HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 6:05 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
The problem is, LA is not, nor has ever been a hub and spoke city. Los Angeles is not Boston -- and I'm not saying either or is a bad thing, it is the reality of the situation.
What does not being a "hub and spoke city" have anything to do with LA densifying its core? If you can have 500,000 mostly high-income residents with quality amenities (both of which are the current trend), then the jobs will follow and commuting patterns and transit development will adapt accordingly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 6:09 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
N, N-Dimethyltryptamine
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 29,003
1.3 million units by 2029? Bloody finally! Now we are talking!

Hopefully it actually happens and the selfish homeowners of SoCal and the NIMBY ogres don't stifle this objective.

That's the kind of units were talking about. Just rounding to 2020, and it'll come out to 144k units per year for the region. Not bad. Aggressive indeed.

Took them long enough to realize the housing crisis is bad. Now if only upstate CA (bay area) can get on the train. I hear its a disaster up there housing and price wise.

Of course I want to see action, not words, so I'll hold judgement. CA has a tenancy to disappoint, so lets hope these 1.3 million units can happen without some NIMBY C-blocking every step of the way.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 6:13 PM
Sun Belt's Avatar
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
Love it or leave it : )
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
What does not being a "hub and spoke city" have anything to do with LA densifying its core? If you can have 500,000 mostly high-income residents with quality amenities (both of which are the current trend), then the jobs will follow and commuting patterns and transit development will adapt accordingly.
A region of 20 million people will not become a hub and spoke by adding 500,000 mostly high income residents. LA is multi nodal. It's not like Chicago and therefore it shouldn't build a hub and spoke transportation network and fortunately transit lines aren't all forced to go through DT.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 10:09 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
A region of 20 million people will not become a hub and spoke by adding 500,000 mostly high income residents. LA is multi nodal. It's not like Chicago and therefore it shouldn't build a hub and spoke transportation network and fortunately transit lines aren't all forced to go through DT.
It started out as a hub and spoke as downtown, koreatown and hollywood are the most dense areas of the city but as the metro system grows, its no longer hub and spoke.. Sepulveda line, Crenshaw Line, Vermont Line, etc etc
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Nov 17, 2019, 10:12 PM
Sun Belt's Avatar
Sun Belt Sun Belt is offline
Love it or leave it : )
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: The Envy of the World
Posts: 4,922
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
It started out as a hub and spoke as downtown, koreatown and hollywood are the most dense areas of the city but as the metro system grows, its no longer hub and spoke.. Sepulveda line, Crenshaw Line, Vermont Line, etc etc
Yes and that is a good thing.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2019, 1:27 AM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
A region of 20 million people will not become a hub and spoke by adding 500,000 mostly high income residents. LA is multi nodal. It's not like Chicago and therefore it shouldn't build a hub and spoke transportation network and fortunately transit lines aren't all forced to go through DT.
Um, what?

LA densifying its core with both residents and jobs isn't an attempt at becoming a "hub and spoke" city, nor does being "multi-nodal" preclude it from densifying its core with both residents and jobs.

When are you going to say something that actually makes sense, for a change?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2019, 5:35 AM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 9,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by chris08876 View Post
1.3 million units by 2029? Bloody finally! Now we are talking!

Hopefully it actually happens and the selfish homeowners of SoCal and the NIMBY ogres don't stifle this objective.

That's the kind of units were talking about. Just rounding to 2020, and it'll come out to 144k units per year for the region. Not bad. Aggressive indeed.

Took them long enough to realize the housing crisis is bad. Now if only upstate CA (bay area) can get on the train. I hear its a disaster up there housing and price wise.

Of course I want to see action, not words, so I'll hold judgement. CA has a tenancy to disappoint, so lets hope these 1.3 million units can happen without some NIMBY C-blocking every step of the way.

Sorry Chris, it ain't happening! The state comes out with these numbers every year and they are never met. They put pressure on all of the local jurisdictions to plan for more units, but it doesn't change the process and quagmire that exists to entitle and permit projects.
__________________
“Some people, did something”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Nov 18, 2019, 5:40 AM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 9,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sun Belt View Post
A region of 20 million people will not become a hub and spoke by adding 500,000 mostly high income residents. LA is multi nodal. It's not like Chicago and therefore it shouldn't build a hub and spoke transportation network and fortunately transit lines aren't all forced to go through DT.


Correct! Southlands best bet is to be aggressive with multi-nodal employment centers. Imagine if the State government allowed a place like the Inland Empire to be as aggressive with adding new employers as Texas is!? Imagine if there were land and tax incentives in place to land corporate relocations or expansions to Corona or Menefee or Murrieta? Definitely out in remote exurbs like Victorville they need employers to water down commuting.
Shorten commutes and allow for growth that isn't just bedroom community type. Downtown and west LA have their own draws and will take care of themselves. Multinodal is the key.
__________________
“Some people, did something”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2019, 2:26 PM
Quixote's Avatar
Quixote Quixote is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 5,991
^ That’s a classic case of a scenario working in theory but not practice. Most people don’t choose to live (within a city/metro) where they do because of their employment. More jobs in the IE means more traffic and unconventional commute patterns that can only be done by car.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2019, 3:27 PM
badrunner badrunner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 546
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLO View Post
Imagine if the State government allowed a place like the Inland Empire to be as aggressive with adding new employers as Texas is!? Imagine if there were land and tax incentives in place to land corporate relocations or expansions to Corona or Menefee or Murrieta? Definitely out in remote exurbs like Victorville they need employers to water down commuting.
So, because those places are unable to attract businesses on their own merits, corporate welfare is the answer?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Nov 19, 2019, 10:40 PM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 9,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
So, because those places are unable to attract businesses on their own merits, corporate welfare is the answer?

Yes, you have to be competitive in the marketplace. Why would a company want to be in Murrietta vs San Francisco vs Plano Texas? Same way you attract key employees with benefits and sometimes signing bonuses.
__________________
“Some people, did something”
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 4:18 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 4,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLO View Post
Yes, you have to be competitive in the marketplace. Why would a company want to be in Murrietta vs San Francisco vs Plano Texas? Same way you attract key employees with benefits and sometimes signing bonuses.
...the difference being that it's private for-profit companies providing the benefits and signing bonuses to their individual new employees, whereas taxpayers and government entities lose revenue and potential public services because of giving corporations tax breaks (therefore not paying their fair share to the place they just moved to) to lure them to their states or wherever.
__________________
"If the climate were a bank, the U.S. would have already saved it."

---Hugo Chávez
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 4:24 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
It started out as a hub and spoke as downtown, koreatown and hollywood are the most dense areas of the city but as the metro system grows, its no longer hub and spoke.. Sepulveda line, Crenshaw Line, Vermont Line, etc etc
Pre WW2 LA is not relevant to today.

Southern California is a group of large-small cities smashed together with sprawl downtown LA just being the biggest of those (Most western metros are like this, the effect of the automobile on development)

They should plan like a region and us transportation to connect the various "cores"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 4:53 PM
Trae's Avatar
Trae Trae is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Los Angeles and Houston
Posts: 4,381
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quixote View Post
^ That’s a classic case of a scenario working in theory but not practice. Most people don’t choose to live (within a city/metro) where they do because of their employment. More jobs in the IE means more traffic and unconventional commute patterns that can only be done by car.
This depends. The organization I work at opened up an office in the IE, so now the handful of employees that used to travel all the way to DTLA don't go west of the 15 freeway. That's at 3 vehicles not crowding LA County . Could reverse commuting become worse since many would rather live on the trendy LA side rather than the IE? Maybe a little, but I think you'd mostly see parts of the IE become more "cool" (some already are like Riverside). People will just stay in their local area and come to LA on occasion. Similar to what a lot of Orange County is like now. There is a commuter rail line that goes from the IE to OC (missing Los Angeles County entirely) and it's as packed as the commuter trains heading into DTLA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 5:45 PM
LosAngelesSportsFan's Avatar
LosAngelesSportsFan LosAngelesSportsFan is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 6,923
Quote:
Originally Posted by Obadno View Post
Pre WW2 LA is not relevant to today.

Southern California is a group of large-small cities smashed together with sprawl downtown LA just being the biggest of those (Most western metros are like this, the effect of the automobile on development)

They should plan like a region and us transportation to connect the various "cores"
You mean connecting cores like downtown LA, Long Beach, Hollywood, Koreatown, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Culver City, Century City, Van Nuys, Westwood and the South Bay? Kinda how its all connected or will be very soon?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 5:51 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 3,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by badrunner View Post
So, because those places are unable to attract businesses on their own merits, corporate welfare is the answer?


No idea why people think this is sustainable. Sooner or later, those cards fall.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 6:45 PM
Obadno Obadno is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 3,756
Quote:
Originally Posted by LosAngelesSportsFan View Post
You mean connecting cores like downtown LA, Long Beach, Hollywood, Koreatown, Beverly Hills, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Culver City, Century City, Van Nuys, Westwood and the South Bay? Kinda how its all connected or will be very soon?
Are you implying that I was saying they weren't?

Stop reading into comments more than what is presented.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2019, 8:43 PM
jd3189's Avatar
jd3189 jd3189 is offline
An Optimistic Realist
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Loma Linda, CA / West Palm Beach, FL
Posts: 3,993
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae View Post
This depends. The organization I work at opened up an office in the IE, so now the handful of employees that used to travel all the way to DTLA don't go west of the 15 freeway. That's at 3 vehicles not crowding LA County . Could reverse commuting become worse since many would rather live on the trendy LA side rather than the IE? Maybe a little, but I think you'd mostly see parts of the IE become more "cool" (some already are like Riverside). People will just stay in their local area and come to LA on occasion. Similar to what a lot of Orange County is like now. There is a commuter rail line that goes from the IE to OC (missing Los Angeles County entirely) and it's as packed as the commuter trains heading into DTLA.
Lawmakers and planners in San Bernardino, Riverside, and possibly the eastern edges of LA County have to decide how they want the IE to develop in the future. A lot of land is still available, but it may not be helpful if all of it is set up again with just SFHs, strips, and highways. If I was a planner, I would maintain the multi-nodal nature and add a significant amount of multi-family units and apartments/ mixed buildings. The freeways would still be around, but also an increase in public transportation in the form of buses and eventually local light rail if it gets even bigger. Essentially, building it the way central LA and urban OC is already.


As for traffic to LA, honestly, if offices are placed for IE residents in the IE, LA would just be a weekend destination. That’s how it is with me and many people I know who also live here. Just to put things into perspective, I’m planning on going to town this weekend. The last time I did that was the past summer.
__________________
There is only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self.
-Aldous Huxley

Continue improving until the end.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2019, 1:34 AM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California
Posts: 9,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
...the difference being that it's private for-profit companies providing the benefits and signing bonuses to their individual new employees, whereas taxpayers and government entities lose revenue and potential public services because of giving corporations tax breaks (therefore not paying their fair share to the place they just moved to) to lure them to their states or wherever.
True, but if you don't then you lose in more ways than one. You lose employers and part of your tax base from not only the corporation, but all of its employees, secondary businesses etc. It should be looked at more as an investment rather than a liability. I'm only suggesting this for places in the state that could be competitive with a company moving out say, San Francisco to perhaps a valley city or IE city where their COL is low enough to be attractive to workers who prefer to stay in California.
__________________
“Some people, did something”
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:46 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.