Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch
[/b]Such changes will fix SOME aspects of LA, but not all.
|
It will bring mobility which will bring jobs which will bring tax revenues. This will fix everything from hospitals, to the homeless, to crime by hiring more police officers. It wont fix everything, but mobility and economic competitiveness are important to great tax revenue and quality of life.
Zoning and planning brings more public spaces, parks, and affordable housing into the mix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch
As I mentioned before, placing all our hopes & aspirations into rail transit means we better be prepared for delayed gratification.
|
So be it. I like celebrating LA's small victories (the reclaiming of hollywood and downtown to some degree), but I am not going to have the illusion that LA is fixed, becasue its not. I love alot of things about LA, but when I go back to SF and DC, and can IMMEDIATELY see the glaring differences between LA and those cities. LA has the opera, the plays, the events, the lectures, the universities, the beaches, the restaurants, and everything else that I love, but as a city, I am not going to lie and say it is fixed. Cities like Portland have far fewer ammenties (like a world class-ish opera and philharm, or a world class economy) but it at least isnt a broken city like Los Angeles. Again, I think for LA to become unbroken, it needs to have rail and proper zoning and planning. I dont care if it builds tall buildings to look at or more world class musuems. Without these enhacnements, LA's urban problems will never be solved long term. Again, I dont mind celebrating small victories (like the new bcam, the proposed restoration of a theatre in south central, the building of a new culture center, or 15 new awesome bars and restaurants opening), but I still contend that LA's longterm health will not be fixed without rail and zoning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch
It's also no less naive to believe that a good rail system will be the savior of the city than it is to assume that projs like LA Live or Grand Ave----by themselves----will be the savior of DTLA.
|
It isnt naive at all. Mobility is a much larger and connected problem than you care to admit. LA is a diconnected region. We cant even add new jobs (NBC studios or new Federal Building) without people protesting them. We cant expand our ports without chocking ourselves to death. We cant attract new companies because mobility is a huge quality of life hit. We cant generate new revenue long term because we cant attract jobs. WE cant add alot of affordable housing because we cant densify our corridors. WE cant build new small businesses because parking requirements (lack of parking) drive them to the suburbs to do business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch
LA actually had one of the most extensive rail systems a loong time ago, yet its existence didn't prevent the slow decline of DT, beginning around the 1940s onward.
|
Which is how it exploded from cowtown to surpassing SF as king of the west by 1940. Our massive building of freeways allowed LA to continue to explode and catch chicago as the second biggest city in the US. Back then, freeways were adequate "enough" to achieve sufficient mobility. Mobility and Sprawl (affordable housing) allowed LA to explode. Now that LA is slowing to a crawl, it is losing its momentum. Building rail will do the same for LA in the 21st century as the red cars and early freeways did for it in the 20th century. Back then, mobility and affordable housing was key to LA's success, and it will remain key to LA's future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch
I still remember some urbanist a long time ago theorizing that SF's BART system, by providing another option of travel in the bay area, made it that much more convenient for ppl to move to the burbs.
|
The BART system has really helped the Bay Area in many ways. If they had a comprehensive mass transit system in their economic center (aka Santa Clara County) it would be even better. They thought about building the bart into Stockton and Vallejo which would have been a huge deal to the bay area. In the end, the bay area's economy is one of the most robust in the nation, and transit isnt holding it back as much as it is holding LA back. FOr the bay area, its zoning. Even though they have mass transit, bay areans are VERY antigrowth. IN LA, if we combined mass transit with agressive growth, then we would have both affordable housing and transit. Transit doesnt do anything if you dont allow growth to follow it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch
And regardless of zoning laws, the power of NIMBYism & NIMBYites will continue to be a nuisance for changing hoods, whether here, or SF, or Toronto, or NYC, or any number of burbs & smaller towns.
|
NIMBYism is also a huge problem for LA. As I mentioned before, dumb apathetic Angelenos dont rally together to fight NIMBYism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by citywatch
I don't like the pathetic, flimsy nature of LA's transit system and the squads of bellyaching NIMBYites, but they're both a reality we'll have to struggle with for yrs to come.
|
NIMBY's can and will be defeated. Sooner or later, residents will demand transit be built in order to improve their quality of life.
Don't let pretty buildings and and trendy bars fool you into thinking LA has fixed its most pressing problems.
LA is an ideal location. It is a hub to asia, a key to America's west coast, and has wonderful weather. If you add proper planning and zoning, change tax laws, and build rail, businesses would be lined out the door to relocate to los angeles.
Overpriced housing, smog, nonexistent transit infrastructure, ugly looking city without a strong sense of community, on top of taxes and red tape makes businesses hate being here. Many businesses have to be here for various reasons, but the negatives are starting to mount up. The weather, beaches, and amenities, are no longer justifying the negatives.
If you change transit and thus zoning, then at least businesses have a reason to put up with the high costs of doing business.
Threaded Mode