LA’s miles of parking lots could house more than 800K residents: report

[chris08876]

LA’s miles of parking lots could house more than 800K residents: report

Los Angeles’ numerous surface-level parking lots take up more space than the entire island of Manhattan and could be developed with hundreds of thousands of housing units.

Parking lots take up 27 square miles of real estate in the City of L.A. alone and almost four times that across L.A. County, according to research by Superspace, a division of architecture firm Woods Bagot. Curbed first reported on the research.

If all of those lots in the City of L.A. alone were developed at the densities of their surrounding neighborhoods — an unrealistic prospect — enough housing could be built for 830,000 people.

More realistically, the city could add 11,000 homes for 20,000 more residents if just 20 percent of parking lots in Downtown L.A. were developed at a density level around 80 percent higher of the current density level in the area.

Superspace director Christian Derix said developing some of those lots with housing could help solve both L.A.’s nightmarish traffic problems and its growing housing crisis, because it would house people in the same neighborhoods they are working in and visiting.

“If you reduce sprawl, you reduce commutes,” he said.

The pace of residential development will have to triple to meet the 3.5 million homes that California needs by the mid-2020s.

=========================
TRD

[dc_denizen]

well they did pave paradise and put up a parking lot

the parking lots at dogers stadium alone could house 350,000

[BrownTown]

Of course if they actually DID fill in all the parking with high density development then the entire city would grind to a halt because nobody could get to the jobs (or anywhere else for that matter).

You'd need about $30 Billion in new transit lines to even consider this sort of plan and even then you clearly can't get rid of all the lots (even 50% would be a pipe dream)

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Of course if they actually DID fill in all the parking with high density development then the entire city would grind to a halt because nobody could get to the jobs (or anywhere else for that matter).

You'd need about $30 Billion in new transit lines to even consider this sort of plan and even then you clearly can't get rid of all the lots (even 50% would be a pipe dream)

surface parking lots can be gradually eliminated by a combination of improving transit, building underground parking, and multi-level garages. Obviously, to have surface parking lots, the property is not worth enough to build something else on the same site otherwise it would happen.

[mhays]

Sometimes density REDUCES traffic...when it's at a job center, a large percentage can walk to work.

In fact that's a big reason why Vancouver is Vancouver...no inner-city freeways.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by BrownTown

Of course if they actually DID fill in all the parking with high density development then the entire city would grind to a halt because nobody could get to the jobs (or anywhere else for that matter).

You'd need about $30 Billion in new transit lines to even consider this sort of plan and even then you clearly can't get rid of all the lots (even 50% would be a pipe dream)

Lol both are literally happening in LA currently.. 120 billion in transit investment in Los Angeles over the next 20 years and thousands of high density units being built in downtown, Koreatown, Hollywood

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by chris08876

LA’s miles of parking lots could house more than 800K residents: report


=========================
TRD

Most cities in the western 1/3 of the USA were built at the infrastructure level to be car oriented.

LA is already in a situation where its dense enough that it is extremely crowded, but the city itself is still spread out and a car is required in most casses outside of afew specific neighborhoods.

Samee with Denver, Vegas, Phoenix, Salt Lake most of the bay area etc.

Simply filling in parking lots in these places with high rises is only going to contribute to gridlock, the people desinging the infill need to be very carful to produce infil that can also eliminate cars. To be fair the design trends today are much better than they were in the past.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Obadno

Most cities in the western 1/3 of the USA were built at the infrastructure level to be car oriented.

Not just the western 1/3 but just about everywhere in America. In fact, the western metros do a superb job at limiting sprawl compared to their counterparts in the eastern third.

Prewar population was only 140 million and those prewar cities and neighborhoods emptied out and are far less dense today than what they once were. In addition, since the war, the overall population of the U.S. has grown by 190 million additional people.

By 2050, America is projected to add 70 million more people.

[dubu]

if you are born in a city like la, portland, seattle or denver then you will be kinda used to not being able to get around easy. the only thing you can have change this is build new better cities and people wont want to live in la. that wont happen because of the way the system is set up. so instead elon musk is making tunnels under big cities and that is going to be bad in the long run because tunnels at the most last 100 years. in 100 years la will probably turn into a dump because it would cost to much to keep fixing roads and everything.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Prewar population was only 140 million and those prewar cities and neighborhoods emptied out and are far less dense today than what they once were. In addition, since the war, the overall population of the U.S. has grown by 190 million additional people.

Or what James Kunstler calls "the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world."

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Or what James Kunstler calls "the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world."

Or otherwise known as an incredible rise in quality of life and standard of living.

[Busy Bee]

Fella I'm talking about post-war suburbia. Are you extolling the virtues of auto-centric, low-density suburbia? You think that represented "an incredible rise in quality of life and standard of living" that wouldn't have otherwise occurred in a denser, more sustainable form?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Fella I'm talking about post-war suburbia. Are you extolling the virtues of auto-centric, low-density suburbia? You think that represented "an incredible rise in quality of life and standard of living"

Yes, that's exactly what it was. One of the greatest economic booms in human history. Still fondly looked at even today because of its scale and relatively fair distribution of economic gains compared to more recent booms.

that wouldn't have otherwise occurred in a denser, more sustainable form?

The boom meant many people no longer had to settle. They finally had the wealth to afford the housing and transportation they really wanted. Or perhaps more accurately, they finally had the wealth to buy the transportation (the car) that would allow them to live in the housing they wanted.

[Sun Belt]

“If you reduce sprawl, you reduce commutes,” he said.


This quote is from the article and is totally false. Just ask NYC. Yup, that’s right. Longer commute times than LA and some of the longest commute times in America if not the longest.

[dubu]

if people spend 90% or there time indoors then why does everyone need a yard? if i was rich id buy a nice condo or house without a yard or a small yard in a walkable area and have small decks so you can open the doors up and its like you're outside, most houses you cant do that because you're ground level and a robber could just walk in your house. then you can buy other things with the money you save. you just cant have a rv or boat out front.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Or perhaps more accurately, they finally had the wealth to buy the transportation (the car) that would allow them to live in the housing they wanted.

Historically speaking, there is a very thin line in this country between the freedom of the car and the requirement of the car when talking about post-war suburbia. The difference representing a significant contributor to quality of life. The United States is quite unique in designing it's suburban landscape entirely around the assumed use of the personal automobile. The same "freedom" delivered by the car is just as much a freedom in a denser, transit served and otherwise more sensibly designed suburbia like those experienced in other modern wealthy nations. To suggest otherwise is not only ridiculous, it comes across as jingoistic.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Yes, that's exactly what it was. One of the greatest economic booms in human history. Still fondly looked at even today because of its scale and relatively fair distribution of economic gains compared to more recent booms.

We're talking about two separate things. The FACT of the American post-war economic boom is indisputable. The development and housing policy choices we made during that boom is what made the suburban era in many cases such a detrimental mistake. In many, if not most cases the suburban boom came at the expense of the cities. Have you stopped to ask yourself how much better off our society would be had we taken a different path and equal investment had occurred, alternative transportation addressed linking city and suburb and avoiding the destruction of countryside with miles of endless un-walkable junk and also destroying cities by ramming highways through dense cities so it was even easier to get to those "little slices of heaven?"

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Historically speaking, there is a very thin line in this country between the freedom of the car and the requirement of the car

Which is a sign of a truly great invention, much like the washing machine, refrigeration, the telephone and then the cell phone, the Internet... Anything that useful quickly becomes a necessity.

The same "freedom" delivered by the car is just as much a freedom in a denser, transit served and otherwise more sensibly designed suburbia like those experienced in other modern wealthy nations. To suggest otherwise is not only ridiculous, it comes across as jingoistic.

And in these supposedly better countries, the private car remains dominant. In the words of eurostat:

The passenger car was by far the most important mode for passenger transport in all Member States.

In many, if not most cases the suburban boom came at the expense of the cities.

Why should cities not be subject to competition for citizens. If the cities did not provide the things expected and desired by people, then they deserve to decline.

Have you stopped to ask yourself how much better off our society would be had we taken a different path and equal investment had occurred, alternative transportation addressed linking city and suburb and avoiding the destruction of countryside with miles of endless un-walkable junk and also destroying cities by ramming highways through dense cities so it was even easier to get to those "little slices of heaven?"

I suspect, based on the dominance of the car in Europe, that there is absolutely nothing that could stop the rise of cars and suburbs (and the migration of people away from the dense NE to warmer areas) in the USA. The people were just too rich and the land too available. Trying to fight it would have been a futile waste of resources and trying to fight the will of the population rarely makes society better.

[dubu]

it was a good idea at first, you learn from your mistakes. with cities you cant really learn and change things. once a badly made city always will be. hopefully we dont get stuck with what we have now forever.

[Busy Bee]

The chasm seems a little too great to continue this back and forth. I'd urge you to explore and consider the wider context that led to American post-war suburbanization, of which includes deeply entrenched societal problems that the suburbs only exacerbated and the country and culture has still not dealt with fully, if at all. Much motivation to flee the city had as much to do with "living the good life" as it did refusing to live near and send their children to school with fellow Americans they refused to treat as such.