If they really did try to Manhattenize Los Angeles, would it really bother you?

[brickell]

Originally Posted by mhays

"China-ize" makes perfect sense if it means more of the prevalent Chinese development patterns. Not that it's the best model...often it's towers on overly-large podiums/blocks, roads too wide, land use that looks better form the air than it does walking through, etc.

In this vain, I'm under the impression that recreating Manhattan is basically impossible in many places due to various zoning, permitting and economic issues. Manhattan has the advantage of momentum and a huge area of pre-war neighborhoods with zero lot line buildings that respect the street. Recreating the density is easy in a way. Recreating that urban fabric, not so much.

Chinese cities seem to me a much better example of what cities like LA, Miami, Houston will resemble as they grow and densify.

Who today is creating this? Freaking Washington Heights. It's not even a central neighborhood.



This seems more likely

[JDRCRASH]

Don't know about you guys, but as soon as I read that the article Mark posted was written by Joel Kotkin, i immediately hit the "pg dn" button.

[599GTO]

Wouldn't give a shit.

[brian_b]

When my grandfather moved from LA to Sunnyvale in the 1950s, he bought a nice large house for about $30,000. Sold it in the early 1980s for over $300,000. Today it sells for nearly $3,000,000.

People seem to forget that during the absolute best time in the history of California, a house was only about 10-15% more expensive than a house in the midwest US and as early as the 1980s things were already getting way out of whack.

It seems that the only way to bring housing costs back down to reasonable levels is much much greater density. Doing so would allow the all-important middle class to make a comeback in the state.

On the other side of the issue is those who have been benefiting from the growing chasm for at least 30 years. They (correctly) understand that their artificially inflated property values will not continue to grow at the same rate and may even decrease.

I would not expect them to give up their fight. At all. I would also not expect LA to actually improve density enough to make a difference.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by brickell

In this vain, I'm under the impression that recreating Manhattan is basically impossible in many places due to various zoning, permitting and economic issues. Manhattan has the advantage of momentum and a huge area of pre-war neighborhoods with zero lot line buildings that respect the street. Recreating the density is easy in a way. Recreating that urban fabric, not so much.

Chinese cities seem to me a much better example of what cities like LA, Miami, Houston will resemble as they grow and densify.

Who today is creating this? Freaking Washington Heights. It's not even a central neighborhood.

The narrow streets aren't happening anymore, and most people demand larger units than some NY neighborhoods generally provide. But a decent approximation of the building density is happening in some cities, particularly when parking requirements and demand aren't big factors.

[M II A II R II K]

Mews always produce narrow roads within them.

[Double L]

If you're talking about the government Manhattanizing L.A. then no.

If you're talking about the people who live there choosing to live in skyscrapers densely packed in Los Angeles, then yes.

[M II A II R II K]

Manhattanizing may be the wrong term. Torontoizing or Chicagoizing might be more accurate, especially since they don't have land constraints to force density onto an island and all 3 have a borderline waterfront.

[WTCman7301]

Overtime more people will move to LA and the need of more residential and commercial spaces will be needed. I think LA should be manhattanizied, and maybe an observation tower, Beacuse the US Bank Tower or Liberty Tower does not have an Observation Deck and going to the Griffith Observatory takes too long for me.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by TarHeelJ

That was my first thought as well...LA is LA. Leave it alone.

Cities don't build tall to mimic other cities, they build tall because land values/demand dictate tall buildings.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by brian_b

When my grandfather moved from LA to Sunnyvale in the 1950s, he bought a nice large house for about $30,000. Sold it in the early 1980s for over $300,000. Today it sells for nearly $3,000,000.

People seem to forget that during the absolute best time in the history of California, a house was only about 10-15% more expensive than a house in the midwest US and as early as the 1980s things were already getting way out of whack.

It seems that the only way to bring housing costs back down to reasonable levels is much much greater density. Doing so would allow the all-important middle class to make a comeback in the state.

On the other side of the issue is those who have been benefiting from the growing chasm for at least 30 years. They (correctly) understand that their artificially inflated property values will not continue to grow at the same rate and may even decrease.

I would not expect them to give up their fight. At all. I would also not expect LA to actually improve density enough to make a difference.

3M in Sunnyvale? Must be Cupertino schools. This brings the rest of your analysis into doubt.

Certainly most owners don't want higher density; that's true everywhere I can think of. They want more amenities but not more people to share them with. But it not only MIGHT happen in LA, it has been happening and continues to do so. Even in a doubtful economy, there are high and mid-rises in every part of town: SaMo, Glendale, the Valley, mid-Wilshire, DT, Hollywood, Ktown, ELA. It's actually a near boom in Hollywood and DT.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Manhattanizing may be the wrong term. Torontoizing or Chicagoizing might be more accurate, especially since they don't have land constraints to force density onto an island and all 3 have a borderline waterfront.

This makes some more sense, but LA has much better weather and that makes highrises and density generally less appealing. A large back yard is worth more in LA than in many other cities, since the bougainvilleas are blooming year round and the pool can be used 8 or more months a year (and people do go surfing in January; not so much in Chicago or Toronto).

It's always a trade-off, but it's easier to live in the suburbs when the weather is conducive to easy living, commuting, recreation, etc. This won't stop urban living, but it slows it down.

[Mr Downtown]

Originally Posted by isaidso

Cities don't build tall to mimic other cities, they build tall because land values/demand dictate tall buildings.

Neither play a particularly important rôle. Do you think Dubai or Houston or Tysons Corner have tall buildings because they've run out of developable land? Five-story walkup apartments are about land values, and we don't build those any more. Skyscrapers are about ego.

[Austinlee]

I think the obvious parallel should be with Tokyo. They both are very large geographically, both are in bad earthquake zones. I think in the next 50-70 years, LA will go from looking like a spread out city in Texas to something more like a Japanese city.

I think LA will increase density even more and go vertical but not in a way that looks like Manhattan. More cluster high rises and mid-rise density like this:

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I think the obvious parallel should be with Tokyo. They both are very large geographically, both are in bad earthquake zones. I think in the next 50-70 years, LA will go from looking like a spread out city in Texas to something more like a Japanese city.

I think LA will increase density even more and go vertical but not in a way that looks like Manhattan. More cluster high rises and mid-rise density like this:

The typical living space in Tokyo has about a 6 ft. ceiling and is about 300 sq. ft.

I will concede that there will be a hell of lot of Asians in LA, but they are going to grow taller, the ceilings aren't coming down.

[Austinlee]

Originally Posted by volguus zildrohar

Manhattan is the only place most people instantly identify as "big city". Every other big city, with the possible exception of Chicago, is viewed as something else first.

Every other location on this planet is a diluted version of that grand and glorious place and every city on Earth is building itself up to be exactly like New York because if it isn't it is not worthy of time or attention and the residents of those places should just fling themselves into the darkness of irrelevance.

So true! I think this idea is in the back of so many peoples minds but it never really gets vocalized. Bravo.

[mhays]

Anything in LA, or any US city, will have floorplates multiples of the area that's typical in Tokyo.

[Rail Claimore]

Originally Posted by Austinlee

I think the obvious parallel should be with Tokyo. They both are very large geographically, both are in bad earthquake zones. I think in the next 50-70 years, LA will go from looking like a spread out city in Texas to something more like a Japanese city.

I think LA will increase density even more and go vertical but not in a way that looks like Manhattan. More cluster high rises and mid-rise density like this:

LA will have Tokyo's building density, but Seoul's road capacity and rail layout.

[jd3189]

Basically, Los Angeles will be the American version of an Asian city.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Rail Claimore

LA will have Tokyo's building density, but Seoul's road capacity and rail layout.

I understand that this thread is all wildly speculative, but I still wonder how folks come to these (IMO) crazy conclusions.

LA will likely continue to be LA. LA is arguably the most successful U.S. city over the last 70 years; if anything, other cities should try to be LA rather than vice-versa.