LAist: How LA became, well, LA -- A Partial Planning History

Schimonie

Mon, 27 Aug 2007 11:40:39 -0800

I agree, I think we are pretty poly-nuclear. But how is this a non-story? It's interesting to know why.

guest

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 16:05:28 -0800

i downloaded that document from planetizen a few months ago, and i still have it. if you're interested in seeing it, i suppose i could email it to you. it's pretty neat. just let me know! judyc@uci.edu

guest

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 14:39:55 -0800

Gosh, don't ya love labels? Isn't NYC just a little Paris or London really? Oh wait, I know, NYC is really just a new Amsterdam. Cities have generally been tall and densely populated, it's kind of what makes them cities. LA already had a metropolis and a massive transit system - we are just re-installing things....to the way they were before. Think of it as a remodel. This is a non-story, waste of ink.

cutephase

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:29:12 -0800

what do you mean "why didnt it happen?"?? it did...what do you call koreatown, long beach, santa monica, century city, pasadena, burbank, hollywood? those are multi sized city centers spread out all over the area...sounds like they got what they wanted...

guest

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 13:22:33 -0800

I hate when people say we're trying to be like Manhattan or NYC. It's not as if a dense downtown is a New York idea - it was just perfected there. Regardless, it's quite impossible for L.A. to become like NYC. We're too big and we'll be a thousand times greater once we mature. We still have the poly-nuclear model. Think about it: downtown, Century City, Wilshire, Westwood, Sherman Oaks, Glendale, Burbank, Pasadena, Warner Center. Then all the arts areas: downtown, Hollywood, Silver Lake, the Westside. You know how it works, I could go on. Fuck NYC.

kahunna

Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:45:35 -0800

Yeah, It wouldn't allow me to download it either. Something about being expired.