Quote:
Originally Posted by edluva
^and I can't diasgree with Zev and the NIMBY's either. Hate to say "told you so" but it echos what I've been ridiculed for being negative about since years ago when I said these so-called "transit oriented" developments are a crock of shit and that you're not functionally transit oriented in any real-world sense of the phrase unless you have actual transit to orient yourself to. an isolated subway line does not constitute "transit" for 90+ percent of would-be dwellers and if it's painful to fess up to that reality, then join the mass of jaded politicians who've convinced themselves that densifying without infrastructure is progress. It's good to focus on the positive, but in the end, LA still sucks at nearly everything. LA is the civic equivalent of a loser.
 |
edluva...LA needs to develop; we cannot remain stagnant. But the question is, "where do we develop?" Shall we continue with suburban developments in Las Lomas or Santa Clarita, or start building smartly in the City of Los Angeles. If so, it's inefficient to build single-family tract homes anymore. Development has to be focused on our existing or future rail corridors. North Hollywood/Universal City both have Metro stations, it makes sense to develop dense around the stations. Granted, not everybody will use Metro Rail, but the option is there. In my bldg, couples can go with only 1 car; which would be infeasible in Las Lomas, but doable when Metro can be your other option.
But, I agree that development has to be smart. Why are high/mid rises being built in South Coast Plaza? That makes no sense. There's tons of room for development in El Segundo, yet the Metro Green Line stations are surrounded by parking lots and suburban office malls; that's where density development would be good.
Development is also good b/c LA NEEDS more tax dollars. We have too much space taken by freeways/parking garages that prevents LA from collecting more revenues.