r/geography • u/villehhulkkonen • 1d ago

La is a wasted opportunity Discussion

Post image

Imagine if Los Angeles was built like Barcelona. Dense 15 million people metropolis with great public transportation and walkability.

They wasted this perfect climate and perfect place for city by building a endless suburban sprawl.

38.2k Upvotes

86% Upvoted

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/whistleridge 1d ago

Yes. It does.

Zoning rules are a function of cultural norms, not a function of the physical environment. They can be changed at a whim, if the cultural will is there.

Zoning isn’t causative, it’s symptomatic. Angelinos have always wanted to enable the ability to go out, so they’ve structured the law to facilitate that. And when they decide they want to go up instead, they’ll change the laws accordingly.

1

u/Put-the-candle-back1 1d ago

enable the ability to go out, so they’ve structured the law to facilitate that

The high amount of traffic says otherwise. Excessively pushing an inefficient form of transport negatively effects everyone. Better walkability allows many people to save money and be healthier while those who prefer driving won't have to deal with as many people on the road.

1

u/whistleridge 21h ago

While I personally don’t disagree, the behavioral economics say, that’s not the choice currently being made.

1

u/Put-the-candle-back1 20h ago

That's the point of the post.

1

u/whistleridge 20h ago

The point of the post is “walkable is better, why isn’t LA walkable”.

And the point of the comment thread is, “behavioral economics”. You restated the post, so I restated the original comment. And life goes on.

1

u/Put-the-candle-back1 12h ago

The title says that it's a wasted opportunity, which is consistent with the infrastructure being designed to be this way. Neither your replies or the original comment addresses the point.

1

u/whistleridge 12h ago

It’s not a wasted opportunity though. It’s at an interim stage of non-density that many places go through.

1

u/Put-the-candle-back1 12h ago

This stage being common doesn't make it any less of a wasted opportunity. There's no need for it to have existed in the first place.

0

u/Saxxiefone 1d ago edited 1d ago

Great comment, I would like to add that at the end of the day, we live in a physical world present with natural disasters and danger that we have long conquered and often forget.

One thing people forget is that California is on a fault line and historically people have been afraid of the disasters caused by earthquakes, which further promotes a "going out" zoning rule versus a "going up" rule, which posed a potential disaster for tall apartments.

So to add on to your comment, yes, zoning rules are a function of cultural norms but also a function of the physical environment. At the end of the day, survival in our environment is humanity's number one priority and has influenced many major decisions that are easy to take for granted. There's so many good reasons why LA and other CA cities have developed the way they have!

1

u/ChetLemon77 20h ago

What the fuck are you talking about?

1

u/Saxxiefone 10h ago

This is r/geography and I'm saying the big ass fault line going down California is another reason why Californians have historically preferred going out vs going up as cities develop. What the fuck are you on?

0

u/Malkavier 1d ago

No they won't. Because of San Andreas and other fault lines, the ability to go up was taken out of the hands of LA by the Feds, and both the city and developers have to get their permission, which is very often denied for residential buildings. Hell, after the last big quakes dropped those highway overpasses the city had a hard time even getting transportation projects approved by the Feds.

3

u/whistleridge 21h ago

First: that’s not how zoning works. So…[citation needed]. At best you’re misunderstanding a complexity eg certain conditions are required to access federal disaster aid money. Because the federal government has not legal authority to require anyone to get its permission to build on non-federal land.

Second: taller buildings are MORE earthquake resistant, not less. So you’re making an anti-empirical claim.

Third: even assuming neither of the above applied…all of that is changeable at the stroke of a pen. It’s not a physical constant, merely a cultural choice.

1

u/WolfBear99 16h ago

Second: taller buildings are MORE earthquake resistant, not less. So you’re making an anti-empirical claim.

yeah youre not able to prove this claim