It's amazing that there's so much more people in Koreatown compared to places just right next to it like downtown and mid-wilshire. Why are they all so concentrated in K-town?
LA Neighborhood Population density ranking
http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/population-density/neighborhood/list/
Population density measures the numbers of people per square mile.
1. Koreatown
42,609
2. Westlake
38,212
3. East Hollywood
31,093
4. Pico-Union
25,351
5. Harvard Heights
23,472
6. Chinatown
22,515
7. Hollywood
22,150
8. Palms
21,983
9. Adams-Normandie
21,848
10. South Park
21,638
11. Arlington Heights
21,394
12. University Park
20,216
13. Historic South-Central
19,474
14. Central-Alameda
18,944
15. Vermont-Slauson
18,577
16. Panorama City
18,026
17. Vermont Knolls
17,995
18. Vermont Square
17,797
19. Larchmont
17,746
20. Pico-Robertson
17,531
21. Watts
17,350
22. Echo Park
16,867
23. Exposition Park
16,819
24. Highland Park
16,809
25. Jefferson Park
16,313
26. Harvard Park
16,072
27. Florence
15,673
28. Mid-City
15,051
29. Broadway-Manchester
15,001
30. Mid-Wilshire
14,986
31. West Adams
14,708
32. Vermont Vista
14,391
33. Boyle Heights
14,262
34. Los Feliz
13,511
35. Cypress Park
13,477
36. Sawtelle
13,364
37. North Hollywood
13,285
38. Westwood
13,063
39. Beverly Grove
12,857
40. Hyde Park
12,777
41. Green Meadows
12,665
42. Venice
12,368
43. Valley Glen
12,324
44. Canoga Park
12,239
45. Mar Vista
12,218
46. West Los Angeles
12,060
47. Valley Village
11,584
48. Van Nuys
11,541
49. Manchester Square
11,529
50. Del Rey
11,364
51. Silver Lake
11,266
52. Lincoln Heights
10,602
53. Reseda
10,599
54. Pacoima
10,542
55. Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw
10,184
56. Fairfax
10,113
57. Arleta
10,033
58. North Hills
10,001
59. El Sereno
9,945
60. Leimert Park
9,896
61. Winnetka
9,825
62. Carthay
9,661
63. Chesterfield Square
9,571
64. Elysian Valley
9,353
65. Harbor City
9,053
66. Gramercy Park
8,814
67. Glassell Park
8,522
68. Atwater Village
8,500
69. Windsor Square
8,255
70. Sun Valley
8,038
71. Century City
7,928
72. Harbor Gateway
7,920
73. Lake Balboa
7,753
74. Beverlywood
7,654
75. Eagle Rock
7,603
76. San Pedro
7,184
77. Montecito Heights
6,978
78. Mount Washington
6,878
79. Rancho Park
6,770
80. Sherman Oaks
6,687
81. Toluca Lake
6,488
82. Hancock Park
6,458
83. Northridge
6,079
84. Mission Hills
5,721
85. Sylmar
5,587
86. Wilmington
5,537
87. Studio City
5,405
88. Downtown
4,777
89. West Hills
4,589
90. Encino
4,411
91. Porter Ranch
4,359
92. Cheviot Hills
4,348
93. Tarzana
4,038
94. Woodland Hills
4,025
95. Sunland
3,860
96. Westchester
3,816
97. Playa del Rey
3,382
98. Granada Hills
3,292
99. Hollywood Hills
3,062
100. Hollywood Hills West
3,039
101. Lake View Terrace
2,814
102. Tujunga
2,621
103. Chatsworth
2,250
104. Brentwood
2,061
105. Playa Vista
1,698
106. Elysian Park
1,538
107. Beverly Crest
1,349
108. Bel-Air
1,197
109. Pacific Palisades
1,053
110. Shadow Hills
1,023
Population density measures the numbers of people per square mile.
1. Koreatown
42,609
2. Westlake
38,212
3. East Hollywood
31,093
4. Pico-Union
25,351
5. Harvard Heights
23,472
6. Chinatown
22,515
7. Hollywood
22,150
8. Palms
21,983
9. Adams-Normandie
21,848
10. South Park
21,638
11. Arlington Heights
21,394
12. University Park
20,216
13. Historic South-Central
19,474
14. Central-Alameda
18,944
15. Vermont-Slauson
18,577
16. Panorama City
18,026
17. Vermont Knolls
17,995
18. Vermont Square
17,797
19. Larchmont
17,746
20. Pico-Robertson
17,531
21. Watts
17,350
22. Echo Park
16,867
23. Exposition Park
16,819
24. Highland Park
16,809
25. Jefferson Park
16,313
26. Harvard Park
16,072
27. Florence
15,673
28. Mid-City
15,051
29. Broadway-Manchester
15,001
30. Mid-Wilshire
14,986
31. West Adams
14,708
32. Vermont Vista
14,391
33. Boyle Heights
14,262
34. Los Feliz
13,511
35. Cypress Park
13,477
36. Sawtelle
13,364
37. North Hollywood
13,285
38. Westwood
13,063
39. Beverly Grove
12,857
40. Hyde Park
12,777
41. Green Meadows
12,665
42. Venice
12,368
43. Valley Glen
12,324
44. Canoga Park
12,239
45. Mar Vista
12,218
46. West Los Angeles
12,060
47. Valley Village
11,584
48. Van Nuys
11,541
49. Manchester Square
11,529
50. Del Rey
11,364
51. Silver Lake
11,266
52. Lincoln Heights
10,602
53. Reseda
10,599
54. Pacoima
10,542
55. Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw
10,184
56. Fairfax
10,113
57. Arleta
10,033
58. North Hills
10,001
59. El Sereno
9,945
60. Leimert Park
9,896
61. Winnetka
9,825
62. Carthay
9,661
63. Chesterfield Square
9,571
64. Elysian Valley
9,353
65. Harbor City
9,053
66. Gramercy Park
8,814
67. Glassell Park
8,522
68. Atwater Village
8,500
69. Windsor Square
8,255
70. Sun Valley
8,038
71. Century City
7,928
72. Harbor Gateway
7,920
73. Lake Balboa
7,753
74. Beverlywood
7,654
75. Eagle Rock
7,603
76. San Pedro
7,184
77. Montecito Heights
6,978
78. Mount Washington
6,878
79. Rancho Park
6,770
80. Sherman Oaks
6,687
81. Toluca Lake
6,488
82. Hancock Park
6,458
83. Northridge
6,079
84. Mission Hills
5,721
85. Sylmar
5,587
86. Wilmington
5,537
87. Studio City
5,405
88. Downtown
4,777
89. West Hills
4,589
90. Encino
4,411
91. Porter Ranch
4,359
92. Cheviot Hills
4,348
93. Tarzana
4,038
94. Woodland Hills
4,025
95. Sunland
3,860
96. Westchester
3,816
97. Playa del Rey
3,382
98. Granada Hills
3,292
99. Hollywood Hills
3,062
100. Hollywood Hills West
3,039
101. Lake View Terrace
2,814
102. Tujunga
2,621
103. Chatsworth
2,250
104. Brentwood
2,061
105. Playa Vista
1,698
106. Elysian Park
1,538
107. Beverly Crest
1,349
108. Bel-Air
1,197
109. Pacific Palisades
1,053
110. Shadow Hills
1,023
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Koreatown lends itself to density because of its multi-family housing stock. There may be some sfh in Koreatown but not too many. Most streets are lined with multiple family dwellings representing every architectual style of the 20th century to hit SoCal (from post modern to post dingbat) and on top of that they are "affordable", no...let me take the quotes off, they really are affordable. There just isn't enough to be said about Ktown, truly my jaw dropped when I first saw it. Koreatown remains the most densest, affordable, transit friendly and architectually significant neighborhood on the West coast. What?
A friend of mine has lived in K-town for the last 23 years and he's seen a lot of high points and low points. Perhaps the lowest point was during the 92 riots when the neighborhood was in siege, but the area is experiencing a rennaisance of late.
Amen, re Ktown. About 5 min to DT and 10 min to Hollywood by subway. Old bars and nightlife on Wilshire (and everywhere else if you are into Korean food and karaoke). A nice DT architectural feel (old churches, high-rises, etc.). Just enough street people to
give an urban feel, without feeling you are in a war zone.
The housing is largely 10-30 year-old multi-story apartments mixed with newer high rise. Still quite a bit of the classic LA look though.
This used to be called the "working-girls ghetto" since so many single women working as secretaries, accountants and such (not prostitutes) working DT lived there. Even then it was convenient, cheaper than the westside and safer than DT proper.
The difference between Ktown and adjacent Westlake (which is number 2 in density) is interesting to note. The density there is from small houses and very crowded apartment buildings. It has not had the investment of Ktown and is missing the high-rises and office buildings of Ktown (Wilshire in Westlake probably it's lowest point economically.) Very little newer apartment construction for 40 years at least.
Same idea for 3 and 4 (E. Hollywood and Pico-Union).
give an urban feel, without feeling you are in a war zone.
The housing is largely 10-30 year-old multi-story apartments mixed with newer high rise. Still quite a bit of the classic LA look though.
This used to be called the "working-girls ghetto" since so many single women working as secretaries, accountants and such (not prostitutes) working DT lived there. Even then it was convenient, cheaper than the westside and safer than DT proper.
The difference between Ktown and adjacent Westlake (which is number 2 in density) is interesting to note. The density there is from small houses and very crowded apartment buildings. It has not had the investment of Ktown and is missing the high-rises and office buildings of Ktown (Wilshire in Westlake probably it's lowest point economically.) Very little newer apartment construction for 40 years at least.
Same idea for 3 and 4 (E. Hollywood and Pico-Union).
Are you sure about this statement? So you're saying that most of the housing stock was built during and after the late 70's? Just by eyeballing the place I see lots of 20's-30's era residential and not too few 50's and 60's stuff as well.The housing is largely 10-30 year-old multi-story apartments mixed with newer high rise. Still quite a bit of the classic LA look though.
ok just went here: http://www.healthycity.org/c/resear...6,7.0048156772954,10.1937657961247,100/yk/071
which is a great place to find data on housing in LA.
Surprisingly yes alot of housing stock was built in the last 10 years.....nearly 11%! Kudos to Koreatown!! Almost nothing was built between 1990-2000 which shows that the hood was already in decline by the time Rodney King pleaded a truce in his famous "can we all just get along?" quote. Ktown had just about an even record of new builds from the 40's up until the 90's which highlights its most remarkable feature of housing stock spanning every decade after LA took its place in the million+ club. The most housing stock that was built in Ktown was prior to 1939 with 27% of it being built then.
This site doesn't get into tear downs and what is actually still standing as opposed to what was built there and when. So it still could be true that most of the housing is post-Nixon era stuff.
which is a great place to find data on housing in LA.
Surprisingly yes alot of housing stock was built in the last 10 years.....nearly 11%! Kudos to Koreatown!! Almost nothing was built between 1990-2000 which shows that the hood was already in decline by the time Rodney King pleaded a truce in his famous "can we all just get along?" quote. Ktown had just about an even record of new builds from the 40's up until the 90's which highlights its most remarkable feature of housing stock spanning every decade after LA took its place in the million+ club. The most housing stock that was built in Ktown was prior to 1939 with 27% of it being built then.
This site doesn't get into tear downs and what is actually still standing as opposed to what was built there and when. So it still could be true that most of the housing is post-Nixon era stuff.
K-Town is too crowded for my taste...
^^ Considering SSC is almost 100% pro-urbanity...what the hell are you doing here? You need to find a cul-de-sac forum, IMO.
klam: I bow to your superior research since I was primarily giving my impressions from looking around. But I guess your research tends to agree with my observations.
Broadly speaking, the area from Vermont past Western from about 3rd to 6th; and from 7th to 8th, has developed a large number of large 4-5 story apartments that have the 1970/90's look to them. Wilshire and 1 block either side tend to have higher rise residential, from the last 10-20 years. As you move north toward East Hollywood, east toward Westlake, south toward Pico, you get more old housing and small sfh.
The newer apartments and condos are mostly Korean; the older housing mostly Hispanic but with Koreans as well (I assume they are Koreans since I don't see Vietnamese, Chinese or Japanese signs in the hood and Thai signs are mostly north of Beverly).
I don't have any particular point to this except that denstiy can come either from medium to high rises or from sfh and shabby apartments full of people crammed together.
Broadly speaking, the area from Vermont past Western from about 3rd to 6th; and from 7th to 8th, has developed a large number of large 4-5 story apartments that have the 1970/90's look to them. Wilshire and 1 block either side tend to have higher rise residential, from the last 10-20 years. As you move north toward East Hollywood, east toward Westlake, south toward Pico, you get more old housing and small sfh.
The newer apartments and condos are mostly Korean; the older housing mostly Hispanic but with Koreans as well (I assume they are Koreans since I don't see Vietnamese, Chinese or Japanese signs in the hood and Thai signs are mostly north of Beverly).
I don't have any particular point to this except that denstiy can come either from medium to high rises or from sfh and shabby apartments full of people crammed together.
fern: There's no arguing about taste, but I find Ktown to be a wonderful level of density. It is not like being in Manhattan or DT LA, but still with people on the main streets (Wilshire, Vermont, Western) and many of the side streets (and I do mean "many" not just 1 or 2). You can live in a pleasant modern apartment within blocks of a subway, shopping, bars and restaurants. People walking their dogs, going to the dentist, kids in strollers, urban types, business people. Not as intense as DT, because streets are wider and buildings in general are lower but not a subrban feel at all.
Parking is a pain but possible if you really need a car. I assume the apartments provide it.
Main drawback: more Korean food than necessary; some barbeque, bistros, or pretty much anything other than Korean would be nice. But you can take the subway to Hollywood or DT or (pretty soon) the westside.
Parking is a pain but possible if you really need a car. I assume the apartments provide it.
Main drawback: more Korean food than necessary; some barbeque, bistros, or pretty much anything other than Korean would be nice. But you can take the subway to Hollywood or DT or (pretty soon) the westside.
when you look at the actual density map on the website
http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/population-density/neighborhood/list/
the map is a little misleading but interesting at the same time. the factor of density seems to stick to two main directions if you use downtown as a central focal point.
first the obvious misleading info is the downtown population. it is not 27,000 but more or less than 40,000, the population is still growing very rapidly so the 2010 census will give us an official number. still a small number of people per square mile(6000) than lets say koreatown(42,000) but thats mostly do to the area downtown encompasses. downtown is 5.8sq miles and koreatown is 2.7sq miles. factor in the daytime population then were in business, 210,000 divided by 5.8= 36,000 people per square mile.
second is were you will find the residential densities two directions are south and west. most if not all of the heavily populated neighborhoods are west and south of downtown with the exception of lincoln heights. downtown seems to be the eastern most point in which you run into alot of density, but even that is condensed on the western part of the neighborhood. to be fair the city limits don't go much further east from downtown the most eastern neighborhood is mine El Sereno and it is not densely populated about 6 miles from union station. the neighboring cities of alhambra and pasadena are more dense.
the trend i see is when it comes to very high density the south and western parts of the city will be the mega centers. but mainly the west. the southern tip i think will be USC and the surrounding area. and bunker hill near the grand ave project is the most east most of it will go, due to the large area of government owned buildings that create a break in the flow of buildings. and do i even need to bring up the san fernando valley? which i think should stay low dense suburban single family houses. focusing on the west such as koreatown, west la, westwood, and such creates our little manhatton.
http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/population-density/neighborhood/list/
the map is a little misleading but interesting at the same time. the factor of density seems to stick to two main directions if you use downtown as a central focal point.
first the obvious misleading info is the downtown population. it is not 27,000 but more or less than 40,000, the population is still growing very rapidly so the 2010 census will give us an official number. still a small number of people per square mile(6000) than lets say koreatown(42,000) but thats mostly do to the area downtown encompasses. downtown is 5.8sq miles and koreatown is 2.7sq miles. factor in the daytime population then were in business, 210,000 divided by 5.8= 36,000 people per square mile.
second is were you will find the residential densities two directions are south and west. most if not all of the heavily populated neighborhoods are west and south of downtown with the exception of lincoln heights. downtown seems to be the eastern most point in which you run into alot of density, but even that is condensed on the western part of the neighborhood. to be fair the city limits don't go much further east from downtown the most eastern neighborhood is mine El Sereno and it is not densely populated about 6 miles from union station. the neighboring cities of alhambra and pasadena are more dense.
the trend i see is when it comes to very high density the south and western parts of the city will be the mega centers. but mainly the west. the southern tip i think will be USC and the surrounding area. and bunker hill near the grand ave project is the most east most of it will go, due to the large area of government owned buildings that create a break in the flow of buildings. and do i even need to bring up the san fernando valley? which i think should stay low dense suburban single family houses. focusing on the west such as koreatown, west la, westwood, and such creates our little manhatton.
dachacon: agree completely with your analysis. The west will become dense because of demand; prices will rise but not as much as SF or NY which have constrained areas of growth. SM, BH, CC, WeHo will do their own things, which is probably 3-5 story units mixed with occasional areas of medium-rises. LA will mostly be the same, but with more medium-rises.
The density map is a bit misleading since it includes only residential and also has odd anomalies (e.g., Westchester is actually fairly dense but includes LAX and lots of commercial areas, so comes out looking very sparse). It (and Ktown) have a lot of daytime office and commercial use as well so are denser on the street than in the statistics.
The density map is a bit misleading since it includes only residential and also has odd anomalies (e.g., Westchester is actually fairly dense but includes LAX and lots of commercial areas, so comes out looking very sparse). It (and Ktown) have a lot of daytime office and commercial use as well so are denser on the street than in the statistics.
Because of the high undocumented population in the area we really will never get a true reading of how dense LA really is. One thing that we do know is that there is some massive overcrowding going on in the city and its surrounding areas. Maywood and Cudahy both make the Top Ten of the US densest cities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density
This is very true. Even here in Sylmar, almost every lot has a garage in the back that has been converted to an apartment or some other sort of housing unit with multiple people living in them. It is very crowded in this area. I've lived all over LA and know that this area is as busy as some of the more densely reported areas on this list. I'd easily add another 2 or 3 million people to the metro area's reported "official" population.Because of the high undocumented population in the area we really will never get a true reading of how dense LA really is. One thing that we do know is that there is some massive overcrowding going on in the city and its surrounding areas. Maywood and Cudahy both make the Top Ten of the US densest cities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population_density
all true; however, the numbers may already have been adjusted for some estimate of this kind of "shadow" residential group. In any event, most of the denser areas probably need to be adjusted as much or more than less dense areas.
So what should be the social strategy: encourage "demand" density (by allowing medium and high-rise) where it is caused by desirability and discourage "slum" density where it is caused by cramming 10 into an apartment built for 2?
So what should be the social strategy: encourage "demand" density (by allowing medium and high-rise) where it is caused by desirability and discourage "slum" density where it is caused by cramming 10 into an apartment built for 2?
The Los Angeles Times has a great editorial piece on the managing of LA, but what i mostly got out of it is basically the war between the people who move here from other areas and expecting to live in a vibrant urban scene, along with contributing to the vibrancy, to those who have been here for years and want to keep LA basically 72 suburbs looking for a city with there backyard bbq's, and NIMBYism. this quote from the article sums it up pretty nicely:
I really should shut up now and stop ranting. :nuts::nuts:
Los Angeles is a growing city and these population figures show it. its amazing that some parts of our city rival the density's of New York or Chicago. so its time to for the old timers to realize that Los Angeles is just gonna get more dense and hopefully better. its not gonna be the end of the world. as I pointed out earlier the whole city does not have to change the San Fernando Valley can stay the same. with the the west side of the the city going vertical. looking at pictures of New York from NYGirl the outer boroughs still have single family houses with yards and a suburban feel but still within the city limits. if New York can do it so can we. the only really urbanized part of new york is Manhattan."Yet many residents, especially those who have spent most of their lives here, often want simply to be left alone, and want their government to keep them safe and hold wrenching change at bay without raising their costs of living. What's the point, after all, of moving here and investing in a home if the quality of life and the opportunities are going to be no different than they were in the crowded, expensive cities they left?
Those who aspire to civic greatness and those who aspire to backyard barbecues have this in common: They seem perpetually disappointed in Los Angeles. Each blames the other for the wrong vision, but the source of their discontent is probably something more prosaic. Los Angeles, the municipality, is poorly managed."
I really should shut up now and stop ranting. :nuts::nuts:
heres the article from the times with the quotes above highlighted:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-city11-2010jan11,0,7335524.story
L.A. needs a long-term plan]
The poorly managed city needs a road map for the future for land use, for its government workforce and for finances.
Los Angeles, the city -- not L.A. the megalopolis or the culture or the state of mind, but Los Angeles, the incorporated municipality -- seems perpetually unable to figure out what it is, what it should be and where it is going. Civic boosters clamor for a place on the world stage and call for sweeping programs to enhance its glamour. What, after all, is the point of being such a large city if its clout and spotlight can't be put to use to make a positive mark on history? Yet many residents, especially those who have spent most of their lives here, often want simply to be left alone, and want their government to keep them safe and hold wrenching change at bay without raising their costs of living. What's the point, after all, of moving here and investing in a home if the quality of life and the opportunities are going to be no different than they were in the crowded, expensive cities they left?
Those who aspire to civic greatness and those who aspire to backyard barbecues have this in common: They seem perpetually disappointed in Los Angeles. Each blames the other for the wrong vision, but the source of their discontent is probably something more prosaic. Los Angeles, the municipality, is poorly managed.
Over the coming weeks, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the City Council will begin grappling with ideas to keep ahead of a lingering $400-million structural deficit. Already tossed about for months have been ideas such as jettisoning the zoo, the convention center and parking garages. By all means, if it makes sense for the city to let them go, it should.
But the mayor and the council shouldn't mistake hacking off city departments for a long-term strategic plan for management and growth. It is such a plan -- a workable one, not just a stump speech -- that Los Angeles lacks. We need a road map for the future for land use, for spending, for the city's workforce and for finances. We need to make backup plans (if we can't afford recreation programs, for example, who can provide them?) and to ask hard questions (what happens if we simply eliminate recreation programs?).
Such strategizing doesn't come naturally to most politicians, and there's no shame in that, as long as they recognize their shortcomings and call for support. There is expertise in-house, if only city management -- the elected officials -- would listen. If not, maybe before contracting out the parking meters, they ought to contract out for some long-term thinking.
Our leaders do understand priorities. Villaraigosa has put public safety first, and contrary to any expectation, it has been his most stunning success. That forms the groundwork both for residents who want to be left in peace and dreamers who want to achieve civic greatness. If he (and the council) can get on with the more mundane, but urgent, matter of managing City Hall, perhaps he can again focus on the aspirations and excitement that made voters turn to him in the first place.
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-city11-2010jan11,0,7335524.story
L.A. needs a long-term plan]
The poorly managed city needs a road map for the future for land use, for its government workforce and for finances.
Los Angeles, the city -- not L.A. the megalopolis or the culture or the state of mind, but Los Angeles, the incorporated municipality -- seems perpetually unable to figure out what it is, what it should be and where it is going. Civic boosters clamor for a place on the world stage and call for sweeping programs to enhance its glamour. What, after all, is the point of being such a large city if its clout and spotlight can't be put to use to make a positive mark on history? Yet many residents, especially those who have spent most of their lives here, often want simply to be left alone, and want their government to keep them safe and hold wrenching change at bay without raising their costs of living. What's the point, after all, of moving here and investing in a home if the quality of life and the opportunities are going to be no different than they were in the crowded, expensive cities they left?
Those who aspire to civic greatness and those who aspire to backyard barbecues have this in common: They seem perpetually disappointed in Los Angeles. Each blames the other for the wrong vision, but the source of their discontent is probably something more prosaic. Los Angeles, the municipality, is poorly managed.
Over the coming weeks, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and the City Council will begin grappling with ideas to keep ahead of a lingering $400-million structural deficit. Already tossed about for months have been ideas such as jettisoning the zoo, the convention center and parking garages. By all means, if it makes sense for the city to let them go, it should.
But the mayor and the council shouldn't mistake hacking off city departments for a long-term strategic plan for management and growth. It is such a plan -- a workable one, not just a stump speech -- that Los Angeles lacks. We need a road map for the future for land use, for spending, for the city's workforce and for finances. We need to make backup plans (if we can't afford recreation programs, for example, who can provide them?) and to ask hard questions (what happens if we simply eliminate recreation programs?).
Such strategizing doesn't come naturally to most politicians, and there's no shame in that, as long as they recognize their shortcomings and call for support. There is expertise in-house, if only city management -- the elected officials -- would listen. If not, maybe before contracting out the parking meters, they ought to contract out for some long-term thinking.
Our leaders do understand priorities. Villaraigosa has put public safety first, and contrary to any expectation, it has been his most stunning success. That forms the groundwork both for residents who want to be left in peace and dreamers who want to achieve civic greatness. If he (and the council) can get on with the more mundane, but urgent, matter of managing City Hall, perhaps he can again focus on the aspirations and excitement that made voters turn to him in the first place.
Copyright © 2010, The Los Angeles Times
my last post. i was wondering what is the densest part of LA in terms of zip codes since neighborhoods are to big a give skewed results (i.e. Downtown's population) looking at city-data.com it apears to be 90020 with a little over 40,000 people per square mile. can anyone find a denser area?
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
SkyscraperCity Forum
A forum community dedicated to skyscrapers, towers, highrises, construction, and city planning enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about structures, styles, reviews, scale, transportation, skylines, architecture, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Katarzyna DJ
6920 Replies
calatravavx
3070 Replies
Srdjan Adamovic
1672 Replies
Recommended Communities
