No..no freudian slip...and we can save the psychoanalyzing for another forum
...But I can see your point city...and I agree, that a fleshed out mass transit for the city isnt a magic bullet, so to speak. But you need to admit that it cannot hurt it. I understand your "deadzone" argument. But you cannot build a pretty, gussied up and delightful district, and then make it such a hassle to traverse that people would rather just drive by it. Tomorrow I plan on being at Nokia Plaza for the inagural broadcast, and all I can think about it trying to get out of the area before the thousands of cars hit the roads to avoid traffic afterward. And yes, most people in SoCal use cars...MAYBE..if we had a transit system, it would foster a more pedestrian lifestyle, not just downtown, but all over the city. When that occurs, demand for space to be filled with pedestrian friendly fare will rise as people start walking more around these spaces. The two arent mutually exclusive. One could help the other, but as we have seen time and again, you can build the nicest and most dynamic structures and parks and such, but if people cant easily get to them and cant easily get away from them, you end up with yet another empty filler structure. LAB has a point, a transit system isnt just for DTLA's benefit...some people will chose to live in other places, but many may chose to move downtown. And just cuz we cant do it in 5 minutes, as apparently we can with dead zones, that doesnt mean we just say "Oh the hell with it". We can work on both, Im just saying...much to your chagrin, that I PERSONALLY feel that transit would be a priority, simply because a city paralyzed in traffic and wrought with pollution and parking problems, will not care much about dead zones downtown.
Threaded Mode