daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Continental Forums > North American Skyscrapers Forum > Metropolis & States > Los Angeles

Los Angeles » Development News | Transportation | Greater L.A. Area



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old November 24th, 2009, 09:07 AM   #1
LosAngelesSportsFan
Moderator
 
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,388
Likes (Received): 164

What planning improvements would make the biggest difference in LA?

What really bothers me about LA is that simple things are not done to improve the city.

Why do we not have a city wide plan to underground the telephone poles and wires? This isnt 1950 and its embarrassing. I think that the city should coordinate and make major changes at the same time. We need to replace our aging water pipes and to embrace the future technologies. We also need to repave and redo many sidewalks in LA. Also, we need to implement solar technology, wireless internet capabilities and other advancements. Why not coordinate all these things and get them done. Even if they are done slowly, at least the residents can see change and improvement, rather than piece meal changes that dont work because the city paves a street one day and then tears it up two weeks later to replace a pipe. there is no planning.

Why do we not have standard street furniture and simple guidelines that every bus stop should have a trash can next to it? why are billboards allowed at all other than in designated areas? why cant LA outlaw fences around properties like Glendale, and other cities have? My biggest pet peeve is that the reason why a lot of LA looks like shit is because the commercial streets are not taken care of. I think that if the commercial strips (ie Sunset blvd from Dodger stadium to Downtown) were improved, this could lead to more city pride and investment. Not to go off on yet another tangent, but that stretch of Sunset from Dodger Stadium to the Orsini projects should have a streetcar, 5 - 7 story mixed use projects, and should be an awesome pregame area.

So the point of all this was to get an idea of what you guys as residents think should be done in LA, if anything, to improve the city and into the future. Im tired of LA playing catch up and want the city to be on the forefront once again.
LosAngelesSportsFan no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old November 24th, 2009, 10:42 AM   #2
Westsidelife
LAL | LAD | LAK
 
Westsidelife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,727
Likes (Received): 50

I agree. Unfortunately, LA is far behind when it comes to public space/works/services. Even our freeways, which have so much taxpayer money thrown at them for maintenance, are completely filthy. They're all old, gray, and littered with trash. I'm sure it has to do with the fact that so many people use it on a daily basis, but so many people use the Tokyo Subway everyday and it's spotless. What gives?

Other complaints...

1) Narrow sidewalks that are in such disrepair. This is partly why LA is not pedestrian-friendly. I don't understand why we don't widen our sidewalks, especially when considering how wide these streets are. So what if it's at the expense of traffic lanes?

2) Lack of marked crosswalks. Those are also essential elements to a pedestrian-friendly urban design and they enhance the pedestrian experience tremendously.

3) No landscaped medians where possible. Many of our streets have center left turn lanes that can accommodate landscaped medians. I'm seeing more and more of them pop up, but not enough. They go a long way in terms of beautifying the street.

4) Mixed-use development without ground-floor retail. There need to be special guidelines that mandate ground-floor retail for mixed-developments along major commercial arteries.

5) Transit-oriented developments with abundant parking. All TODs within a certain distance of the train station should have limited parking.

6) Underground parking access from the street. Many developments have a back alleyway. Why not make use of it and have parking access there, instead?

7) Exposed telephone poles. They can have an element of grit to them, but they're really hideous.

8) Not many dedicated bus/bike lanes. We will see this improve over time.

9) Not a very good rail system. Duh, we all know this one. Thankfully, this one is changing at a rapid rate.

10) Aging hospital facilities? Don't know much about this, but this seems like a common complaint.

11) LA River. Not much more needs to be said.

12) Lack of trees on many residential streets. Trees provide beauty and shade and they also absorb CO2 emissions.
__________________
"I'm an LA guy, can't help it." -- Tiger Woods
Westsidelife no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2009, 12:32 PM   #3
milquetoast
L O S A N G E L E S
 
milquetoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Henderson NV
Posts: 6,175
Likes (Received): 338

I say we should lock this thread up! Where's the dancing lock smiley?
milquetoast no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 24th, 2009, 11:21 PM   #4
Kenni
Super Mod
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Los Angeles | San Salvador
Posts: 21,038

The sheer distances in L.A. make it economically harsh to do much of that.
Kenni está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old November 26th, 2009, 09:31 AM   #5
Imperfect Ending
Or is it?
 
Imperfect Ending's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: In Portland, Oregon with Leo
Posts: 10,411
Likes (Received): 124

Need more rails
__________________

Imperfect Ending no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2009, 09:07 AM   #6
klamedia
Silver Lake
 
klamedia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lost Angeles
Posts: 5,676
Likes (Received): 158

Quote:
Originally Posted by Westsidelife View Post
I agree. Unfortunately, LA is far behind when it comes to public space/works/services. Even our freeways, which have so much taxpayer money thrown at them for maintenance, are completely filthy. They're all old, gray, and littered with trash. I'm sure it has to do with the fact that so many people use it on a daily basis, but so many people use the Tokyo Subway everyday and it's spotless. What gives?

Other complaints...

1) Narrow sidewalks that are in such disrepair. This is partly why LA is not pedestrian-friendly. I don't understand why we don't widen our sidewalks, especially when considering how wide these streets are. So what if it's at the expense of traffic lanes?

2) Lack of marked crosswalks. Those are also essential elements to a pedestrian-friendly urban design and they enhance the pedestrian experience tremendously.

3) No landscaped medians where possible. Many of our streets have center left turn lanes that can accommodate landscaped medians. I'm seeing more and more of them pop up, but not enough. They go a long way in terms of beautifying the street.

4) Mixed-use development without ground-floor retail. There need to be special guidelines that mandate ground-floor retail for mixed-developments along major commercial arteries.

5) Transit-oriented developments with abundant parking. All TODs within a certain distance of the train station should have limited parking.

6) Underground parking access from the street. Many developments have a back alleyway. Why not make use of it and have parking access there, instead?

7) Exposed telephone poles. They can have an element of grit to them, but they're really hideous.

8) Not many dedicated bus/bike lanes. We will see this improve over time.

9) Not a very good rail system. Duh, we all know this one. Thankfully, this one is changing at a rapid rate.

10) Aging hospital facilities? Don't know much about this, but this seems like a common complaint.

11) LA River. Not much more needs to be said.

12) Lack of trees on many residential streets. Trees provide beauty and shade and they also absorb CO2 emissions.
1) You'd be surprised at how narrow some of the sidewalks are in some of the most pedestrian friendliest cities out there. Anyway, I'm all for it. Widen sidewalks!
2)Seeing improvements.
3)Are you requesting more landscaped medians or less of them?
4)Mixed-use should be a city wide mandate. Seeing some improvements though.
5)I think by now you know my stance on this. Minimizing parking would impact 1-4 in a major way!
6)I hate that me the pedestrian has to fight with a car that is hanging out of a driveway waiting to resume into traffic. Please put car entrances and exits in alleys or side streets so that the majority of pedestrians walking along the major thoroughfares don't have to box with cars.
7)I like the telephone poles.
8)Seeing improvements.
9)I wouldn't say that it isn't a very good rail system I would say that it just needs to continue to expand. And yes it's doing this at a fast rate by US standards.
10)Aging hospitals or is it that the hospitals are aging?

The #1 most impacting gripe on this here 1-10 is of course minimalizing the access of free and low cost parking. Also decreasing the number of required commercial parking would be revolutionary. Sadly this is hardly just an LA problem.
__________________
"Self defense is not violence" - Malcolm X
"I love Los Angeles. I love Hollywood. They're so beautiful. Everything's plastic, but I love plastic. I want to be plastic." - Andy Warhol
Minimum parking standards are fertility drugs for cars. - Donald Shoup
klamedia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 27th, 2009, 09:04 PM   #7
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,842
Likes (Received): 0

Why should we outlaw fences? I don't understand that one.

I think that if I had god-power in this city, this would be my order of doing things.

1) Lower the corporate tax (not really a planning improvement, but there won't be much to plan if you're not getting new businesses). The state is already business unfriendly enough as it is. A high business tax does not help that.
2) Wider sidewalks and more bus/bikeways. This city is too big for buses to be going so slowly and our weather too good to not utilize bus lanes.
3) Much looser zoning laws/getting rid of minimum parking requirements/getting rid of affordable housing requirements. All of this is to stimulate more development since our current capacity is far too low for what this city needs.
4) Toll freeways. Commuting is expensive and people should pay a real price for their driving. Set prices so that freeways will move at 55 mph. You'll see a much denser core and more spaced out exteriors. Not only that, but if we're paying tolls on freeways, then I think that we should see some gas tax revenue come back since some of that maintenance would be paid for with the tolls.
5) Higher population growth through all of these measures in the city of LA (the suburbs would probably shrink) would result in higher tax revenue for the city. Use that money to fix up the LA River. Seriously, that's embarrassing.
__________________
"[G]overnment does not have the power to encourage one branch of production except by curtailing other branches."

"A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways." - Proverbs 21: 29

Beer, Guns, and Baseball

Take Down All Stop Lights
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2009, 03:23 AM   #8
klamedia
Silver Lake
 
klamedia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lost Angeles
Posts: 5,676
Likes (Received): 158

Thanx "phatt" for reminding me about TOLLING the roads. Making commuting long distances more cost prohibitive would arouse the idea of more dense living equaling shorter commutes. But we diverge at this particular nexus because I smell a recipe of the poor not being able to live in the city because of the increased competition of living in a denser more accessible core. Therefore I actually want to expand affordable and workforce housing within the inner core which would still lead to higher densities and hopefully we would be able to duck the Paris model.
Street furniture, wider sidewalks and aesthetically pleasing blah blah blah would all follow in sequence after the major work is undertook like: tolling roads, minimalizing free and cheap parking, doing away with minimum parking requirements, an expanded transit system and the creation of massive affordale housing within the inner core.
__________________
"Self defense is not violence" - Malcolm X
"I love Los Angeles. I love Hollywood. They're so beautiful. Everything's plastic, but I love plastic. I want to be plastic." - Andy Warhol
Minimum parking standards are fertility drugs for cars. - Donald Shoup
klamedia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2009, 03:29 AM   #9
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,842
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by klamedia View Post
Thanx "phatt" for reminding me about TOLLING the roads. Making commuting long distances more cost prohibitive would arouse the idea of more dense living equaling shorter commutes. But we diverge at this particular nexus because I smell a recipe of the poor not being able to live in the city because of the increased competition of living in a denser more accessible core. Therefore I actually want to expand affordable and workforce housing within the inner core which would still lead to higher densities and hopefully we would be able to duck the Paris model.
Street furniture, wider sidewalks and aesthetically pleasing blah blah blah would all follow in sequence after the major work is undertook like: tolling roads, minimalizing free and cheap parking, doing away with minimum parking requirements, an expanded transit system and the creation of massive affordale housing within the inner core.
The only qualm I have about affordable housing requirements is that it is sort of like a barrier to entry. Like to construct a new housing development, you need x amount of dollars, but if you require affordable housing units, you need x + a amount of dollars. So whereas you may have y housing units in the city, you apply an artificial force with affordable housing so that only y - b units exist. Those b units are not built because the affordable housing requirement renders them not profitable enough. This raises the price for everyone. Obviously the effect of this depends on how stringent the affordable housing requirements are, but I don't like the idea that we're limiting the supply of housing in this city through such a scheme.

This is the same reason why minimum parking requirements limit the number of housing units in a city, though this is easier to accept because we can see what's wrong with parking whereas allowing poor people to live in a city seems like a commendable effort. The only problem I have with it is that it is counterproductive.
__________________
"[G]overnment does not have the power to encourage one branch of production except by curtailing other branches."

"A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways." - Proverbs 21: 29

Beer, Guns, and Baseball

Take Down All Stop Lights
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2009, 03:33 AM   #10
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,842
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
5) Higher population growth through all of these measures in the city of LA (the suburbs would probably shrink) would result in higher tax revenue for the city. Use that money to fix up the LA River. Seriously, that's embarrassing.
I always wondered why we needed to encase all of our rivers in concrete. I know that engineers wanted to solidify the path of the river, but wouldn't levies that go deep underground accomplish the same thing and be much more aesthetically pleasing? Those levee walls would only need to be used a few times during the year anyway, and the deepness of them would ensure that the river stays at its current path, at least from what I'm speculating.
__________________
"[G]overnment does not have the power to encourage one branch of production except by curtailing other branches."

"A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways." - Proverbs 21: 29

Beer, Guns, and Baseball

Take Down All Stop Lights
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2009, 10:59 AM   #11
klamedia
Silver Lake
 
klamedia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lost Angeles
Posts: 5,676
Likes (Received): 158

Quote:
Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
The only qualm I have about affordable housing requirements is that it is sort of like a barrier to entry. Like to construct a new housing development, you need x amount of dollars, but if you require affordable housing units, you need x + a amount of dollars. So whereas you may have y housing units in the city, you apply an artificial force with affordable housing so that only y - b units exist. Those b units are not built because the affordable housing requirement renders them not profitable enough. This raises the price for everyone. Obviously the effect of this depends on how stringent the affordable housing requirements are, but I don't like the idea that we're limiting the supply of housing in this city through such a scheme.

.
Sorry but I'm not understanding your algebraic explanation of your resistance to affordable housing. Could you just give us a real time analogy?
__________________
"Self defense is not violence" - Malcolm X
"I love Los Angeles. I love Hollywood. They're so beautiful. Everything's plastic, but I love plastic. I want to be plastic." - Andy Warhol
Minimum parking standards are fertility drugs for cars. - Donald Shoup
klamedia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 28th, 2009, 07:05 PM   #12
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,842
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by klamedia View Post
Sorry but I'm not understanding your algebraic explanation of your resistance to affordable housing. Could you just give us a real time analogy?
A real time analogy? I don't know exactly what you mean, but I think parking minimums do the same thing. They make the cost of building new housing units unnecessarily expensive and so serve overall to limit the number of housing units that we could have in this city. But if I had to put in order those things that are limiting the number of housing units in this city, I'd say:

1. Zoning Laws
2. Parking minimums
3. Affordable housing requirements

But just because affordable housing is at the bottom does not mean that the effect is negligible.

If you want a more detailed algebraic explanation, let's say that a new housing development is going to cost x per unit. You have planned a units. Rent is expected to go for y. Your revenue will be ay and you expect that it will cover the investment x. But let's say that a government law requires that b amount of units must be capped at a price of z. Instead of your revenue being ay, it will now be (a-b)y + bz (though this assumes that rent control has no effect on the regular price of a unit, though this may not be true). Your profit has gone down because of this law. Now there is always a certain risk involved that you will not get enough revenue to cover the cost of development in time to pay off the loan. That risk is a function of the profit you expect. If you expect a higher profit, then the risk will be lower. When the government tells you that you have to take a cut in some of your profit, then the risk becomes higher, meaning that overall less housing units will be built.
__________________
"[G]overnment does not have the power to encourage one branch of production except by curtailing other branches."

"A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways." - Proverbs 21: 29

Beer, Guns, and Baseball

Take Down All Stop Lights

Last edited by phattonez; November 28th, 2009 at 07:13 PM. Reason: More detailed "algebraic" explanation.
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2009, 05:29 AM   #13
milquetoast
L O S A N G E L E S
 
milquetoast's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Henderson NV
Posts: 6,175
Likes (Received): 338

..and KING says we don't talk enough here
milquetoast no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2009, 07:53 PM   #14
klamedia
Silver Lake
 
klamedia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lost Angeles
Posts: 5,676
Likes (Received): 158

I think your affordable housing equation is under the summation that all of the previous deterrence's to density are still present like low density zoning laws and minimum parking requirements. If you would allow a developer to opt out of parking for just his/her affordable units and change the zoning to allow dense housing this developer has a greater chance at seeing a profit. This is what Prop H was crushed at the feet of stupid LA voters driven by fear of the other.

To allow dense affordable housing in transit oriented areas, push for zone changes and lax minimum parking requirements to encourage a developer to build not only more dense but more affordable.

What's really behind your algebraic variables and equations is this constant need for an almost total free market where competition levels the playing field at the expense of non-players or players with much less equity in the game. What I'm proposing and where we always seem to have a problem is in the case of housing ( a basic necessity) not to be wholly in the hands of a free market system but heavily (in the urban core) regulated by local govt. This is to ensure that poor people are not shut out to the hinterlands only to slog into the city for work and back out again which still won't solve our congestion or emissions issues.

Housing, health and education should never be solely left in the hands of the free market.
__________________
"Self defense is not violence" - Malcolm X
"I love Los Angeles. I love Hollywood. They're so beautiful. Everything's plastic, but I love plastic. I want to be plastic." - Andy Warhol
Minimum parking standards are fertility drugs for cars. - Donald Shoup
klamedia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2009, 09:23 PM   #15
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,842
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by klamedia View Post
I think your affordable housing equation is under the summation that all of the previous deterrence's to density are still present like low density zoning laws and minimum parking requirements. If you would allow a developer to opt out of parking for just his/her affordable units and change the zoning to allow dense housing this developer has a greater chance at seeing a profit. This is what Prop H was crushed at the feet of stupid LA voters driven by fear of the other.
Well sure, if you take away those things that eat into profit, then you'll see a greater profit. If you take away all of those things that eat into profit, then you'll see the greatest possible profit and the highest rate of development possible.

Quote:
To allow dense affordable housing in transit oriented areas, push for zone changes and lax minimum parking requirements to encourage a developer to build not only more dense but more affordable.
But with building more, you get cheaper units. The median price is far too high right now and it is because there are not enough units. Demand is not going to change, but supply is abysmal.

Quote:
What's really behind your algebraic variables and equations is this constant need for an almost total free market where competition levels the playing field at the expense of non-players or players with much less equity in the game. What I'm proposing and where we always seem to have a problem is in the case of housing ( a basic necessity) not to be wholly in the hands of a free market system but heavily (in the urban core) regulated by local govt. This is to ensure that poor people are not shut out to the hinterlands only to slog into the city for work and back out again which still won't solve our congestion or emissions issues.

Housing, health and education should never be solely left in the hands of the free market.
The only thing is that now, even with local government regulation, the poor are being pushed out because there is not enough supply. When you force units to be at a price below market levels you will not get any more development. I want to avoid this, and I'm sure you do too. That fire in Long Beach a while back that killed the family living in the garage was a travesty that could have been prevented. It exemplified the problem in limiting the number of units built in a city.
__________________
"[G]overnment does not have the power to encourage one branch of production except by curtailing other branches."

"A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways." - Proverbs 21: 29

Beer, Guns, and Baseball

Take Down All Stop Lights
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2009, 10:32 PM   #16
future_trance011
Registered User
 
future_trance011's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 399
Likes (Received): 8

This all leads back to our city's still glaring public transportation needs...

The reason not enough people have pride, is because not enough people are walking or experiencing this incredible city in a 3-dimensional perspective; to experience a city in a 2-dimensional world looking out a car window, deludes many people into believing its not real or what happens outside the safe comforts of their car, doesn't directly affect them.

Once our residents become more acclimated to walking and taking public transit, you will naturally see more and more people caring because they are directly affected/exposed to the environment in which they are experiencing. Unlike busses, there's a sense of permanence with lightrail/subways that no amount of sophisticated busses will ever provide.

As we continue to lay more tracks and build more rails that go to places that we all want to go in this city. PT becomes a more valid and smarter option than being stuck 2 hours in a car on the 110 or 10 Freeways. Slowly, the stigma behind taking PT will eventually melt away, if when we ever get that "Subway to the Sea" built; which I believe should be top priority and has the greatest potential to knocking down the psychological barriers/stigma behind using PT by non-working class, Angenlinos.

The hoods in which these railcars pass through, will have more incentive to address the attractiveness (with trees, landscaping, etc.), and proper upkeep of their hoods from a public/commercial...rather then private/insular perspective. This will in turn spur more commercial development, mixed-use, housing that is compliant and in tuned with a more urban, socially aware populace that will demand more of it.

When you've got people finally caring again, then naturally our politicians will be held to an even higher standard and be accountable for their actions...maybe then, will we get more things done in this city.

We are definitely making progress with our transportation needs, but if there was a way I could fast-forward and have all our transit projects built, I definitely would...
future_trance011 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2009, 12:07 AM   #17
LosAngelesSportsFan
Moderator
 
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,388
Likes (Received): 164

Quote:
Originally Posted by future_trance011 View Post
This all leads back to our city's still glaring public transportation needs...

The reason not enough people have pride, is because not enough people are walking or experiencing this incredible city in a 3-dimensional perspective; to experience a city in a 2-dimensional world looking out a car window, deludes many people into believing its not real or what happens outside the safe comforts of their car, doesn't directly affect them.

Once our residents become more acclimated to walking and taking public transit, you will naturally see more and more people caring because they are directly affected/exposed to the environment in which they are experiencing. Unlike busses, there's a sense of permanence with lightrail/subways that no amount of sophisticated busses will ever provide.

As we continue to lay more tracks and build more rails that go to places that we all want to go in this city. PT becomes a more valid and smarter option than being stuck 2 hours in a car on the 110 or 10 Freeways. Slowly, the stigma behind taking PT will eventually melt away, if when we ever get that "Subway to the Sea" built; which I believe should be top priority and has the greatest potential to knocking down the psychological barriers/stigma behind using PT by non-working class, Angenlinos.

The hoods in which these railcars pass through, will have more incentive to address the attractiveness (with trees, landscaping, etc.), and proper upkeep of their hoods from a public/commercial...rather then private/insular perspective. This will in turn spur more commercial development, mixed-use, housing that is compliant and in tuned with a more urban, socially aware populace that will demand more of it.

When you've got people finally caring again, then naturally our politicians will be held to an even higher standard and be accountable for their actions...maybe then, will we get more things done in this city.

We are definitely making progress with our transportation needs, but if there was a way I could fast-forward and have all our transit projects built, I definitely would...
Perfect post. i i agree with this a 100%. Most people who drive everywhere dont have any perspective and dont care as much. they dont see the city as theirs, rather they look at it as something they just pass through. When i take friends on the metro, or to art walk, or any other event they dont have to drive through, they look at things differently.
LosAngelesSportsFan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2009, 12:08 AM   #18
LosAngelesSportsFan
Moderator
 
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,388
Likes (Received): 164

Quote:
Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
Why should we outlaw fences? I don't understand that one.
ive never liked the chopped up look fences have and they give a perception of danger.
LosAngelesSportsFan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2009, 04:29 AM   #19
phattonez
Bleed Dodger Blue
 
phattonez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The City of Angels
Posts: 1,842
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
ive never liked the chopped up look fences have and they give a perception of danger.
How do you separate properties?
__________________
"[G]overnment does not have the power to encourage one branch of production except by curtailing other branches."

"A wicked man puts up a bold front, but an upright man gives thought to his ways." - Proverbs 21: 29

Beer, Guns, and Baseball

Take Down All Stop Lights
phattonez no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2009, 05:18 AM   #20
klamedia
Silver Lake
 
klamedia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Lost Angeles
Posts: 5,676
Likes (Received): 158

Quote:
Originally Posted by future_trance011 View Post
This all leads back to our city's still glaring public transportation needs...

The reason not enough people have pride, is because not enough people are walking or experiencing this incredible city in a 3-dimensional perspective; to experience a city in a 2-dimensional world looking out a car window, deludes many people into believing its not real or what happens outside the safe comforts of their car, doesn't directly affect them.

Once our residents become more acclimated to walking and taking public transit, you will naturally see more and more people caring because they are directly affected/exposed to the environment in which they are experiencing. Unlike busses, there's a sense of permanence with lightrail/subways that no amount of sophisticated busses will ever provide.

As we continue to lay more tracks and build more rails that go to places that we all want to go in this city. PT becomes a more valid and smarter option than being stuck 2 hours in a car on the 110 or 10 Freeways. Slowly, the stigma behind taking PT will eventually melt away, if when we ever get that "Subway to the Sea" built; which I believe should be top priority and has the greatest potential to knocking down the psychological barriers/stigma behind using PT by non-working class, Angenlinos.

The hoods in which these railcars pass through, will have more incentive to address the attractiveness (with trees, landscaping, etc.), and proper upkeep of their hoods from a public/commercial...rather then private/insular perspective. This will in turn spur more commercial development, mixed-use, housing that is compliant and in tuned with a more urban, socially aware populace that will demand more of it.

When you've got people finally caring again, then naturally our politicians will be held to an even higher standard and be accountable for their actions...maybe then, will we get more things done in this city.

We are definitely making progress with our transportation needs, but if there was a way I could fast-forward and have all our transit projects built, I definitely would...
I believe what me and "phatt" was talking about is truly at the root of the problem though transit is a necessity, no doubt. But the Fed's still aint gonna give you the money that you need to truly build a worthwhile system if you don't have the densities nor ridership to go along with it. The true problem has to do with ways to increase density, making housing more affordable, using zoning variances to shoehorn density in quickly and unbundeling parking in both residential as well as commercial. Transit, street furniture, bike lanes, people walking around sipping lattes will come thereafter.
__________________
"Self defense is not violence" - Malcolm X
"I love Los Angeles. I love Hollywood. They're so beautiful. Everything's plastic, but I love plastic. I want to be plastic." - Andy Warhol
Minimum parking standards are fertility drugs for cars. - Donald Shoup
klamedia no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu