Aesthetics Of Cities In The Future

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Coming from someone in Florida where there are high-rises and little street life.

Coming from someone in Florida? I live in New York, dude. Chill out, if you're not happy with my opinion then lets agree to disagree.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

I was just in LA in the beginning of the month, and while I think its a great place, I don't subscribe to blindly cheering sub-par, anti-street life and antisocial behaviors by street dwellers.

People aren't blindly cheering anything. People were calling out your obvious lies (nothing being built over 3 floors). In any case, you're obviously just trolling at this point and intentionally derailing the thread.

[edale]

LA has always had a substantial gap between its population density and its on-the-ground observed urbanity. As someone noted in another thread, LA has tons of urban amenities and urban walkable nodes. But it also has tons of garbage urbanism, especially among its commercial corridors. Too much of the city is still a weird urban/suburban blend for it to really feel like a cohesively urban place ala NYC, Chicago, SF, etc. I think just about anyone would admit that. And this is largely unlikely to change in the future-- there's simply too much to change for it to get there. But it can and will continue to densify and improve the nodes it does have, and connect them with rail transit. Which will create a stronger, more urban LA, even if it will never feel like the most traditionally urban cities in North America.

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by edale

LA has always had a substantial gap between its population density and its on-the-ground observed urbanity. As someone noted in another thread, LA has tons of urban amenities and urban walkable nodes. But it also has tons of garbage urbanism, especially among its commercial corridors. Too much of the city is still a weird urban/suburban blend for it to really feel like a cohesively urban place ala NYC, Chicago, SF, etc. I think just about anyone would admit that. And this is largely unlikely to change in the future-- there's simply too much to change for it to get there. But it can and will continue to densify and improve the nodes it does have, and connect them with rail transit. Which will create a stronger, more urban LA, even if it will never feel like the most traditionally urban cities in North America.

From what I have read, the issue is basically that LA began seriously densifying in the 1990s, but hadn't updated their archaic zoning code which separated residential and non-residential uses pretty heavily. So given the older neighborhoods were essentially streetcar suburban, you ended up with the bungalows being replaced in small groups by dense new apartment buildings with no ground floor commercial...and the commercial corridors remaining strip malls because it was illegal to build apartments there. Unless someone managed to build an office tower on it or something.

This has since been rectified, and standard apartment buildings with first-floor commercial can now be built, but a lot of damage was done for several decades.

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by badrunner

People aren't blindly cheering anything. People were calling out your obvious lies (nothing being built over 3 floors). In any case, you're obviously just trolling at this point and intentionally derailing the thread.

Ok, lets break this down.

You're saying I lied because as quoted (according to you)I said that there is''nothing being built over 3 floors''.

I actually wrote the following:

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

I don't see LA randomly becoming filled with high rises since nowadays you barely see anything above 3 floors being built outside of downtown.

Key word- *barely*.

I stand by my opinion that there is embarrassingly little high rise, and even true mid-rise construction in LA for a city of 20 million people. If you think LA is doing a great job of densifying, Im happy for you. There are mid rises being built, and anyone who understands what ''barely'' means, knows it does not mean ''nothing.''

I didn't derail the thread. What happened, however, is a bunch of people became butt hurt because I said something that offended them. I am not trolling, I am voicing my opinion just like you.

Maybe Skyscraperpage's name should be changed to mid to low-rise page.

[badrunner]

I was paraphrasing, and what you said is a lie regardless. Anyone who lives in LA knows that there is currently a building boom of apartment construction all over the city. When you say something that is so obviously untrue, people will rightly conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about, or that you've never been here.

[IrishIllini]

Unfair to compare 50 square miles of SF to all of LA. The Bay Area outside of SF is even more suburban than LA and fragmented by the bay and mountains.

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by badrunner

I was paraphrasing, and what you said is a lie regardless. Anyone who lives in LA knows that there is currently a building boom of apartment construction all over the city. When you say something that is so obviously untrue, people will rightly conclude that you have no idea what you're talking about, or that you've never been here.

That's not how it works. You're not allowed to paraphrase a quote and it be okay if I'm not allowed to make a generalization about LA not building much above a certain height. Would it make a difference if I said LA doesn't build much above 5 floors? 6 floors? No, we've got a bunch of people here who want to ignore the reality that LA has shitty urbanism.

If I lied so bad, prove it. Give me data on how widespread the construction of midrises and high rises is in Los Angeles. Thanks in advance.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

That's not how it works. You're not allowed to paraphrase a quote and it be okay if I'm not allowed to make a generalization about LA not building much above a certain height. Would it make a difference if I said LA doesn't build much above 5 floors? 6 floors? No, we've got a bunch of people here who want to ignore the reality that LA has shitty urbanism.

Oh, so you were just fibbing. You see, that's what gives you away .

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Oh, so you were just fibbing. You see, that's what gives you away .

No, I made a generalization. Just like you did. If you're calling me a liar, then you are too because you misquoted me.

And I'd suggest picking up a dictionary and looking up the word barely. If I said ''There are 0 buildings under construction in Los Angeles over 3 floors'' then you'd have a great point of argument here, but I think you are probably just bored and need to crusade on something really pointless.

Let me ask you a question. Do you think LA is doing a good job of constructing mid-rise and high rise urban infill outside of the downtown area?

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

No, I made a generalization. Just like you did. If you're calling me a liar, then you are too because you misquoted me.

What generalization did I make? How did I misquote you?

[bossabreezes]

You generalized my three floor comment, admittedly paraphrased it, but changed its meaning. Barely does not mean none, I did not claim that LA doesn't build above 3 stories. I said it does not build much above 3 stories, which is true proportional to its size. Especially for a mature metro with no room to grow outwards. Absolutely incredible that this is a controversial comment, seeing that LA has always been known for not being great in regards to this.

[Northern Light]

This thread is derailed and needs to be cleaned up by a mod.

***

This thread was never about L.A. specifically it was a general subject about the Future.

Examples from individual cities are fine.

But we have a series of posts talking about something that's off topic, another poster chiming in with hyperbole about the off-topic and now everyone talking about that.

FFS

Aesthetics, future, Cities at large. That's the subject, not what you ate for lunch, and not how many 3 or 4 storey buildings are going up in L.A.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

You generalized my three floor comment, admittedly paraphrased it, but changed its meaning.

I didn't change its meaning lol.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

I was just in LA in the beginning of the month,]

If visiting gives one credibility when discussing a city, then living in that city full time gives one even more credibility. You can't win that game, why play it?

and while I think its a great place, I don't subscribe to blindly cheering sub-par, anti-street life and antisocial behaviors by street dwellers. I stayed in Hollywood and I can vouch that Hollywood Blvd was more like an open air psych-ward than a tourist destination.

Who is cheering sub-par, anti-street life? Who is cheering antisocial behaviors by street dwellers? Names? Links?

Until tourism revives to pre-pandemic levels, the homeless are going to stand out even more than usual in places like Hollywood. That is also true of San Francisco and other West Coast cities disproportionately hobbled by America's national homeless crisis.

Well obviously, since its practically the only type of living available. I love how on an urban development forum, we have people who get pissed when someone calls out wasting opportunity for densification, quite funny actually.

You know, your response to my good-faith post is really disjointed and trollish. I have in this thread acknowledged the sometimes unpleasant realities on the ground here, while also fairly acknowledging where you have been wrong in your claims. You seem to be the one getting pissed that the rest of us suspect you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

I stand by my opinion that there is embarrassingly little high rise, and even true mid-rise construction in LA for a city of 20 million people. If you think LA is doing a great job of densifying, Im happy for you. There are mid rises being built, and anyone who understands what ''barely'' means, knows it does not mean ''nothing.''

And I, for one, agreed that LA is dominated by low-rise construction--and correctly noted that that was always the point of how the metro was planned and built out. People here--not forumers, obviously, but the other teeming millions--want it that way, at least for now.

[mhays]

LA can certainly change substantially by keeping to the current growth pattern. It can be very different in even a decade, let alone a few decades.

Walkable centers take a small percentage of the total land, even in the statistically-dense areas. Concentrated growth in these areas, even woodframe, can dramatically increase densities in these spots. Miles-long corridors can be dotted with enough new stuff to change the dynamic.

For example, let's say 50% of the city-of's growth happens on 10% of the land, i.e. the part that's designated for walkable density (totally made-up numbers). Even if the city of LA only grows 5%, that's probably a very high growth percentage in the 10%. And it'll be a huge increase in the total that's urban in form.

Do it with a fraction of the parking and it'll be much easier and more urban of course.

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by craigs

Who is cheering sub-par, anti-street life? Who is cheering antisocial behaviors by street dwellers? Names? Links?

When I wrote this, I was getting at that when I see something I perceive as sub-par (the majority of LA's new construction infill), anti-street life (see example of fortified apartment buildings I left as a link in a recent post) and anti-social street dwellers (which a forumer on this thread mentioned was overblown to which I posted a video as a rebuttal), I am going to speak out against it. I will not cheerlead for it. I'm not saying anyone here in particular is.

I don't need to have any links to criticize anything, and neither do you.

I appreciate your good faith post, none of mine are intended to be in bad faith either. I merely pointed out the LA, even with it's housing crisis, still is performing quite badly in regards to using it's constructive potential.

If people don't agree with that, fine, but the hair splitting on the three floor comment is pretty hilarious. It's completely ignoring the actual issue, which you agree on- LA is not building at the density that it could (and should) be.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by badrunner

People aren't blindly cheering anything. People were calling out your obvious lies (nothing being built over 3 floors). In any case, you're obviously just trolling at this point and intentionally derailing the thread.

Hes being like the north one. Lies or exgerrates something then gets mad when people say it's bs

Nobody said la shouldn't be building taller or more, but why can't you just say what it is? If you actually were here you'd know the majority of the city is building 5 to 7 story mixed use buildings.
Nothing over 3 floors caught people's attention and rightfully so.
If you said nothing over 15 floors In most of the city, nobody would care.

[bossabreezes]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Nothing over 3 floors caught people's attention and rightfully so.

Again, I did not say that there is nothing over 3 floors being built. I quoted myself above, please re-read and try to piece the meaning of the words together.

Barely means scarcely. Scarcely means rarely.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by mhays

For example, let's say 50% of the city-of's growth happens on 10% of the land, i.e. the part that's designated for walkable density (totally made-up numbers).

That's kind of what's happening. Take a place like North Hollywood (specifically pointing out a suburban locale here) which has seen a massive boom in apartment construction, anchored by a couple of nice retail streets and a subway station. And mixed-use lowrise like this: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.1627...7i16384!8i8192 is arguably more urban than a cluster of condo towers with parking podiums.