Does Los Angeles have the greatest location of any city in the world?

[kalibob32]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

^ To some people, LA is hell. To others, it's heaven. It can be the worst place on Earth, or it can be the most amazing thrill you've ever experienced. That's really what LA is all about. It's what YOU make of it. This is a city that epitomizes what it means to have no boundaries/limits. You can be whoever/whatever you want to be. Some people will never understand it and that's okay. It is not meant to be fully understood, not even by those who are blessed to call it home.

i like what you wrote

[Westsidelife]

Originally Posted by PragmaticIdealist

The oil, cars, and freeways are the things that prevent southern California from offering the best quality of life on the planet.

Of course, oil, cars, and freeways are not inherently detractors of quality of life. Every city has oil, every city has cars, and every city has freeways. Not having those things would actually worsen quality of life. It has more to do with the degree to which those three resources exist. San Diego certainly has an abundance of those things, but San Diego is also known for its high quality of life. The difference is that San Diego is five and a half times smaller than Los Angeles.

[Westsidelife]

Originally Posted by PragmaticIdealist

I would have loved to see the place when my grandparents came in the '40's. Just imagine what it would be like if we had kept the trains and the Pacific Electric Red Cars.

Well, parts of the Pacific Electric Railway have been/are being brought back to life (Blue Line, Expo Line, etc.). Besides, it would have no use today. We would have eventually upgraded it through increased capacity and grade separation (Red Line through Cahuenga Pass).

[PragmaticIdealist]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

Of course, oil, cars, and freeways are not inherently detractors of quality of life. Every city has oil, every city has cars, and every city has freeways. Not having those things would actually worsen quality of life. It has more to do with the degree to which those three resources exist. San Diego certainly has an abundance of those things, but San Diego is also known for its high quality of life. The difference is that San Diego is five and a half times smaller than Los Angeles.

The criticisms of greater Los Angeles seem to always involve: smog; lack of a sense of community; socioeconomic balkanization with resultant crime; traffic congestion; disinvestment in existing communities and older real estate; housing unaffordability; significant socioeconomic disparities in educational achievement; substandard and mediocre new construction; loss of historic and heritage buildings; loss of open space and natural resources; etc.

All of these problems are due in whole or in part to the freeway system and to private cars, especially those that operate on fossil fuels.

Southern California needs more high-quality transit, transit-oriented development, and clean-energy car sharing.

[Westsidelife]

^ You're right. The private automobile is responsible for all of that. And once we have high-quality mass transit in place, everything will correct itself. Mass transit is the closest thing there is to a panacea.

[pesto]

Actually, that's true. I hear that in heaven there is lots of drug use, crime, disease, racial hatred, homophobia, fear and mistrust, but the subways are so good than nobody cares.

[heywindup]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

^ You're right. The private automobile is responsible for all of that. And once we have high-quality mass transit in place, everything will correct itself. Mass transit is the closest thing there is to a panacea.

London, New York, Tokyo are the greatest cities in the world and one thing they have in common is having high-quality mass transit.

Los Angeles is just one big suburb. Sorry.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Trolling behavior will not be tolerated. If you are trying to incite a war here, you will be given an infraction. back up what you say with facts or dont say it at all.

[dweebo2220]

The criticisms of greater Los Angeles seem to always involve:

smog--caused by the ports and trucking (not the personal auto)

lack of a sense of community--somewhat related to personal auto use but also related to the high diversity (of all kinds) of residents.

socioeconomic balkanization with resultant crime--LA is the second safest city in US, and the 10 most segregated US cities are all in the Midwest and Northeast

traffic congestion--Los Angeles has fewer freeway miles per capita than most cities.. this is why we have such bad congestion.

disinvestment in existing communities and older real estate--maybe a problem, but not caused by cars.

housing unaffordability--Bay Area?? NYC??

significant socioeconomic disparities in educational achievement--true, a problem, but not caused by cars.

substandard and mediocre new construction--I'll give you this one, since parking requirements make new construction more expensive and shittier

loss of historic and heritage buildings--somewhat in some cases related to cars.

loss of open space and natural resources--you mean parks? because open space and natural resources abound outside the city. Within the city, parks are indeed a problem. But due to cars? I don't know. Plenty of other car cities have parks. We just fucked up.

[Westsidelife]

Originally Posted by heywindup

Los Angeles is just one big suburb. Sorry.

Uh, are you sure about that?

image hosted on flickr

From Flickr, by STERLINGDAVISPHOTO

image hosted on flickr

From Flickr, by randyman

image hosted on flickr

From Flickr, by jeremy!

[Westsidelife]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan

Trolling behavior will not be tolerated. If you are trying to incite a war here, you will be given an infraction. back up what you say with facts or dont say it at all.

Or how about just deleting comments?

[PragmaticIdealist]

This discussion is about the siting of Los Angeles as a human settlement. The geographical location is absolutely ideal, and the Los Angeles of the '20's, '30's, and '40's I'm sure was close to perfection. We started mucking things up when airlines and automobiles replaced trains and trolleys.

Deficient land-use and transportation planning during the second half of the 20th Century keeps the Los Angeles of today from being that perfect place the city, by all rights, should be.

[klamedia]

Agreed. But this is less of an Southern California problem and more of a national issue. Most of our metro areas in the US are:

1) less dense than Southern California
2) have more freeway miles than SoCal
3) have far less bus and rail miles and/or ridership than LA or SoCal

To stereotype LA or SoCal as the place of traffic, displaced communities and an under-achieved educational system is either painfully naive or boldly biased.

[PragmaticIdealist]

Originally Posted by klamedia

Agreed. But this is less of an Southern California problem and more of a national issue. Most of our metro areas in the US are:

1) less dense than Southern California
2) have more freeway miles than SoCal
3) have far less bus and rail miles and/or ridership than LA or SoCal

To stereotype LA or SoCal as the place of traffic, displaced communities and an under-achieved educational system is either painfully naive or boldly biased.

Let me just say that I love L.A. And, it's precisely because the natural environment in southern California is so perfect that the problems in the built environment disturb me more than they would in a place like Detroit, Chicago, or Cleveland. We had paradise here. We even had the largest electric railway in the world, but we allowed the oil, the automobiles, and the freeways to pave that paradise over for parking lots.

[milquetoast]

See what happens when you're not building? We descend to City-Data depths!

West? You are having a moment.

Now we appear desperate and will have to run around defending ourselves to every toothless British or Australian gomer across the planet!

.

Brush those teeth, mates, then come see us.

[dweebo2220]

The red cars really weren't paradise. They broke down all the time, had erratic schedules (even compared to today's buses) only went where the developers wanted them to, and ran almost entirely at-grade, often in the same lanes as auto traffic (especially in downtown). What was paradise was simply that there weren't that many people in L.A. and that land was cheap.

Having a car in 1920 was still much better than not having one.

[Westsidelife]

This discussion has really gotten off topic.

[PragmaticIdealist]

Some of my favorite places in southern California today were built along the streetcar, interurban, and other rail lines during the 19th Century and the first half of the 20th. Much of the character of that traditional development still exists in those places.

image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr


image hosted on flickr

[klamedia]

[quote]Now we appear desperate and will have to run around defending ourselves to every toothless British or Australian gomer across the planet! Brush those teeth, mates, then come see us.[quote/

[pesto]

WSL: great pictures of LA; just the kinds of scenes I love. LA is surprisingly urban it's just that most people tend to see the OC and other suburban areas, while in NY no one ever leaves Manhattan. The new DT, the westside filling-in and the subway helps change this.

You have to wonder about someone who goes to NY, London and Tokyo and the only thing he sees in common is that they have subways AND decides that this is what defines them as great cities.

As noted, we shouldn't romanticize the Red Car or mass transit in general. LA needs more transit but in many cities (including great ones) it is crowded, dirty, unreliable and occasionally dangerous. Plus it can't go everywhere a car can. And if you have ever been in Paris when they decide to strike, but only on some lines....