SkyscraperCity banner

21 - 40 of 45 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
The Valley is actually around 40-45% of the city's population at best and still has a very low population density by comparison.

The developments in SFV are nice, but again by comparison, the rest of the city is progressing along with much more news or already has a lot going on already.

I don't really think anyone is hating. It really comes across as much more factual than bias.
You clearly aren't going off of facts, you don't know what's going on in the Valley. You have not brought the facts to the table, yet want to claim facts? At the end of the day, the Valley is and will always be the Valley, so it should have a lower population density than a place like "Downtown" or "Koreatown". Downtown is finally blossoming to be a real "downtown" which it should of been all alone. It still has ways to go to become a Dowtown Manhttan, or San Francisco. The Valley is not trying to compete with Downtown or any other part of the city you claim to be "progressing so much" The Valley is good for what it is, it's one of the best areas in the Country. Beautiful suburban neighborhoods, accessible to cultural amenities, and low crime rate. the rest of the city still has ways to go to be the best at what they're aspring to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,292 Posts
You clearly aren't going off of facts, you don't know what's going on in the Valley. You have not brought the facts to the table, yet want to claim facts? At the end of the day, the Valley is and will always be the Valley, so it should have a lower population density than a place like "Downtown" or "Koreatown". Downtown is finally blossoming to be a real "downtown" which it should of been all alone. It still has ways to go to become a Dowtown Manhttan, or San Francisco. The Valley is not trying to compete with Downtown or any other part of the city you claim to be "progressing so much" The Valley is good for what it is, it's one of the best areas in the Country. Beautiful suburban neighborhoods, accessible to cultural amenities, and low crime rate. the rest of the city still has ways to go to be the best at what they're aspring to be.
Yes. It's funny how even supposedly progressive people have to find a bogeyman and feel comfortable making generalizations about 2 million people ranging from super wealthy to transients and everything in between. It's really embarrassing to see.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,875 Posts
You clearly aren't going off of facts, you don't know what's going on in the Valley. You have not brought the facts to the table, yet want to claim facts? At the end of the day, the Valley is and will always be the Valley, so it should have a lower population density than a place like "Downtown" or "Koreatown". Downtown is finally blossoming to be a real "downtown" which it should of been all alone. It still has ways to go to become a Dowtown Manhttan, or San Francisco. The Valley is not trying to compete with Downtown or any other part of the city you claim to be "progressing so much" The Valley is good for what it is, it's one of the best areas in the Country. Beautiful suburban neighborhoods, accessible to cultural amenities, and low crime rate. the rest of the city still has ways to go to be the best at what they're aspring to be.
You have not brought anything to this discussion, so where are your facts? Also, your rant defending SFV seems very misplaced and causes many misunderstandings. I have not tried to say that "The Valley" is not "The Valley" (whatever you mean by that).

Besides all this, it's also common knowledge that The Valley is smaller in population by proportion to the rest of the basin (even just the rest of the L.A. city limits). Everything from density maps to numbers. This fact cannot be argued against. This is just what is.

If it can be proven otherwise, provide sources rather than rant-troll this forum.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,292 Posts
You have not brought anything to this discussion, so where are your facts? Also, your rant defending SFV seems very misplaced and causes many misunderstandings. I have not tried to say that "The Valley" is not "The Valley" (whatever you mean by that).

Besides all this, it's also common knowledge that The Valley is smaller in population by proportion to the rest of the basin (even just the rest of the L.A. city limits). Everything from density maps to numbers. This fact cannot be argued against. This is just what is.

If it can be proven otherwise, provide sources rather than rant-troll this forum.
Who claimed that the Valley has higher density? People move there who don't want higher density.

All he claims is that it has beautiful neighborhoods, access to culture and such, all of which are obviously true. And its population of over 2 million (including 400k in SF, Burbank, Glendale, all separate cities) obviously enjoy their mixed urban and suburban lifestyle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,875 Posts
Who claimed that the Valley has higher density? People move there who don't want higher density.

All he claims is that it has beautiful neighborhoods, access to culture and such, all of which are obviously true. And its population of over 2 million (including 400k in SF, Burbank, Glendale, all separate cities) obviously enjoy their mixed urban and suburban lifestyle.
You might have missed this bit:

The Valley future hasn't looked any brighter than it does right now, and all the negative comments comes from pure ignorance and hate.
The Valley still is the most populated region in the city and will always be desirable for years to come.
Also the rant and accusations on this page is not just "All he claims".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18,292 Posts
I gotta say that Valleyboy pretty much nails the attitude that some posters exhibit. It sounds like the way LA is discussed on the SF threads. It seems to be based on the idea that living in crowded central cities is the only acceptable way to live.
 

·
Silver Lake
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
No, the difference between SF vs LA is that the San Franciscan is demonstrating a wonderful example of provincialism regarding a city that has struggled with its identity since being dethroned as the only meaningful urban area in the West circa 1930 with the emergence of the Southern California megalopolis. The Valley, and I only am discussing the City of LA portion, I will state again has fallen woefully behind. This isn't bashing, or being basin-centric, it's the reality. From a transportation standpoint as mentioned earlier The Valley has no rail, poor bus service and struggles with an outdated identity of being a car-haven. Yes we know the Red Line inserts the very tip of the southeast portion of the Valley, but that's just Metro's version of "just putting the head in".
Also the crime rate isn't that low. Many Valley neighborhoods fall within the Top 100 of neighborhoods in the overall LA crime census here:
http://maps.latimes.com/neighborhoods/violent-crime/neighborhood/list/

There are other suburban areas that do suburbanism much better than The Valley. No need to take offense or update us on projects like the Noho Wave that have been stalled for the past 10 years. Apartment complexes being built everywhere...."like wow!"
Take it or leave it The Valley needs some serious vision and leadership. As for Pest, he's only playing a devil's advocate, he's not really on your side.
But until a clear perspective for The Valley emerges it will sadly be just a cul-de-sac leading another cul-de-sac.
 

·
L O S A N G E L E S
Joined
·
6,590 Posts
The Red Line is the tip, and the
Orange Line is the sperm, right?
Anyways, saw a lot of cranes
over at Universal, amid the usual traffic.

KLAMS, you're a bad influence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
You might have missed this bit:



Also the rant and accusations on this page is not just "All he claims".
You clearly don't understand. I'm not about to debate with someone who is clearly blinded by his own ignorance. The Valley population is higher than the Westside, or Central LA. At the end of the day the Valley will always be the Valley and that's what the millions of folks who live here love about it. Certain valley neighborhoods are embracing higher density. The Village at Westfield Topnga is the largest retail development underway in the entire city. Love it or hate it, the Valley is seeing a great number of developments and neighborhoods like Warner Center, Glendale, NoHo, Northridge, Reseda, Van Nuys, and many more will look a lot different. More density and walkable neighborhoods.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
No, the difference between SF vs LA is that the San Franciscan is demonstrating a wonderful example of provincialism regarding a city that has struggled with its identity since being dethroned as the only meaningful urban area in the West circa 1930 with the emergence of the Southern California megalopolis. The Valley, and I only am discussing the City of LA portion, I will state again has fallen woefully behind. This isn't bashing, or being basin-centric, it's the reality. From a transportation standpoint as mentioned earlier The Valley has no rail, poor bus service and struggles with an outdated identity of being a car-haven. Yes we know the Red Line inserts the very tip of the southeast portion of the Valley, but that's just Metro's version of "just putting the head in".
Also the crime rate isn't that low. Many Valley neighborhoods fall within the Top 100 of neighborhoods in the overall LA crime census here:

There are other suburban areas that do suburbanism much better than The Valley. No need to take offense or update us on projects like the Noho Wave that have been stalled for the past 10 years. Apartment complexes being built everywhere...."like wow!"
Take it or leave it The Valley needs some serious vision and leadership. As for Pest, he's only playing a devil's advocate, he's not really on your side.
But until a clear perspective for The Valley emerges it will sadly be just a cul-de-sac leading another cul-de-sac.
The Valley has no rail?? Again your claims are false and clearly comes from HATE. I guess the Red Line isn't rail?! What about all the Metrolink Stops all over the Valley, and the Amtrak stations? Guess those aren't rail either.
Again you act as if the LA basin is Manhattan, the entire city of Los Angeles has finally gotten its act together and finally on the rail transportation bandwagon but don't kid yourself Los Angeles is still and will probably always be a Car-city.
If your only claim to the Valley being behind the basin is public transportation than Los Angeles must be hundreds of years behind cities like Manhattan, Seattle, Portland, and so on.

If the Valley were it's own city it would be the safest city in the country out of the 10 largest cities in the US.

This forum is about what the Valley would like in the future so you talking about it's present state with public transportation is irrelevant. In the future (which this forum is about) Burbank will be home to one of the most impressive regional connectors in the county.
If you dislike the Valley why continue commenting on it? Stop being a troll it makes you look as if you have nothing else better to do in Life.

If I didn't know any better I would of thought All of Los Angeles for the most part struggles with an outdated identity of being a car-haven.

As far as sides go, they're no sides, this isn't grade school my friend, it's only a right and a wrong, and you are on the losing end of this stick buddy!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,875 Posts
You clearly don't understand. I'm not about to debate with someone who is clearly blinded by his own ignorance. The Valley population is higher than the Westside, or Central LA. At the end of the day the Valley will always be the Valley and that's what the millions of folks who live here love about it. Certain valley neighborhoods are embracing higher density. The Village at Westfield Topnga is the largest retail development underway in the entire city. Love it or hate it, the Valley is seeing a great number of developments and neighborhoods like Warner Center, Glendale, NoHo, Northridge, Reseda, Van Nuys, and many more will look a lot different. More density and walkable neighborhoods.
There is no debating with you, clearly. It's so wrong, it's comical.

To everyone else: listen how he says "The Valley's population is higher than the Westside". Even bringing Central LA into this. Stating how ignorant we are as if this can't be brought to civil discussion and helping others understand where your boundaries are.

It's almost like saying the entire country of Japan is larger than "just Manhattan".. So Japan is better and more.

The Valley (in landmass) is about as large as the land that would include the beach at Santa Monica all the way to the 710 and the Hollywood Hills to somewhere between the 105 or 91. The Westside is a drop in the ocean by comparison, so the comparison of the entire SFV to a single neighborhood is irrelevant.

And the point of the forum is missed entirely. We're here to discuss improvements in any form for any of the topics. I'm pretty sure we don't need a forum to make fun of any neighborhood without constructive criticism of some kind. We can all do that on our own. This topic in particular is supposed to be used for input on improvements to SFV whether it be positive or negative effects of construction, deconstruction, or lack of anything.

Saying you're better than anyone else or everyone is "blindly ignorant" doesn't help your position on anything here and most other places. It's not constructive to the thread. Should've come in with something to work on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
There is no debating with you, clearly. It's so wrong, it's comical.

To everyone else: listen how he says "The Valley's population is higher than the Westside". Even bringing Central LA into this. Stating how ignorant we are as if this can't be brought to civil discussion and helping others understand where your boundaries are.

It's almost like saying the entire country of Japan is larger than "just Manhattan".. So Japan is better and more.

The Valley (in landmass) is about as large as the land that would include the beach at Santa Monica all the way to the 710 and the Hollywood Hills to somewhere between the 105 or 91. The Westside is a drop in the ocean by comparison, so the comparison of the entire SFV to a single neighborhood is irrelevant.

And the point of the forum is missed entirely. We're here to discuss improvements in any form for any of the topics. I'm pretty sure we don't need a forum to make fun of any neighborhood without constructive criticism of some kind. We can all do that on our own. This topic in particular is supposed to be used for input on improvements to SFV whether it be positive or negative effects of construction, deconstruction, or lack of anything.

Saying you're better than anyone else or everyone is "blindly ignorant" doesn't help your position on anything here and most other places. It's not constructive to the thread. Should've come in with something to work on.
Never said the Valley was better than anywhere else, and that would be ludicrous to think as they're wealthy and poor neighborhoods in the Valley and everywhere ellse. I love the entire city of Los Angeles, I was just defending "the Valley" as it's always talked down by misinformed ignorant people. Again this forum was about the future of the Valley and like I previously said the Valley future and Los Angeles as well has never looked any brighter.....well at least since I can remember.
 

·
Silver Lake
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
The Valley has no rail?? Again your claims are false and clearly comes from HATE. I guess the Red Line isn't rail?! What about all the Metrolink Stops all over the Valley, and the Amtrak stations? Guess those aren't rail either.
Again you act as if the LA basin is Manhattan, the entire city of Los Angeles has finally gotten its act together and finally on the rail transportation bandwagon but don't kid yourself Los Angeles is still and will probably always be a Car-city.
If your only claim to the Valley being behind the basin is public transportation than Los Angeles must be hundreds of years behind cities like Manhattan, Seattle, Portland, and so on.

If the Valley were it's own city it would be the safest city in the country out of the 10 largest cities in the US.

This forum is about what the Valley would like in the future so you talking about it's present state with public transportation is irrelevant. In the future (which this forum is about) Burbank will be home to one of the most impressive regional connectors in the county.
If you dislike the Valley why continue commenting on it? Stop being a troll it makes you look as if you have nothing else better to do in Life.

If I didn't know any better I would of thought All of Los Angeles for the most part struggles with an outdated identity of being a car-haven.

As far as sides go, they're no sides, this isn't grade school my friend, it's only a right and a wrong, and you are on the losing end of this stick buddy!
Just a few points:
Manhattan is NOT A CITY! It is a borough of the City Of New York, just 1 of 5. You may have heard of Brooklyn and Queens. Btw, Queens is very similar to the Valley.

Neither Portland or Seattle have heavy rail subway. Neither system's rail network is anywhere close to LA County's system in stations and miles including Metrolink. LA has the 2nd most rode bus system and one of the most extensive.
Why didn't you just go with Paris or London then I wouldn't have had anything to say .....but Seattle and Portland??? Those are SMALL potatoes in the world of transportation but then again, you are from the Valley.

View systems here:
http://www.urbanrail.net/am/america.htm

Find stat data here:
http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/OtherAPTAStatistics.aspx

And "if the Valley was a city" brouhaha! You tried that song and dance once before. Your point was off and you were sent home by Debbie Allen. Besides you have no industry to support a city. You would quickly become one of the poorest big cities in the US.

LA as a car city (if it is indeed one) is pathetic. I mean, other cities in Texas and throughout the Sunbelt do a MUCH better job at carcentricity than LA. But you wouldn't know that if you never leave the Valley. Actually most of LA was built on a streetcar model even parts of the Valley. To say that LA is a "car city" and will always be one belies the fact of what it was in another time and reveals your lack of vision and foresight. If the city changed in the past surely it could change in the future. But this is what I expect coming from a Valley booster. It's just too difficult for you to see over the hill.

As croyboy stated, this is a forum and an exchange of ideas, some critical. If you're too sensitive to discuss the shortcomings of the SF Valley and what it will take to turn the moribund area around maybe you should initiate a SF Valley forum where you and your friends can circle jerk around pictures of Porter Ranch.
 

·
L O S A N G E L E S
Joined
·
6,590 Posts
Well, Klams, speaking from my experience
of last week, I tend to agree with you in that
other cities may "do" the car thing better than
we do, but it's because this place is a freaking
mad house!

I almost think it would take some sort of Draconian
policy of .... getting people out of their cars and
into the system of mass transportation, but that
system will never appear in Los Angeles because
it would be too expensive and we're too spread out.

It does not help to put half assed 7 story wood projects
in areas served by the subway. But we have that, and
happening in downtown too.
 

·
Silver Lake
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
Well, how did I know that you'd erect "the wood" in this conversation?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Just a few points:
Manhattan is NOT A CITY! It is a borough of the City Of New York, just 1 of 5. You may have heard of Brooklyn and Queens. Btw, Queens is very similar to the Valley.

Neither Portland or Seattle have heavy rail subway. Neither system's rail network is anywhere close to LA County's system in stations and miles including Metrolink. LA has the 2nd most rode bus system and one of the most extensive.
Why didn't you just go with Paris or London then I wouldn't have had anything to say .....but Seattle and Portland??? Those are SMALL potatoes in the world of transportation but then again, you are from the Valley.


And "if the Valley was a city" brouhaha! You tried that song and dance once before. Your point was off and you were sent home by Debbie Allen. Besides you have no industry to support a city. You would quickly become one of the poorest big cities in the US.

LA as a car city (if it is indeed one) is pathetic. I mean, other cities in Texas and throughout the Sunbelt do a MUCH better job at carcentricity than LA. But you wouldn't know that if you never leave the Valley. Actually most of LA was built on a streetcar model even parts of the Valley. To say that LA is a "car city" and will always be one belies the fact of what it was in another time and reveals your lack of vision and foresight. If the city changed in the past surely it could change in the future. But this is what I expect coming from a Valley booster. It's just too difficult for you to see over the hill.

As croyboy stated, this is a forum and an exchange of ideas, some critical. If you're too sensitive to discuss the shortcomings of the SF Valley and what it will take to turn the moribund area around maybe you should initiate a SF Valley forum where you and your friends can circle jerk around pictures of Porter Ranch.
I really don't know why I am responding to you. You clearly haven't left Los Angeles, if you believe LA would all of a sudden become a transit-oriented city. We are years behind in that regard, and I guarantee you won't be here to see it. Los Angeles will continue to be a car-city for decades to come. You can continue to be a troll on this forum all you want, but you're gonna be a party of 1 doing that. Life in Silver Lake seems so exciting. ��
I'm from Brooklyn so it's funny you mention the valley is like Queens. You clearly are delusional. I'll let you get back to your miserable trolling...
I never said Manhattan was a city, the LA basin isn't a city either. Without the Valley the basin wouldn't be much. The basin would be poor. Get your facts straight.
 

·
Silver Lake
Joined
·
5,451 Posts
You're calling me a troll, the guy that just reached his sixth post and is already acting defensive. Really???


When reasoning isn't enough.

SAN FERNANDO VALLEY PLAYING CATCH UP IN THE LOS ANGELES TRANSIT BOOM
http://www.dailynews.com/general-ne...n-fernando-valley-rail-lines-draws-complaints


But as the region’s transit network grows, some say the San Fernando Valley is being left out. “The Valley clearly has been shortchanged by Measure R,” said Los Angeles City Councilman Paul Krekorian, who represents parts of the Valley and serves on the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s board. Read on....
 
21 - 40 of 45 Posts
Top