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

[Chicano3000X]

Would you see it as "oh hell no!", would you get all NIMBY about it?

Or would you see it as a good thing and feel that it is simply the next stage of evolution for Los Angeles?


And it doesnt just mean skysrapers or high rises, but better transit, more density, and less suburban life.

If there was one neighborhood that should be leveled, what should it be? Or are all the suburbs historically significant?

IMO, I see more significance with historic building than run down neighborhoods with single family homes.

[vid]

Does a city as large and influential as LA really need to mimic another city to feel self-worth?

[TarHeelJ]

Originally Posted by vid

Does a city as large and influential as LA really need to mimic another city to feel self-worth?

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

[llamaorama]

What's wrong with it?

The city is already becoming expensive and gentrified and artificially limiting the extent that supply for housing can meet demand makes no sense.

[Westsidelife]

Why do you keep on making threads like these?

[Doug]

If LA Mahattanized, would other cities still worry about Los Angelization?

[Mikemike]

L.A. is kinda big to Manhattanized. Even New York City has only manhattanized Manhattan, and it's a small borough. They're really just starting in Brooklyn.

[jd3189]

Los Angeles has and will continue on to be its own dense and large kind of city, more similar to Tokyo and Mexico, D.F. than to NYC.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by vid

Does a city as large and influential as LA really need to mimic another city to feel self-worth?

im not saying I completely agree with chicano, but really now, what the heck does Los Angeles growing on a large scale and becoming more transit-dependent have to do with "self worth"?

This idea that a major city densifying means it is somehow "mimicking" or "becoming like New York City" is so shortsighted i don't even know where to begin.

And despite what you may be led to believe, LA does NOT have that much influence outside of a few sectors of the global economy.

[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.

[mhays]

Tokyo manages huge density supported by astonishing levels of transit use. Odd comparison for LA.

[Chicano3000X]

The reason I'm saying is because I read that sprawl is looked down upon. L.A. got too fat, now it's gotta go back and build from the center again. Bring people back to the core centers.

[Chicano3000X]

Manhattenized is a general term people use when a city starts to get taller right? Or could it also mean it's getting more commercial?

I'm not necessarily picturing L.A. as manhatten, no matter how tall, or how full of sky scrapers it gets, it will still be L.A.

Just urbanize L.A. more is what I mean.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by mhays

Tokyo manages huge density supported by astonishing levels of transit use. Odd comparison for LA.

I used Tokyo as an example since both cities are polycentric and if LA wants to densify in the form it is already it would be similar to the former.

[mhays]

In Tokyo, the centers are only high points on a very high ridgeline. LA has some dense areas by non-NY US standards, but basically double those (guessing) and you'd have the standard inner city Tokyo vernacular.

[urbanactivist]

I really don't get why people have to compare LA or any other American city to Manhattan. First off, there are no islands in LA. NYC is built upon 3 different islands. I mean the two cities couldn't be more dissimilar.

If you're going to compare LA to anywhere, at least go for a city where the physical limitations to growth aren't so apparent. How about London or Paris? Both are multi-nodal, like LA. Both have enviable transport, and both are connected by HSR (the future of LA and San Francisco). NYC's history has really been defined by it's geography... It's a collection of islands and peninsulas. LA couldn't be further opposite.

[MolsonExport]

archetypal newbie thread.

[Segun]

Well if LA did Manhattanize, it would be over 450 Sq miles at 60,000 PPSM, bringing it to around 30 million people. I think the city would be a lil different....

[mhays]

That would be AWESOME if done well, and very few people drove.

[untitledreality]

Originally Posted by Chicano3000X

Manhattenized is a general term people use when a city starts to get taller right?

Not at all. In fact, the vast majority of Manhattan is under ten floors. Manhattanization is a process of real estate speculation fueled by incredible demand that creates extensive turn over and redevelopment over many generations.

To 'Manhattanize' another urban region would require centuries of progress and development. People forget that the island of Manhattan has been inhabited for almost 400 years now... it had a distinct advantage over cities further inland as a point of immigration, international economies and over a 250 year head start on a city like Los Angeles in terms of mass infill and urbanization.