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.
