1. LA metro is enormous, sprawling
Originally Posted by subterranean
Sorry to bring this thread even further off topic, but I have to respond to this.
Which part are you refuting? You provide no evidence to refute. Let's itemize this:
1. LA metro is enormous, sprawling, car-centered. Look at a map. Look out your window. I bet when you end up moving to Portland like the rest of the Whites in CA, you'll notice that they are very manageable. And are doing a fine job of curbing sprawl, keeping up with needed transportation options, and have a progressive plan for the future. So I will have to disagree with you. I believe Denver is in many ways like Portland and I believe they will learn from the mistakes of sprawling metros such as LA. I just wanted to bring light to that.
2. Unmanageable. It is unmanageable because it does not work as a region. It works as separate entities, dozens of areas working against each other instead of as a whole. A good example of a North American city that is doing a good job of working as a region is Toronto. Minneapolis also has regional industry tax sharing.
3. Unhealthy. Every time I stay in LA I wake up in the middle of the night with fits of asthma. And I am a healthy young man. When I blow my nose when I'm there, my snot is brown. Tell me that is healthy.
4. Unsafe. Ok, so the entire region is not "unsafe", so perhaps this one is unfair. But there are some of the most dangerous places in this country in LA County. I don't think I need to cite statistics.
5. Environmentally disastrous. 17 million people (or more?) sprawling over a technically inhabitable dessert, running out of water, landslides, earthquakes, and forest fires ruining homes and infrastructure on a regular basis, and calling for resources from this nation as a whole pretty regularly all so people can live in the sunshine. BTW, the Southwest will never, ever, ever, get water from the Great Lakes. Better start working on cheapening that desalinization process.
These are just the very obvious. I can go into a lot more detail if you'd like.
Denver Metro for its population and urbanized land sprawls much farther and at a much much lower density than LA so you tell me how that can be better or more responsible?
By 1990, Los Angeles was the most densely populated Urbanized Area in America. No other urban area provided so little land per resident. http://www.sprawlcity.org/losangeles.html
Also, living in this environment we do not heat or cool our homes at the rate you do most everwhere else in the country leaving far less a carbon imprint.
I believe Denver is in many ways like Portland and I believe they will learn from the mistakes of sprawling metros such as LA.
Since these cities sprawl more (fewer persons per square mile in the built out environment) than Los Angeles I guess these cities can learn a thing or two from Los Angeles as Los Angeles can learn a thing or two from Denver and Portland.
I recall Denver had business parks all over the city from Boulder to the Denver Tech Center, to the huge hospital complex out in Aurora. What about the sprawling office parks going up the Boulder Turnpike?
Regardless, I do agree Denver is ahead leaps and bounds over Los Angeles with its forward thinking transit system yet let's not lose site that Los Angeles operates over 2000 buses in a 1,433-square-mile service area, has over 73 miles of rail service with 62 stations with more miles and stations being built:
Total Metro Bus and Rail Ridership
Estimates as of Dec. 2007
Average Weekday Boardings
Average Saturday Boardings
Average Sunday Boardings
Of course LA has commuter rail too with Metro Link with an additional 54 stations and over 500 miles of coverage.
Denver Like LA has similar inversion issues yet cars run more efficiently here in LA than in Denver with CA having the toughest emission standards in the country. Again you tell me what Denver would be like at the same size as LA and what the pollution would be like in Denver with just as many cars on the road. Please don't forget the burden of providing this nation with the biggest combined Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach contributing to emissions.
Do yourself a favor and research where Los Angeles ranks on crime statistics in the US. You'll find this very topic in the city discussion section.
5. Environmentally disastrous.
Denver and Los Angeles receive about the same amount of rain per year. DWP is doing just fine here in Los Angeles... of course you yourself called it inhabitable
when most likely you meant unihabitable
in all that rhehtoric. Denver, being in the State of Colorado has the same water issues that CA does. The city of Los Angeles gets its water from the city owned Department of Water and Power and gets its water primarily from the Sierra Nevada. We're not running out of water and besides, the Rocky Mountains are no less if not more susceptible to drought.
Bottom line, if you want to be critical of a city for its perceived lackings when comparing it to Denver Los Angeles is a bad choice. Perhaps a more apt comparrison would be Phoenix.
To get back on topic:
Denver has a lot of really cool exciting projects going on and it clearly is a progressive forward thinking beautiful city. I bet it's going to look great and will be showcased nicely at the Democratic Convention.