HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2019, 1:30 AM
Will O' Wisp Will O' Wisp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Location: San Diego
Posts: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
I didn't say people in Tokyo had a lower quality of life. I'm sure their doing just fine.

The comparison isn't between SoCal and Tokyo. The comparison is between SoCal today and a hypothetical SoCal with a similar population and density to Tokyo. I think the latter would be an unlivable dystopian nightmare.
I don't know, looks fine to me

Video Link
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2019, 1:40 AM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 9,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Centropolis View Post
check out this trash site plan in downey. this probably wouldn't even fly in many built out suburban areas of the midwest, to say nothing of the LA basin. this is what is currently under construction, not built in 1999.


static.wixstatic.com


Yeah, that is a lovely parking lot! I agree with mhays, and I was talking about this the other day, with the shift in retail there are a lot of half empty shopping centers, and I think that reality and shift will hit those prime commercial locations first.
__________________
“Some people, did something”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2019, 1:44 AM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 9,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Will O' Wisp View Post
Sorry I misspoke a bit. I meant there's no transit between LA County and SD County in that area. All commuting has to be done on the 15, and the state government is discouraging plans that increase the number of automobile commutes.

Also for everyone saying LA is going to become Toyko because of this, the official LA and Tokyo metro areas have roughly the same population (~13 million), but LA has nearly six times the land area (4,850.3 sq miles vs 847.9). Even at the most extreme population growth LA won't start looking like Tokyo for decades.
No, but its starting in the LA basin...there is just a long way to go.

Its funny I took an uber ride with a South Korean guy, been in LA for 20 years. He told me he liked LA because its not as crowded as South Korea. I said, oh really I thought South Korea was a pretty good place to live, he said its too crowded, to many people for the resources available.

Do I want to see LA morph into Tokyo. No. I'd rather the population table for a while.
__________________
“Some people, did something”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2019, 2:38 PM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLO View Post
No, but its starting in the LA basin...there is just a long way to go.

Its funny I took an uber ride with a South Korean guy, been in LA for 20 years. He told me he liked LA because its not as crowded as South Korea. I said, oh really I thought South Korea was a pretty good place to live, he said its too crowded, to many people for the resources available.

Do I want to see LA morph into Tokyo. No. I'd rather the population table for a while.
You have to keep in mind that the opinions expressed on this forum are from urban enthusiasts and don't really represent the opinions or the reality of the majority of people and their daily lives. Most people do not celebrate density, apartments and transit.

Most people work their butts off to live the complete opposite lifestyle -- a better life -- and in America those goals are:
1] to buy a larger home with sufficient living space for their needs
A] when you were 18 a cramped dorm room with a roommate was sufficient, when you're 30, it's no longer cool to live in closet with a hot pan and microwave.
2] safe location, safe schools especially for their kids
3] Own a car to take care of the family and not be reliant on fixed public transit

Ask anybody elsewhere if they want their city/town to become a Los Angeles or New York and probably about 90% will say "no" for the same reason that that South Korean doesn't want LA to become a Seoul or a Tokyo.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2019, 3:14 PM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
Metrolink is already in place, with the possibility of future expansions.

For instance, the city of Perris in Riverside County is 71 miles southeast of Los Angeles and 81 miles northeast of San Diego, has two Metrolink stations in operation and since 2000 has more than doubled in size.

2000 36,189
2010 68,386
2018 79,133
Yeah it's too bad the Lake Elsinore/Temecula area doesn't have commuter rail service into LA. I think there's some commuter buses that take people to the Corona stations (and many just drive there). I could definitely see a Metrolink spur heading south from Corona to Temecula seeing plenty of riders. This area is better served being developed first before desert areas between the AV and High Desert. Only problem with adding another spur towards Temecula is it'd be a train congestion nightmare during rush hour once it starts going through Anaheim in the mornings and before Anaheim in the evenings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2019, 3:56 PM
Centropolis's Avatar
Centropolis Centropolis is offline
crisis actor
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: under the coin of caesar
Posts: 9,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
You have to keep in mind that the opinions expressed on this forum are from urban enthusiasts and don't really represent the opinions or the reality of the majority of people and their daily lives. Most people do not celebrate density, apartments and transit.

Most people work their butts off to live the complete opposite lifestyle -- a better life -- and in America those goals are:
1] to buy a larger home with sufficient living space for their needs
A] when you were 18 a cramped dorm room with a roommate was sufficient, when you're 30, it's no longer cool to live in closet with a hot pan and microwave.
2] safe location, safe schools especially for their kids
3] Own a car to take care of the family and not be reliant on fixed public transit
most middle class gen x and millennial families/people i talk to casually about transit almost universally say they would actually take it if they don't currently (and would prefer to own one car instead of two) if it were properly invested in to a western european level. they don't have the same stigma surrounding transit that boomers have from experiencing the rampdown/takedown of transit systems during their youth/early careers (coinciding with unprecedented rising incomes/car ownership/cultural shift).
__________________
t h e r e is no C h a o s.... . . . only g r e a t E n e r g y

Last edited by Centropolis; Nov 13, 2019 at 4:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2019, 4:41 PM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 9,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Centropolis View Post
most middle class gen x and millennial families/people i talk to casually about transit almost universally say they would actually take it if they don't currently (and would prefer to own one car instead of two) if it were properly invested in to a western european level. they don't have the same stigma surrounding transit that boomers have from experiencing the rampdown/takedown of transit systems during their youth/early careers (coinciding with unprecedented rising incomes/car ownership/cultural shift).

That's the key though, if its nearly as convenient, which it is not in the majority of the US. Also if you told them its going to cost them nearly what they pay for their car, that may change their answers.
People like the freedom a personal vehicle gives them.
__________________
“Some people, did something”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2019, 4:50 PM
Centropolis's Avatar
Centropolis Centropolis is offline
crisis actor
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: under the coin of caesar
Posts: 9,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLO View Post
That's the key though, if its nearly as convenient, which it is not in the majority of the US. Also if you told them its going to cost them nearly what they pay for their car, that may change their answers.
People like the freedom a personal vehicle gives them.
right, i just think we need to be realistic, and for a long, long time now we just assume that your only option is spending over an hour in traffic to go a small distance...and that is somehow a preferable policy goal, a proper way to orient the physical aspects of our economic machinery... i don't think so. there's been a massive breakdown in infrastructure spending in the united states.

it snowed 2" inches a couple of days ago in st. louis (a small, sub-3m metro) and people had 3 hour commutes just to cross a river. people wouldn't put up with that in say germany. you take the car if it makes sense, and you also have the train as a reasonable option because it has been properly constructed and funded (that's not to say that people didn't take the train because we DO have a small system that is currently held at two lines because the state GOP can't be bothered with funding transit at the state level...at all).

it also isn't right to assume that everyone can and should drive, either, as we have a wave of aging-in-place people in this country who are scrambling to figure out what to do.

the "personal freedom" aspect of the automobile has become a romanticized (and dying) aspect of american culture...us gen x and millennials don't have time for that. i grew up in a place that was literally crumbling...we need infrastructure.
__________________
t h e r e is no C h a o s.... . . . only g r e a t E n e r g y

Last edited by Centropolis; Nov 13, 2019 at 5:03 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Nov 13, 2019, 11:53 PM
James Bond Agent 007's Avatar
James Bond Agent 007 James Bond Agent 007 is offline
Posh
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kansas City, MISSOURI
Posts: 18,410
Build an island right about here

Make it look something like this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 12:41 AM
RST500 RST500 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond Agent 007 View Post
Build an island right about here

Make it look something like this.
Way too out of the way. Would never get built but hypothetically would make more sense near Santa Monica or Marina del Rey. Socal does need a coastal highrise district like Miami.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 12:42 AM
RST500 RST500 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 477
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLO View Post
No, but its starting in the LA basin...there is just a long way to go.

Its funny I took an uber ride with a South Korean guy, been in LA for 20 years. He told me he liked LA because its not as crowded as South Korea. I said, oh really I thought South Korea was a pretty good place to live, he said its too crowded, to many people for the resources available.

Do I want to see LA morph into Tokyo. No. I'd rather the population table for a while.
I don't know if I would want all of LA to be high density the way Tokyo is but the key is to have clusters of extreme density starting with Central LA around Downtown to Midtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 5:35 AM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 9,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by RST500 View Post
I don't know if I would want all of LA to be high density the way Tokyo is but the key is to have clusters of extreme density starting with Central LA around Downtown to Midtown.
I think this is really what happens in the foreseeable future...
__________________
“Some people, did something”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Nov 14, 2019, 12:41 PM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,280
Downtown Los Angeles. That’s where I want them to go. (make it bigger and cap the freeway).


But more is needed on the westside. They’ve been passing buck for too long.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2019, 7:19 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 298
Delete. Please see my comment below.
__________________
I don't read. I apologize in advance.

Last edited by SFBruin; Nov 15, 2019 at 7:30 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Nov 15, 2019, 7:27 AM
SFBruin SFBruin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Oakland, CA
Posts: 298
I think that SoCal should add 1.3 million homes to the Antelope and Apple Valleys north of LA.



That way, LA can really test the limits of how large of an area can be continuously developed and still be socially sustainable.
__________________
I don't read. I apologize in advance.

Last edited by SFBruin; Nov 15, 2019 at 8:00 AM. Reason: Added image.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 9:45 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocman View Post
Downtown Los Angeles. That’s where I want them to go. (make it bigger and cap the freeway).
Agree 100%. I have never, ever understood those who are of the belief that Downtown doesn't need to be a significant factor in urbanizing the region when it's:

1) Located at the geographic center of LA County
2) The hub of the Metro Rail and Metrolink systems (the latter providing access to/from OC, IE, and Ventura)
3) It has skyscraper and mid-rise potential over a contiguous 4.5 square miles (the size of Manhattan between 59th and 14th Streets. The potential to build one of the most impressive urban cores in the world is there.

Look at all the potential:


http://www.payvand.com/news/13/may/L...rth-map-HR.jpg

Last edited by Quixote; Nov 16, 2019 at 10:20 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2019, 10:15 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,991
^ DTLA "Loop" superimposed over Midtown Manhattan (59th to 14th) shaded in charcoal:


By me
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 12:51 AM
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,931
The problem is, LA is not, nor has ever been a hub and spoke city. Los Angeles is not Boston -- and I'm not saying either or is a bad thing, it is the reality of the situation.

What I cannot understand is non hub and spoke cities, continuing to build hub and spoke transit systems.

At least with LA other lines of transit in addition to the Green Line are being built that don't go through downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 6:41 AM
saybanana saybanana is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Southern California
Posts: 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFBruin View Post
I think that SoCal should add 1.3 million homes to the Antelope and Apple Valleys north of LA.



That way, LA can really test the limits of how large of an area can be continuously developed and still be socially sustainable.
They are never going to build large amounts of housing there. Too much disconnection to the rest of Socal.
The only routes are I-215 or Hwy 14. Any when somethings happen like a snowstorm or a wildfire, that pretty much cuts off any access. You think something is going to detour 50-100 miles just to use the other route? Unlikely.

Anyway, much of Socal is underdeveloped. If it really wanted to add more people like Tokyo size. it can do so and be up to 40 million people from the current 19 million.

The Downtown loop alone can hold up another 1/2 million if it wanted high rise buildings and get rid of the industrial/warehouse buildings. Maybe another 1/2 million just outside the loop in the industrial areas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 7:41 AM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 568
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post

Agree 100%. I have never, ever understood those who are of the belief that Downtown doesn't need to be a significant factor in urbanizing the region when it's:

1) Located at the geographic center of LA County
2) The hub of the Metro Rail and Metrolink systems (the latter providing access to/from OC, IE, and Ventura)
3) It has skyscraper and mid-rise potential over a contiguous 4.5 square miles (the size of Manhattan between 59th and 14th Streets. The potential to build one of the most impressive urban cores in the world is there.

Look at all the potential:


http://www.payvand.com/news/13/may/L...rth-map-HR.jpg
The arts district and industrial district will all be redeveloped at some point. But I'd hate to see the fashion district and toy district get gentrified. There are so many nondescript neighborhoods that deserve to get the wrecking ball way before they ever touch the fashion district.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:06 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.