Urbanizing the Santa Monicas?

[edsg25]

I know that getting the message out how much LA has urbanized and become dense has been a major goal for LA forumers. And you guys are unquestionably right: Los Angeles is a far more dense and urban city today than in the past and people who don't see that haven't been to LA or are living in the past.

The reasons for your urbanization are obvious: a growing population in the city and the metro area are obvious. Equally obvious though is the limitation that elevation places on development; there are some metro LA landscpes that just can't be used for human development.

But there are others that are. Or might be. That whole Hollywood Hills/Santa Monica Mountains region between the city and the valley becomes low density in a city that is relatively dense. Development in this area has always been there in the canyons (Laurel, Coldwater, Bev Glen, etc.), but spotty in other locations.

So here's the question: is LA ready to tackle the Santa Monicas and turn them into a true urban environment, something akin to the way that San Francisco uranized the higher reaches of Twin Peaks, Mt. Davidson, and Mt. Sutro?

Is the technology there to grade what would become incredibly high valued land and make it more suitable for development? Or are fire, mudslide, and earthquake too much of a detriment, along with the sheer steep grade of this real estate.

Will this area always be the natural open space between the tightly packed city and valley.....or will real estate pressure and improved building methods make it fill in to be more like the lower landscapes on either side of it?

[z1sthies]

I don't think they should build in the Santa Monica Mountains, I like them the way they are, besides aren't the Santa Monica Mountains a national park?

[Fern~Fern*]

If they do continue to built up the SM Mountains. You know those are going to be million dollar homes only. Since that's all you have on the Valley and on the westside. So most of us pretty much won't be able to afford.

Anyhow, edgs25 do you live in LA????

[svs]

Originally Posted by edsg25

I know that getting the message out how much LA has urbanized and become dense has been a major goal for LA forumers. And you guys are unquestionably right: Los Angeles is a far more dense and urban city today than in the past and people who don't see that haven't been to LA or are living in the past.

The reasons for your urbanization are obvious: a growing population in the city and the metro area are obvious. Equally obvious though is the limitation that elevation places on development; there are some metro LA landscpes that just can't be used for human development.

But there are others that are. Or might be. That whole Hollywood Hills/Santa Monica Mountains region between the city and the valley becomes low density in a city that is relatively dense. Development in this area has always been there in the canyons (Laurel, Coldwater, Bev Glen, etc.), but spotty in other locations.

So here's the question: is LA ready to tackle the Santa Monicas and turn them into a true urban environment, something akin to the way that San Francisco uranized the higher reaches of Twin Peaks, Mt. Davidson, and Mt. Sutro?

Is the technology there to grade what would become incredibly high valued land and make it more suitable for development? Or are fire, mudslide, and earthquake too much of a detriment, along with the sheer steep grade of this real estate.

Will this area always be the natural open space between the tightly packed city and valley.....or will real estate pressure and improved building methods make it fill in to be more like the lower landscapes on either side of it?

An awful lot of this land is reserved as parkland: Santa Monica Nat'l Recreation area, and will never be developed. A better question is the land to be kept as semi-wilderness or at least partially developed into public parkland?

Also will any more roads be put through the area to facilitate travel between the valley and the city?

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by Ferneynism

If they do continue to built up the SM Mountains. You know those are going to be million dollar homes only. Since that's all you have on the Valley and on the westside. So most of us pretty much won't be able to afford.

Anyhow, edgs25 do you live in LA????

native and life-long Chicagoan

[Quickdraw]

Originally Posted by Ferneynism

Anyhow, edgs25 do you live in LA????

Nah, in cell block 6 thats my cellmate at Metropolitan Correctional Center. We both in Chicago, Downtown to be exact. Yo Edgs where's my shank?

[Westheangelino]

Originally Posted by edsg25

I know that getting the message out how much LA has urbanized and become dense has been a major goal for LA forumers. And you guys are unquestionably right: Los Angeles is a far more dense and urban city today than in the past and people who don't see that haven't been to LA or are living in the past.

The reasons for your urbanization are obvious: a growing population in the city and the metro area are obvious. Equally obvious though is the limitation that elevation places on development; there are some metro LA landscpes that just can't be used for human development.

But there are others that are. Or might be. That whole Hollywood Hills/Santa Monica Mountains region between the city and the valley becomes low density in a city that is relatively dense. Development in this area has always been there in the canyons (Laurel, Coldwater, Bev Glen, etc.), but spotty in other locations.

So here's the question: is LA ready to tackle the Santa Monicas and turn them into a true urban environment, something akin to the way that San Francisco uranized the higher reaches of Twin Peaks, Mt. Davidson, and Mt. Sutro?

Is the technology there to grade what would become incredibly high valued land and make it more suitable for development? Or are fire, mudslide, and earthquake too much of a detriment, along with the sheer steep grade of this real estate.

Will this area always be the natural open space between the tightly packed city and valley.....or will real estate pressure and improved building methods make it fill in to be more like the lower landscapes on either side of it?

Such development was already proposed in the early 80's. Two more north/south freeways were planned along with making Mulholland an 8 lane highway (no joke). This was quashed by existing home owners who didnt want any multi-family units around and "environmentalists" who wanted to protect the Santa Monicas (in fact, these groups were one and the same for the most part). So, don't expect anything significant to happen in the Santa Monicas for quite sometime.

[Imperial Teen]

Most of the land is set aside as state parks. I think the federal govt might have a hand in the area also given the presence of one of the old abandoned Nike missle bases. Plus the city has a few acres set aside.

I am most familiar with Topanga Canyon st park, Will Rogers and San Vincente Park via trail running and hiking. All together there are about 25-30K acres of protected wilderness confined within the city limits/metro.

I would be completely against urbanizing it. It's a real QOL assest. It would make as much sense as paving over the Marin Headlands. Plus, it is very rugged terrain. A comparison to Twin Peaks is not accurate. I'm not sure building dense neighborhoods is feasible (at least without some serious geologic remodeling)

[godblessbotox]

the government sold about 300,000 acers of public land about two weeks ago so there might be some of it going away... i forget were the actual sales were made but it does not look good anyhow.

its all in the bush plan for economic recovery thanks to his war

[edsg25]

I was always under the impression that the largest percentage of public land in the mountian chain was not in LA proper, but to the west....and understandably sparser area and one not affected by serving as a divsion between city and valley.

I was not suggesting the SM's be developed within LA city limits (comparing them to an area that needs to be preserved for its roughed like the Marin Headlines made sense by one of the previous posters). My point was more: will population pressure tip the scale in favor of development of the SM's witin LA at some point? Let's keep in mind that SF has little reason to want to see the Marin Headlands redeveloped ast LA might need to see the SM's redevelop (plus: Marin is outside of SF city limits anyway).

With no "should" or "shouldn't", will land values and population pressures eventually lead to land grading and development of vast stretches of the SM's?

[Westheangelino]

Originally Posted by edsg25

I was always under the impression that the largest percentage of public land in the mountian chain was not in LA proper, but to the west....and understandably sparser area and one not affected by serving as a divsion between city and valley.

I was not suggesting the SM's be developed within LA city limits (comparing them to an area that needs to be preserved for its roughed like the Marin Headlines made sense by one of the previous posters). My point was more: will population pressure tip the scale in favor of development of the SM's witin LA at some point? Let's keep in mind that SF has little reason to want to see the Marin Headlands redeveloped ast LA might need to see the SM's redevelop (plus: Marin is outside of SF city limits anyway).

With no "should" or "shouldn't", will land values and population pressures eventually lead to land grading and development of vast stretches of the SM's?

The far more likely scenario is that LA will densify and build up as San Francisco has done. I doubt you'll see widescale urbanization of the Santa Monicas before you see a crop of high-rise apartments.

[svs]

Well the Santa Monica above hollywood are already pretty built up, but mostly with single family homes. These are the famous canyons and the hollywood hlls you hear so much about. THere is less dense development in the Western Santa Monicas that are still within city limits. A lot of the land is held in state parks like Topanga State Park (11,000+ acres, more than twice the size of Grffith park and all within city limits believe it or not).

I think the more likely build up of LA will be in the flats, west, south, and east of downtown. There is a lot of land that could be built up with high density middle/lower middle class housing in these areas that have been pretty much ignored. There is a lot more land to build on in LA than SF. I suspect a lot of the build up will occur near the metro stops. When the yellow line to East LA is complete, I suspect there will be major change in that area very soon.

[SILVERLAKE]

IT WILL BE HARD TO ROOT UP AND TEAR DOWN CURRENT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. WHAT WE WILL DO IS TEAR UP STRIPMALLS AND ONE-STORY RETAIL AND BUILD SKYSCRAPERS ALONG ALL MAJOR BOULEVARDS. WE COULD PROBABLY ADD ENOUGH HOUSING UNITS TO ADD 2-3 MILLION MORE PEOPLE WITH THAT ALONE.

WE COULD ALSO DECLARE IMMENENT DOMAIN ON ALL BLIGHTED NEIGHBORHOODS, TEAR THEM UP AND BUILD HUNDREDS OF SKYSCRAPERS. IT WILL BE TOUGH TO EVER CHANGE THE LOOK OF BEL AIR, BRENTWOOD, HANCOCK PARK. THOSE WILL FOREVER BE MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY HOME PLACES WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS.

NO NEED TO RUIN NATURAL PRESERVE

ISNT SF MOSTLY VICTORIAN HOUSES AND OTHER 2-4 STORY MULTIFAMILY UNITS? HAVE THEY REALLY BUILT UP?

[Yakumoto]

Originally Posted by SILVERLAKE

ISNT SF MOSTLY VICTORIAN HOUSES AND OTHER 2-4 STORY MULTIFAMILY UNITS? HAVE THEY REALLY BUILT UP?

No, SF hasn't built up at all...Los Angeles is way more built up.

Oh yeah, and we should definatly tear down the blighted neighborhoods, THATS A GOOD IDEA

[SILVERLAKE]

Originally Posted by Yakumoto

No, SF hasn't built up at all...Los Angeles is way more built up.

Oh yeah, and we should definatly tear down the blighted neighborhoods, THATS A GOOD IDEA

You might think LA is more built up. I don't.

San Francisco has neigborhoods with people packed into 2-4 story buildings (pacific heights, ashbury district, nob hill, little italy area). What neighborhood of SF is covered with apartment skyscrapers?

How can we build up if we don't tear down?

[Fern~Fern*]

Originally Posted by Quickdraw

Nah, in cell block 6 thats my cellmate at Metropolitan Correctional Center. We both in Chicago, Downtown to be exact. Yo Edgs where's my shank?

So when you ask edsg25 "where's my shank" are you guys like good cellmate's????

Wow edgs25 your a bad boy!!!!

[Fern~Fern*]

[QUOTE=Westheangelino]Such development was already proposed in the early 80's. Two more north/south freeways were planned along with making Mulholland an 8 lane highway (no joke).

Music to my ears..... how do we get this idea back on overdrive. 8 lanes.....

[Samuel64]

8 Lanes!!!??? holy crap. That would cut down traffic reaaaalll good!

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by Yakumoto

No, SF hasn't built up at all...Los Angeles is way more built up.

Oh yeah, and we should definatly tear down the blighted neighborhoods, THATS A GOOD IDEA

The misleading factor about LA is that of its claimed 465 sq miles, that includes national parks and rugged mountains. These places are uninhabitable either by law or by logic. San Fran granted is considered the densest city after New York, although it is factual, it is misleading.

[Robert Stark]

Do you think SF will grow denser or is it completely built up. When the chinese take over they might turn it into Hongkong packed with skyscrapers.