HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #181  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2007, 10:26 PM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,610
^ Again, you're not understanding the point. PLEASE read carefully.

NOT everyone has to live downtown in order for people to be satisfied with their city. Manhattan has a population of about 1.6 million people (from my understanding) and how big is the metro area? How many people live in downtown Chicago in a metro of about 9 million people?

But I would argue that both NY and Chicago provide an area for those who don't live in the most urban area to at least come and visit and play in. Not everyone even desires to live in an urban area. A lot of people in LA (many from NY even!) prefer to live in LA's myriad of beautiful houses (we have some of the most beautiful houses in the world, so no surprise there).

However, that doesn't mean a thriving Downtown can't function as a central gathering place for a lot of people. Giving people finally a sense of identity pertaining to Los Angeles. When you buy a postcard of LA, it's usually Downtown LA, but how wonderful would it be if a lot of action actually took place there?

Well, you need the thousands of yuppies (actually a lot of empty nesters are moving downtown as well) to attract retailers. Yuppies the last time I checked are human beings as well. Once the retailers all come and form a critical mass, Downtown LA becomes a true destination and all the rail we have will finally start to make sense. It provides an alternative for those who will be coming downtown (and surrounding areas).
__________________
DTLA Rising
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #182  
Old Posted Jul 22, 2007, 10:44 PM
bricky bricky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty View Post
But I would argue that both NY and Chicago provide an area for those who don't live in the most urban area to at least come and visit and play in. Not everyone even desires to live in an urban area. A lot of people in LA (many from NY even!) prefer to live in LA's myriad of beautiful houses (we have some of the most beautiful houses in the world, so no surprise there).
So that's your grand vision for LA? To make downtown a fun place to hang out for all those dudes living 15 people to a tract home? I occasionally read the posts on this subforum, and had the idea that you were among the most intelligent people here. What happened?

LA county has a big housing shortage. LA county is essentially built out. The solution is not to make a cool downtown where you can chill and grab some interesting ethnic food followed by cocktails and clubbing. The solution is to build a hell of a lot more high density housing for those millions of people who live in the most poorly housed big metro in America. Downtown is neither remotely large enough nor inexpensive enough to fit the bill. In fact, infill housing construction in LA this decade has been piss poor considering the needs of the population.

People won't have a real alternative to auto traffic in LA until infill happens on a much more massive scale, and until the government gets serious about building some kind of rapid transit system. Not the joke of the subway you have now, or even the relatively minor additions that are currently being discussed for 10 (read 20) years into the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #183  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2007, 12:41 AM
BrandonJXN's Avatar
BrandonJXN BrandonJXN is offline
Ascension
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 5,406
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksep View Post
maybe bricky is right. we should just all give up and move away.
But wouldn't that cause more traffic?

__________________
Washed Out
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #184  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2007, 2:33 AM
luckyeight luckyeight is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 80
Smile Build The Mass Transit Now

People won't have a real alternative to auto traffic in LA until infill happens on a much more massive scale, and until the government gets serious about building some kind of rapid transit system. Not the joke of the subway you have now, or even the relatively minor additions that are currently being discussed for 10 (read 20) years into the future.[/QUOTE]

across the board north and south.....east and west. this was suppose to happen 50 years ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!at mere of a fraction what it will cost
today and it will creep up more as years go by.

Force evryone to take the public transit system as they do in Asia!!!!!

Politicians are useless......

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #185  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2007, 2:34 AM
Vangelist Vangelist is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 678
why is anyone even humoring bricky with attention? if he can't comprehend that this is a thread to post about downtown la and keeps spamming, he should be ignored....but as they say in classic netiquette "please don't feed the troll"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #186  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2007, 2:51 AM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,691
bricky, I don't know where on earth you got the impression that we all believe downtown LA is the solution to LA's problems. It seems to me that you're presenting a straw man's argument. Do most of us believe high density housing is the wave of the future for ALL of LA? Yes. Who said it isn't? Name that member. I want to know who it is you are accusing.

Your arguments:

LA needs better rapid transit.
LA needs HD housing throughout LA.
LA government needs to take housing shortages more seriously.
LA needs infill.
The poor need help.

Duh? Again, who are you arguing against? The fact that this forum focuses so much on downtown LA is due to personal preference. You shouldn't resent the forum for that. Skyscraperpage isn't going to have any citywide consequence because we care about discussing LA Live or Gustavo Dudamel as opposed to what's happening in Santa Monica.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #187  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2007, 5:40 AM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,610
Quote:
Originally Posted by bricky View Post
So that's your grand vision for LA? To make downtown a fun place to hang out for all those dudes living 15 people to a tract home? I occasionally read the posts on this subforum, and had the idea that you were among the most intelligent people here. What happened?

LA county has a big housing shortage. LA county is essentially built out. The solution is not to make a cool downtown where you can chill and grab some interesting ethnic food followed by cocktails and clubbing. The solution is to build a hell of a lot more high density housing for those millions of people who live in the most poorly housed big metro in America. Downtown is neither remotely large enough nor inexpensive enough to fit the bill. In fact, infill housing construction in LA this decade has been piss poor considering the needs of the population.

People won't have a real alternative to auto traffic in LA until infill happens on a much more massive scale, and until the government gets serious about building some kind of rapid transit system. Not the joke of the subway you have now, or even the relatively minor additions that are currently being discussed for 10 (read 20) years into the future.

The solution to the problem is multifaceted and will probably never be resolved. Part of LA's "problem" is explosive population growth and English illiteracy from a large foreign population. The divide between rich and poor is fueled by that. More and more poor immigrants are moving in, speak little/to no English, and aren't able to compete fairly in the job market so they can't make money. Therefore you have a large working-class population cramming "15 into one house." Then you have a lot of people/entrepreneurs who ARE making a lot of money because they're starting their own businesses or competing FAIRLY in the job market and succeeding (you label them as "yuppies). Is it the American gov't responsibility to help subsidize more afforable housing? Basically, should these rich folk who made their money fairly (or legally I should say), subsidize the poor who cannot compete in the higher job market?

So the infill you speak of will never be cheap enough to house any group unles they can afford it. And if you can't make the money fairly, you won't be able to live there, period. It's a sad reality that the entire world faces. Is CAPITALISM fair? is it possible for all humans living in a capitalistic system be "equally" able/capable of being in the same level?

And the sad reality is, many people will continue to suffer in traffic by their own choice in LA. This is one aspect of a society gone wrong based on a collective CHOICE that riding transit in LA is "low-class." That's your own fucking fault if you have some inferiority complex riding a bus (I sure don't!). Ever realize how vibrant a Latino area is (Westlake, etc.) because they have PROVEN that you CAN get around LA by mass transit. If everyone else emulated them on this aspect, we would have a higher quality of life and more vibrant streets in general. (PLEASE don't emulate the squalor conditions of those areas though.)

So no, "fixing" Downtown LA by itself does not SOLVE the problem. It is definitely IMPORTANT in LA since our mass transit converges all into Downtown LA (Union Station). The "joke of a subway" we have now will no longer be a joke when people depend on it to get to Downtown LA. It's very wrong of you to come in here and judge our rail system based on your ignorance of how people live in this city.
__________________
DTLA Rising

Last edited by LosAngelesBeauty; Jul 23, 2007 at 5:55 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #188  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2007, 8:35 AM
LosAngelesBeauty's Avatar
LosAngelesBeauty LosAngelesBeauty is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,610
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/s...n21market.html


More California news
Hoopla in L.A. as supermarket opens


By Dan Laidman
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE

July 21, 2007

LOS ANGELES – A member of Congress flew 3,000 miles on a red-eye flight to be there. The mayor called it a “historic moment.” A city councilwoman said she felt as if she were at the Academy Awards as hundreds of people swarmed the street at midday.
So what was this hoopla about? The unveiling of a monument? A parade for a championship sports team? A visit from the pope?

Try the opening of a grocery store.

The first full-service supermarket to open in downtown Los Angeles in five decades arrived with an outsized flourish yesterday, as a ribbon-cutting ceremony became a curious spectacle. A person dressed as a giant smiling grocery bag entertained soon-to-be shoppers waiting in line as a parade of politicians and business boosters delivered speeches.

“This store truly does represent more than just grocery shopping,” said Dave Hirz, president of Ralphs grocery stores.

“It's indisputable evidence that downtown has arrived as a destination,” added Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

To fight traffic congestion, the mayor has encouraged Angelenos to embrace a more urban lifestyle that shuns suburban commutes in favor of walking and public transportation. With its dense housing and ample transit, downtown is a logical place to start, but its lack of attractions and basic amenities has made it a tough sell for visitors and would-be residents.

Several hundred downtown residents and workers lined a city block and waited up to an hour in the blazing sun to explore the new store.

“There are no stores; there is nothing here,” said Loretta Hankins, who has worked downtown for 23 years. “This is going to be the happening place.”


COMMENTS:

By gon2tex07 on 07/21/2007

Downtown L.A. is still a sewer. I applaud Ralph's but the city is at least 10 years behind in redeveloping. Kick out the druggies, winos, hookers, etc and encourage developers to come in and convert some of those old buildings into business spaces and condos and some kickin nightlife.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

By NDO619 on 07/21/2007

I always wondered what "Hoopla" was. Apparently opening a grocery store qualifies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

By SteelPeg on 07/21/2007

...gon2tex07 on 07/21/2007 - "Kick out the druggies, winos, hookers, etc "

Hey, can't we leave the hookers?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

By digibrill on 07/21/2007

Mayor Tony Villar, clamoring for whatever positive media spin he can get

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

By A Critic on 07/21/2007

Yeah, downtown L.A. is still a sewer, all right. I just hope that the brilliant executive business management and accounting team at Ralph's corporate allocated enough in their O & M budget to cover all the frigg'n losses from the out-of-control shoplifting and theft. There are so many downtrodden low life and welfare mammies downtown L.A., that you're going to see record thefts in this store and pilffering of diapers and baby food, etc. Their frigg'n shopping carts are also going to disappear very rapidly and in record numbers too. The many scruffy homeless can now look forward to dumping their old ThriftyMart carts for a nice new state-of-the-art Ralph's cart. How nice....

------------------------------------------------------------------------

By jeffsd on 07/21/2007

Downtown Sd has two new grocery stores and a third on the way. Why no hoopla? LOL. LA is silly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
__________________
DTLA Rising
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #189  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2007, 1:51 PM
LongBeachUrbanist's Avatar
LongBeachUrbanist LongBeachUrbanist is offline
Ridin' The Metro
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Metro Blue, Wardlow Stop
Posts: 2,578
Bricky is right in at least one sense. We do need to be aiming higher. We're freakin L.A., for heaven's sake! Let's get that subway going!!!

It's funny, though, to see the criticisms coming from different directions. One person criticizes the mid-rise construction, and says we should be having high-rise construction. Another disses high-rise construction, and says we should be focused on massive infill in mid-rises.

The fact is, Downtown L.A. is improving. South Park has finally taken root, and the Figueroa Corridor is beginning to sprout towers again. Little Tokyo is bustling, as is the Old Bank District on Spring and Main Streets. The focus has to be on neighborhood development. To me, that's why the opening of the Ralph's is so great: it will make Downtown more livable for everyone.

As for the ignorant rants on signonsandiego.com, really, what would you expect? They're San Diegans: of course they prefer S.D. to L.A. I don't go online to dis the sterility of most of San Diego. Because frankly I don't care. If that's what those people prefer, then that's their deal.

(BTW, there are plenty of parts of the Gaslamp that smell like sewer. Don't think your shit don't stink, I had to step over it last time I was there!)
__________________
COMPLETE THE CENTRAL SUBWAY BY 2020!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #190  
Old Posted Jul 23, 2007, 4:09 PM
bricky bricky is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 588
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty View Post
The solution to the problem is multifaceted and will probably never be resolved. Part of LA's "problem" is explosive population growth and English illiteracy from a large foreign population. The divide between rich and poor is fueled by that. More and more poor immigrants are moving in, speak little/to no English, and aren't able to compete fairly in the job market so they can't make money. Therefore you have a large working-class population cramming "15 into one house." Then you have a lot of people/entrepreneurs who ARE making a lot of money because they're starting their own businesses or competing FAIRLY in the job market and succeeding (you label them as "yuppies). Is it the American gov't responsibility to help subsidize more afforable housing? Basically, should these rich folk who made their money fairly (or legally I should say), subsidize the poor who cannot compete in the higher job market?

So the infill you speak of will never be cheap enough to house any group unles they can afford it. And if you can't make the money fairly, you won't be able to live there, period. It's a sad reality that the entire world faces. Is CAPITALISM fair? is it possible for all humans living in a capitalistic system be "equally" able/capable of being in the same level?

And the sad reality is, many people will continue to suffer in traffic by their own choice in LA. This is one aspect of a society gone wrong based on a collective CHOICE that riding transit in LA is "low-class." That's your own fucking fault if you have some inferiority complex riding a bus (I sure don't!). Ever realize how vibrant a Latino area is (Westlake, etc.) because they have PROVEN that you CAN get around LA by mass transit. If everyone else emulated them on this aspect, we would have a higher quality of life and more vibrant streets in general. (PLEASE don't emulate the squalor conditions of those areas though.)

So no, "fixing" Downtown LA by itself does not SOLVE the problem. It is definitely IMPORTANT in LA since our mass transit converges all into Downtown LA (Union Station). The "joke of a subway" we have now will no longer be a joke when people depend on it to get to Downtown LA. It's very wrong of you to come in here and judge our rail system based on your ignorance of how people live in this city.
I suppose I was unfairly criticizing the developments in downtown. Of course the place has made progress, and the Ralph's, all joking aside, is an important step in what is still an emerging neighborhood. Nevertheless, given all the hype I hear on this forum and elsewhere about LA finally "getting it", the progress so far in the metro context has been incredibly and shamefully slow. Even San Diego, a much smaller and traditionally more suburban metropolis to the south, has seen its downtown progress much further than yours.

My problem, if I have any right to have one, is that people here seem so satisfied with such minor progress. The bar should be raised far higher. And it does no good to write off about half your metro as "illegals" or the also-rans of capitalism. If you treat your future (or rather current) majority population that way, your whole metro will just be a blue-collar also-ran with a small and insular Hollywood bubble thrown in. A giant San Antonio hiding behind show biz glamor.

The government doesn't have to subsidize anything. Latino and working-class salaries in LA are certainly at first-world levels, and can support infill that although it isn't glamorous, will do the job. I have a feeling - although perhaps this is something you guys would know better - that it's zoning regulations and approval processes all over the Southland that really prevent infill. Not low incomes. All the government has to do is get out of the way, so to speak. There are poorer places in America and certainly in the world that are seeing orders of magnitude of more construction.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #191  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 6:02 AM
funhaus's Avatar
funhaus funhaus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 158
L.A. considers building apartments as small as 250 square feet.

Interesting article in tonight's LA Times...

L.A. considers building apartments as small as 250 square feet.
Critics say this isn't New York.
By Sharon Bernstein
Times Staff Writer

10:07 PM PDT, July 23, 2007

Is Los Angeles ready for the 250-square-foot apartment?

That's what city planning officials have in mind with a series of
sweeping new zoning proposals that would allow developers to build
smaller condos and apartments than ever before.

The tiny units — studios that officials hope will be as small as 250
square feet — are part of a package of proposed zoning changes aimed
at significantly increasing density in downtown L.A.
The rules would
apply to the roughly five miles around downtown but could eventually
be extended elsewhere in the city.

The idea is to encourage developers to continue to build high-rises
downtown even as the market appears poised to slow down — while also
spurring them to build units that are more affordable. Supporters —
who include the city's top planning officials, some developers and
Councilwoman Jan Perry, whose district includes downtown — say the
rules will encourage the construction of housing at a time when the
city desperately needs it.

"This is a landmark event," said Dan Rosenfeld, a principal in the
development firm Urban Partners, which is behind several downtown
projects. "The people who care about downtown L.A. have been waiting
for these ordinances for a long time."

But the proposal — slated to come before the City Council next week —
is already drawing criticism from those who see it as another
effort to boost development in a region that is already in a high-
rise building boom stretching from downtown through Koreatown and
into Century City, Westwood and Marina del Rey.

Some land-use experts question whether there is much of a market for
tiny apartments in downtown L.A., which, despite its recent
resurgence, still lacks the cachet of Manhattan, central London or
Paris. Others fear overcrowding and slum conditions if the market
goes sour and the units are too densely packed.

"I see it as creating a neighborhood where parking is horrendous and
families are squeezing themselves into these units which are very
small because they are affordable," said Noreen McClendon, a
developer of affordable housing. "It's just a tenement."

The tiny apartment is a fairly new concept in Southern California,
which has a long history of suburban sprawl and larger spaces.

But in New York, Boston, San Francisco and many European and Asian
cities, residents have squeezed into tiny apartments for decades,
usually because the lure of the downtown area is so great — and the
prices for larger places so high.

Gretchen Broussard, who co-owns Tiny Living, a Manhattan store that
sells furnishings for small spaces, lived in a 200-square-foot
apartment in that New York borough until five years ago.

"I couldn't even turn around in the space," Broussard said. "I maxed
out every inch of the wall space, mounted everything to get it off
the floor.... Every New Yorker is continually purging stuff because
they don't have room."

In San Francisco, Martin Eng rents a 300-square-foot studio in the
swanky Nob Hill neighborhood, across from the Ritz-Carlton hotel.
Though Eng has several other homes around the state, the apartment
is his primary residence — and he said it's livable only because it
has a good view and plenty of light.

With a rent-controlled cost of $400 a month — below the market rate —
the studio is a convenient city crash pad for Eng, 53, who works in
investment.

"Mine is a tiny place, not somewhere you would want to entertain or
bring people," Eng said. "It's like a poor man penthouse — you can't
really be proud of it."

Although the new L.A. ordinance does not directly address the size
of the apartments that could be built, it would remove all
restrictions on the number of units that developers could put in a
single building, a move that planners hope will result in residences
as small as 250 square feet — about the size of a hotel room or a
modest living room.

The ordinance would also let developers willing to reserve some
apartments for low- and moderate-income families to make their
buildings 35% bigger than zoning rules normally allow and to opt out
of providing half the open space typically required. Those who build
units for those with very low incomes would not have to offer
parking spaces for those residences.

Perry said the proposed rules would concentrate new housing downtown
while preserving single-family homes elsewhere.

The smallest units, Perry said, might be attractive to young
professionals who want to buy a condo but can't afford anything
larger, or to service workers who couldn't otherwise afford to buy
or rent near their downtown jobs.

Burbank architect Mark Gangi, who also teaches at USC, said the
rules could help mold downtown into a lively metropolitan center.

The new apartments might be used by those who need an affordable
place to live, he said, but they might also become pieds-à-terre for
professionals and others who want a modest place where they can stay
overnight if they are working or seeing a show or ballgame.

But others are more skeptical about how tiny units would fare in Los
Angeles.

Raphael Bostic, associate director of the Lusk Center for Real
Estate at USC, said developers might take advantage of the city's
offer to let them build affordable units without parking spaces,
because the cost of such parking can be prohibitive. "Only the most
adventurous would do the very small units," he said.

Jeff Lee, a developer active in the downtown area, said he was
doubtful there'd be a market for 250-square-foot apartments or
condos. "That wouldn't be much more than a bathroom and 10-by-10
bedroom,"
said Lee, who built the Market Lofts downtown.

Jane Blumenfeld, L.A.'s principal city planner, said that in cities
like New York and San Francisco, people live happily in tiny
apartments and condominiums.

But Joel Kotkin, an urban affairs expert, questioned whether such
units would help the city's goal of creating a feeling of community
downtown.

"You're creating tiny spaces that people live in for short periods
of time," Kotkin said.

L.A.'s downtown is still not desirable enough to entice well-heeled
purchasers to buy or rent a studio when they can live in a larger
place elsewhere, Kotkin said.

"They say that in New York and San Francisco people live [in small
apartments] a long time. Well, downtown L.A., you're not New York
and you're not San Francisco."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #192  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 4:32 PM
dweebo2220 dweebo2220 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by bricky View Post
I suppose I was unfairly criticizing the developments in downtown. Of course the place has made progress, and the Ralph's, all joking aside, is an important step in what is still an emerging neighborhood. Nevertheless, given all the hype I hear on this forum and elsewhere about LA finally "getting it", the progress so far in the metro context has been incredibly and shamefully slow. Even San Diego, a much smaller and traditionally more suburban metropolis to the south, has seen its downtown progress much further than yours.

My problem, if I have any right to have one, is that people here seem so satisfied with such minor progress. The bar should be raised far higher. And it does no good to write off about half your metro as "illegals" or the also-rans of capitalism. If you treat your future (or rather current) majority population that way, your whole metro will just be a blue-collar also-ran with a small and insular Hollywood bubble thrown in. A giant San Antonio hiding behind show biz glamor.

The government doesn't have to subsidize anything. Latino and working-class salaries in LA are certainly at first-world levels, and can support infill that although it isn't glamorous, will do the job. I have a feeling - although perhaps this is something you guys would know better - that it's zoning regulations and approval processes all over the Southland that really prevent infill. Not low incomes. All the government has to do is get out of the way, so to speak. There are poorer places in America and certainly in the world that are seeing orders of magnitude of more construction.
Will I get hated if I say that as an Angeleno I almost completely agree with Bricky? While his initial comment was definitely trollish behavior (this is a thread about Downtown LA, it makes sense that there would be news about downtown in it), this post above sounds like something I could have written--minus the bit about San Antonio.

I've been saying for years that LA's most embarassing and unacceptable issue is its severe lack of affordable housing (or housing in general). We're a first-world city with third-world housing options. I actually personally hate the attention that downtown has been getting for exactly the same reasons bricky mentions. The yuppification of NYC, SF, Chicago, Boston, etc. has in the end just pushed the working class out of those metros altogether. Downtown might someday change tourists perceptions, but I don't have any hope for it changing the way the city works.

However...

The problem that I think Bricky doesn't understand is that there is no precedent for LA's situation. NYC, Boston, etc. were much more overcrowded than LA during their blue-collar days. Think tenement houses. New York was something like twice as dense as it is now before the advent of the steel-frame skyscraper. And, construction costs were relatively much lower back then.

If we are to make a change in LA's housing and transportation system, it will mean a massive change in not just LA's urban traditions but America's in general. He says that there are other poorer places in America that are making greater strides, but I'd like him to point them out.. Where are land and construction costs (in the US) as high and yet seeing "orders of magnitude more construction."???

Bricky, what you need to understand is that this is AMERICA'S problem, not simply something LA "got itself into" because of its supposed cultural backwardness. LA is one of the most diverse places on earth, and our cultural, political, and financial elite actually are pretty reflective of this diversity. With such extraordinary diversity, how can you say that we have some specific unifying cultural attitude that somehow "doesn't get it." You cannot sit in NYC and feel absolved of this issue because "LA people are crazy." If you want to see change, come here and help make it!! I completely agree with you that we angeleno's need to set the bar much higher. But don't try to make this our issue alone, as we face radically different circumstances than any other contemporary American city.

LA is America's current Ellis Island. We are the largest manufacturing, shipping, and industrial city in the United States, a country that has been rapidly de-industrializing for the past half-century. Tell me a contemporary US city that is a good comparison to LA. Tell me somewhere that has had such rapid densification of its suburbs due to massive immigration.

Every American metro area is majority suburban. Every single one. LA is actually built pretty much the same as most US metros, in terms of high-density housing in comparison to low-density. The unique problem we have here is that we have no room for more suburbs and so people are living "15 people per tract home." Imagine if a massive wave of immigration to New York City overran the "urban" built environment and overflowed into the traditionally suburban areas (obviously this is happening to a degree there, but not to the scale of LA). Do you think that NIMBY's would not rear their ugly heads there? Do you think the suburbs would be happily ready to change their zoning laws???

Again, please come here and help inspire change. But to criticize from afar just makes you look like the stereotype holier-than-thou elitist east-coast bastard we all hate so much over here..

Last edited by dweebo2220; Jul 24, 2007 at 4:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #193  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 4:54 PM
dweebo2220 dweebo2220 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 145
Also, if I was mayor, first thing I would do is banish Joel Kotkin forever.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #194  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 5:07 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty View Post
Wow, those comments by Bricky were really uncalled for.

No, they weren't. He just forgot to add:

I love NYC, but this is so sad. One of the biggest metros in the world, and people are making such a big deal about a friggin grocery store opening in manhattan. Just shows you how overwhelmingly suburban (or in the preferred euphemism here, "multinodal") NY is. Now is about 4.4% instead of 4.3% on its way to becoming a great urban metropolis.



Reply With Quote
     
     
  #195  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 5:29 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220 View Post
I've been saying for years that LA's most embarassing and unacceptable issue is its severe lack of affordable housing (or housing in general). We're a first-world city with third-world housing options. I actually personally hate the attention that downtown has been getting for exactly the same reasons bricky mentions. The yuppification of NYC, SF, Chicago, Boston, etc. has in the end just pushed the working class out of those metros altogether.

First of all, the fact remains that most of the ppl moving to LA aren't well off. In fact, a good number of them would be classified as low income. My question is if housing in LA is so $$$-----& it is-----then how come so many of the ppl who are ending up here on the lower rungs of the ladder?

And you're worried that DT is getting too much attention? that it's getting too yuppified? I just hope you're not saying those same things several yrs into the future, at least if you've moved to the burbs or some other city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #196  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 5:51 PM
dweebo2220 dweebo2220 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch View Post
[/b]
First of all, the fact remains that most of the ppl moving to LA aren't well off. In fact, a good number of them would be classified as low income. My question is if housing in LA is so $$$-----& it is-----then how come so many of the ppl who are ending up here on the lower rungs of the ladder?.
Exactly. That's why everyone has to live "15 people to a tract house."

Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch View Post
[/b]
And you're worried that DT is getting too much attention? that it's getting too yuppified? I just hope you're not saying those same things several yrs into the future, at least if you've moved to the burbs or some other city.
I want to live in downtown. I can't afford it. So I obviously am not happy with the situation that the median income there is now $90,000. It's not even really yuppies. It's like they're just plopping the wilshire corridor over by Westwood into DT. Park Fifth? The residences at LA Live? These things do not a city make.

I agree that it is necessary to bring wealth to Downtown. We need to boost the office market there, and make it more of a destination. Of course this means building some luxury "softlofts" or whatever they're calling them these days.

But where is the middle and low-income housing? You agree that the majority of people moving to LA are poor. Where is the housing for them? And more personally relevant, where is the housing for ME? (someone making the median income for this city).


I've always said the great urban neighborhood of LA is westlake/macarthur park/koreatown/pico union/melrose hill/"city west." Here's where LA's most urban neighborhood already exists. And there are definitely some infill opportunities left in this area. If people would start building attractive, dense, lower-and-middle class housing here, then I'd say we're on the right track.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #197  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 6:16 PM
LongBeachUrbanist's Avatar
LongBeachUrbanist LongBeachUrbanist is offline
Ridin' The Metro
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Metro Blue, Wardlow Stop
Posts: 2,578
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220 View Post
Will I get hated if I say that as an Angeleno I almost completely agree with Bricky?
Not at all. Many of Bricky's comments and criticisms were valid. We do need a greater emphasis on breadth (i.e., quantity of housing), and not just height.

From this perspective, I think the planning commission's recent efforts are great. They are going to encourage development of a greater diversity of housing options in Central L.A. (Anyway, I hope they do. I'd like to be able to afford living in the City one day!)

Bricky was poking fun at forumers for being excited about the new Ralphs. But he isn't the only one.

L.A. is L.A. It is a relatively young city in the process of maturing. Part of that process involves changing people's preconceived notions of what "L.A." is. I think things like the Ralphs opening will help people get over their mistaken belief that you can't live happily in the city.
__________________
COMPLETE THE CENTRAL SUBWAY BY 2020!!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #198  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 6:18 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220 View Post
But where is the middle and low-income housing? You agree that the majority of people moving to LA are poor. Where is the housing for them?

There are some major ironies in all the questions. For one thing, since housing in LA costs so much, then how are so many poorer ppl able to move to the city? I don't get it, in that generally ppl on tight budgets will bypass a place that's known for its high cost of living.

The bigger dilemma is that if a devlpr can't get a high enough return on his investment, whether it's a condo or apt proj, he won't bother to build anything. the belief by many devlprs over 7 yrs ago that there wasn't enough demand for new housing from ppl with $$ is the reason almost nothing was built in DT for yrs & yrs. IOW, it seems that unless a proj can earn a lot of dollars for the owner, devlprs & funders will drop plans for new construction & move elsewhere. A perfect example of that is Bunker Hill, where a lot of land set aside for new devlpt, esp for housing, has sat as deadzones for over 40 yrs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #199  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 6:24 PM
citywatch citywatch is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,461
Quote:
Originally Posted by LongBeachUrbanist View Post
Bricky was poking fun at forumers for being excited about the new Ralphs. But he isn't the only one.

It's ridiculous if he was banned because of anything going on under this subj heading. I know if I were a moderator, only out & out troll behavior & flaming for the sake of flaming would make me start admining. A simple conflict of opinion ain't my idea of trolling.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #200  
Old Posted Jul 24, 2007, 7:44 PM
dweebo2220 dweebo2220 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch View Post
[/b]
There are some major ironies in all the questions. For one thing, since housing in LA costs so much, then how are so many poorer ppl able to move to the city? I don't get it, in that generally ppl on tight budgets will bypass a place that's known for its high cost of living.
There are still very many low-paying jobs in LA. Low-paying jobs are becoming very rare in this country (agriculture is all run by huge conglomerates, manufacturing is all outsourced, etc.). If you can only work a low-paying job, you have very few other places to go other than LA. It's middle-class skilled professionals who bypass/have left LA.

Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch View Post
[/b]
The bigger dilemma is that if a devlpr can't get a high enough return on his investment, whether it's a condo or apt proj, he won't bother to build anything. the belief by many devlprs over 7 yrs ago that there wasn't enough demand for new housing from ppl with $$ is the reason almost nothing was built in DT for yrs & yrs. IOW, it seems that unless a proj can earn a lot of dollars for the owner, devlprs & funders will drop plans for new construction & move elsewhere. A perfect example of that is Bunker Hill, where a lot of land set aside for new devlpt, esp for housing, has sat as deadzones for over 40 yrs.
Right, of course. But what Bricky was arguing was that the reason developers cannot make money off of housing for the poor is because of prohibitory zoning and code legislation and because "Angelenos are all whack."

I think he's wrong in his assessment. But LA still faces the real, major crisis of overcrowding. So we need to be better than normal. We need to accept that we have a crisis, and deal with it as we would with any crisis (which, unfortunately as Katrina has tought us, isn't so great in the US).
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 > Regional Sections > United States > Pacific West
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:12 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.