How would cities like L.A. be if the suburban nightmare never took place?

[bricky]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

That's not the case, but is just more likely to jump in when a perceived misconception is posted if Europe is a part of it.

I have never heard him say a kind word about America, except when forced into it by someone accusing him of being anti-American. And ironically, considering the rep of Americans in most of the world, Shiro is also probably the most jingoistic poster on this site. It's just ok because he's from "Europe", and they are all supposedly post-nationalistic and not into that kind of thing, right?

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by pesto

The last comment is just wrong; see above. Even you know it's unsupportable.

Yeah that's why I'm challenging you and your ignorant and arrogant comments...

Well, if GDP isn't a good measure of wealth, then there are an enormous number of huge companies making terrible market-size and investment decisions. The "for-pay" studies use those numbers, only more tightly focused on product lines and specific industries and demographics in various countries or cities. I hope you're not signing up for the "happiness" quotients that France and other rapidly declining economies were pushing (and ridiculed for) a few years back.

Ignorance...

Seriously, the idea that the US is richer than Australia (or Europe or Japan) is NOT controversial. It's well recognized academically and in businesses who focus their marketing campaigns to match market income. Thirty years ago the big idea was that these countries were GOING to catch the US soon, but then in 1985 or so (broadly speaking) they slowed and US growth accellerated. The news has been full of this for a couple of decades now. Japan has been largely stagnant for 20 years and Europe has had ups and downs, as has Australia.

The only ones who truly believe the US is richer are delusional boosters like yourself. The rest of us know that it's not that black and white and that a lot depends on what you're trying to define and if things like that are even measurable at all.

Again, I am not critical of Australia (great country, fine people, nice weather) but to say it is as diverse as LA (or NY or London or Paris, etc.) is very odd. Again, it is overwhelmingly white or well-educated Asians. Compare it to LA which has community publications in 230 or so languages (per a UCLA study) and schools where 99 percent do not speak English at home (mostly Chinese, Spanish and American Indian languages). A recent book about LA was called "The Capital of the Third World" which is an exaggeration but gives you the idea.

The only thing that is overwhelming is your ignorance.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by bricky

Shiro is annoyingly, reflexively, consistently pro "Europe" and anti-American, but even a stopped watch is right twice a day.

I'm not even half as annoying as people like pesto. This forum has made me reflexive. If some people would just STFU about places they don't know anything about, halfway decent conversation might be possible. Being "pro" or "anti" continents or countries is such lame archaic thinking, not surprised you continue to come up with such things. I'm pro many things American even moreso than some American posters on here. In fact, the US is one of my favourite places in the world.
Lastly, even if I was all the things you accuse me of being..., that doesn't make me "wrong", so your argument doesn't even make sense. Someone is wrong when he/she doesn't acknowledge facts (like pesto), not because he/she is annoying or reflexive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...%29_per_capita

Here is a list of countries with GDP (PPP) per capita. All three sources of data pretty much agree. Australia is around $40k per capita, and America is at $48k. I would guess that Syndey and Melbourne are above the Australian national average, and metro LA, as a not particularly wealthy region of America, at the American average or perhaps even slightly below it.

Also, one can make an honest case that America tends to overstate its GDP relative to a lot of other developed countries, for several reasons, some of which I'm aware of off the top of my head:

1) heavy spending on prisons and law enforcement in America, which while pumping up GDP, still leave America as more violent and dangerous than any other developed country in the world. Hence if you were to in a sense PPP that number, you would reduce GDP to account for that high expense low results part of the American economy.

2) in a similar way, you could do the same for American health care spending. We spend a lot more, adding to GDP, only to receive worse results. Hence perhaps we should discount a lot of that healthcare spending in the US to get a true idea of economic output.

There are probably other cases like that as well. I might even add military spending, which doesn't seem to improve my life much/at all, and is of questionable value in making the world a safer place. Perhaps there would be more chaos in the world without so much American military spending, but I personally think there wouldn't be. Hence essentially wasted spending.

In addition to all this, Americans use 6 times the energy the average world citizen does and 2 times the energy the average European does. This all adds to the GDP but much of it is not wealth generating but rather harmfull to the environment and essentially a tax on the future.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

That's not the case, but is just more likely to jump in when a perceived misconception is posted if Europe is a part of it.

Except Europe is not part of this debate (untill some of pesto's attempted trolling). If something untrue is said about the US I'll correct that too if the situation calls for it.

[LtBk]

Europe's economy is over $19 trillion. Not bad for a "socialist hellhole" continent.

[kevike]

Originally Posted by LtBk

Europe's economy is over $19 trillion. Not bad for a "socialist hellhole" continent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...%29_per_capita


Average of the 3 GDP(PPP)
USA $48,310
EU $32,812

US about 50% higher than European Union. Of course this can all be explained away.

[Fresh]

Regardless of that epic derail, someone mentioned that LA would have probably looked something like Melbourne or Sydney or Toronto or something and that's probably true.

Sydney is still very suburban, and unlike Europe went through the exact same 50's post-war suburban/car/detached housing boom as SoCal. The difference is that we

a) retained the trams/trains
b) didn't go totally crazy on the freeways

So the suburban development is still predominant and it's very car centred but there's a bit more cohesiveness with clusters around rail nodes etc. Our big suburban shopping malls are generally located on train lines with low density burbs as you move away from them. I think LA might have ended up being something like that. As a very shorthand way of describing Sydney's form and function, imagine 20th century Los Angeles overlaid on the bones of Victorian London.

[Mr Downtown]

The Sydney/Melbourne observation was mine, but I have to challenge you a bit on the "bones of Victorian London"—unless you simply mean the robust railway network. After all, the Australian cities have the same wide streets and single-family-house traditions as the American Sunbelt.

Of course, Los Angeles had a robust railway network of its own, as the Pacific Electric interurban network tied together an archipelago of independent agricultural market centers across the Southland. But LA in the 1920s made a conscious decision to promote suburban living over the unhealthful concentration common in Eastern Seaboard cities. Then it expanded in dramatic and unforeseen ways during World War II with the big defense plants dispersed all across the region, and other scattered employment nodes. The good year-round weather, wealth that enabled widespread auto ownership, and an early decision to overlay the landscape with parkways made it a freeway region rather than an interurban or commuter-rail region.

[mhays]

I've only been to Sydney and only the core districts, beaches, etc. But I definitely see the London connection. In the older parts of Sydney, the streets are similar to London's the old vernacular housing was townhouses, etc.

[Fresh]

Originally Posted by mhays

I've only been to Sydney and only the core districts, beaches, etc. But I definitely see the London connection. In the older parts of Sydney, the streets are similar to London's the old vernacular housing was townhouses, etc.

This. The suburbs pretty darn similar to American sunbelt (and LA with it's bungalows in particularl) but the inner city is different. It had it's first growth spurts in the 1830s and the nonsensical street grids, railways and terraces closely mimic Victorian London.



Photo: Mark Merton

[mello]

^^^ For some reason I can't see the photo. Oh and Mr. Downtown: I thought the Sydney/Melbourne observation was mine... Not really a big deal though