TofuTheAlmighty: We should be promoting greater density, not lower, doltmitter. CIties, especially the walkable sort, are considerably more efficient, both economically and ecologically.

Those places that are doing just that are experiencing an outflow of families. People don't want to raise their kids in antfarms.

Suburbia is an artifact of American land wealth and plentiful fossil fuels. The former we still have; the latter, not so much.

And yet the price of natural gas is falling drastically, to the extent that it's on the verge of making coal- and oil-fired generation plants uneconomic. What a strange response to scarcity.

I love livin' in the city
I love livin' in the city
My house smells just like the zoo
It's chock, full of shiat and puke
Cockroaches on the walls
Crabs crawlin' on my balls
Oh, well, I'm so clean cut
I just wanna fark some slut but
I love livin' in the city
I love livin' in the city

Yes, I know

Spent my whole life in the city
Where junk is king and the air smells shiatty
People pukin' everywhere
Piles of blood, scabs and hair
Bodies wasted in defeat
People dyin' on the street
But the suburban scumbags, they don't care
Just get fat, dye their hair but
I love livin' in the city
I love livin' in the city
I love livin' in the city
I love livin' in the city
I love livin' in the city
I love livin' in the city

Lives in the "burbs" with a nice yard and bike commute daily, with a 30 minute drive to 10 acres during hunting season. I guess if you want to live like a cow in pen, more power to you...

TofuTheAlmighty: We should be promoting greater density, not lower, doltmitter. CIties, especially the walkable sort, are considerably more efficient, both economically and ecologically.

Suburbia is an artifact of American land wealth and plentiful fossil fuels. The former we still have; the latter, not so much.

We should be promoting efficient mass transportation in response to the latter, rather than zoning priorities that result in a feudal state where the huge masses are nothing other than tenants and all the land wealth is owned by some some Lord's.

Given some people's propensity to pack themselves into as small a space as possible, I wonder if we haven't actually evolved from bees, rather than apes.

t3knomanser: Like I said- never spent much time in the city. Residential areas don't tend to have crowds. They don't resemble anthills either. I can walk a mile and not see more than three people, and I live in a city.



Anyway, hominids did not evolve in high densities, but in small groups wandering across vast empty landscapes for hundreds of thousands of years. Cities are very recent and unnatural. Some people don't mind. Some people do.

Enforce the existing immigration laws and then every child in LA could have plenty of room to play.

Biv: Screw that jazz. I work in the city and, after my shift, get the fark out a retreat back to suburbia. No way would you catch me living in a city.

I think the point is, we all will have to one day. Fossil fuel prices will cause the era of huge, 2000+ sq.ft. single family homes and huge 1+acre lots of land to come to a close one day (maybe in my lifetime, maybe not), and we will pretty much have to start living in smart cities, within walking distance of shopping and work.

TofuTheAlmighty: We should be promoting greater density, not lower, doltmitter. CIties, especially the walkable sort, are considerably more efficient, both economically and ecologically.

Suburbia is an artifact of American land wealth and plentiful fossil fuels. The former we still have; the latter, not so much.

more population density equals MORE per capita costs to government (new window)

most types of crime tend to increase in levels of occurrence with increasing population density (new window)

A higher density of people leads to higher levels of aggression. (new window)

How Smart Growth and Livability Intensify Air Pollution
(new window)

t3knomanser: Obviously! No, in seriousness, their objections (crowds! noise!) don't apply. I've lived in cities most of my life, and aside from the time where I lived directly on a main thoroughfare, I've never dealt with crowds or noise or any of the many ills that people object to about cities.

That's how I expected you to answer. You like residential living, so do a lot of people, but there is only so much space within the city limits and the suburban populations of metro areas is often 3x what the city population is.

stiletto_the_wise: Biv: Screw that jazz. I work in the city and, after my shift, get the fark out a retreat back to suburbia. No way would you catch me living in a city.

I think the point is, we all will have to one day. Fossil fuel prices will cause the era of huge, 2000+ sq.ft. single family homes and huge 1+acre lots of land to come to a close one day (maybe in my lifetime, maybe not), and we will pretty much have to start living in smart cities, within walking distance of shopping and work.

If you think 2000sf and an acre is "huge" you need to get out of the city.

The problem with your premise that it is only true if we continue to build to satisfy the needs of cars. If we build smart public transportation, none of that matters. The Puget Sound corridor is pretty much one big urban/suburban sprawl from Everett to Tacoma, and everyone drives because there is no other viable option. Our bus system sucks, and our rail system is a joke. The result is the kind of "more density!" crazy talk we see here.

We don't need more density, we need more throughput. A bullet train running from Ellensburg to Seattle that could make the trip in an hour or so would open up huge amounts of development and housing opportunities for people that don't want to live in a beehive.

Mildot: California would be a great place to live if only everything to the left of the San Andreas fault would fall into the ocean. It would make a good syfy channel movie as well.

If that's a slam against the Libby-libs in California, it might interest you to know that San Francisco is EAST of the San Andreas Fault.

The more you know...

david_gaithersburg: Enforce the existing immigration laws and then every child in LA could have plenty of room to play.

If you know anything about the mayor of LA you'd know that is not an option.

hasty ambush: TofuTheAlmighty: We should be promoting greater density, not lower, doltmitter. CIties, especially the walkable sort, are considerably more efficient, both economically and ecologically.

Suburbia is an artifact of American land wealth and plentiful fossil fuels. The former we still have; the latter, not so much.

more population density equals MORE per capita costs to government (new window)

most types of crime tend to increase in levels of occurrence with increasing population density (new window)

A higher density of people leads to higher levels of aggression. (new window)

How Smart Growth and Livability Intensify Air Pollution
(new window)

Good stuff this. Thanks for the links.

Mildot: California would be a great place to live if only everything to the left of the San Andreas fault would fall into the ocean. It would make a good syfy channel movie as well.

Hey, what's the Central Coast ever done to you?

StopLurkListen: If that's a slam against the Libby-libs in California, it might interest you to know that San Francisco is EAST of the San Andreas Fault.

The more you know...

Also that. I mean, you lose Monterey and Half Moon Bay, but keep Oakland? Nope.

caddisfly: I live in Portland, a well-planned, dense city. My 2001 Acura (only car) just hit 50k this week, and I commute into downtown every weekday. My home is surrounded by 200-ft pines and I hear birds every morning.

How many kids do you have?

caddisfly: I live in Portland, a well-planned, dense city. My 2001 Acura (only car) just hit 50k this week, and I commute into downtown every weekday. My home is surrounded by 200-ft pines and I hear birds every morning.

I have no problem with this.

Portland: 4,288.38/sq mi
Los Angeles: 8,092.30/sq mi
New York: 27,012.5/sq mi

Hell, my hometown is 5,300/sq mi and I wouldn't call it dense. I guess maybe Portland has all the people in one spot, but a bunch of empty land or something... but from numbers alone it's not that dense.

TofuTheAlmighty: We should be promoting greater density, not lower, doltmitter. CIties, especially the walkable sort, are considerably more efficient, both economically and ecologically.

Suburbia is an artifact of American land wealth and plentiful fossil fuels. The former we still have; the latter, not so much.

I disagree; by becoming more dense the concentration of pollution, agitation, and subsequently crime becomes higher. Cities with "sprawl" allow for property ownership both at the housing level, and at the land level (larger lots, open lots, etc) and provide for more "legacy" opportunities (like passing down said property to children), and give a sense of space to the owner/inhabitant as opposed to feeling claustrophobic in some high-rise.

ProfessorOhki: caddisfly: I live in Portland, a well-planned, dense city. My 2001 Acura (only car) just hit 50k this week, and I commute into downtown every weekday. My home is surrounded by 200-ft pines and I hear birds every morning.

I have no problem with this.

Portland: 4,288.38/sq mi
Los Angeles: 8,092.30/sq mi
New York: 27,012.5/sq mi

Hell, my hometown is 5,300/sq mi and I wouldn't call it dense. I guess maybe Portland has all the people in one spot, but a bunch of empty land or something... but from numbers alone it's not that dense.

Comparing the two most densely populated urban areas in the country to Portland (or any other urban area) isn't quite a fair measure of density.

But for the record, the Portland area is the 14th most densely populated area in the country, so yes, it is dense. Almost 60% of the state's residents live there.

And Portland is still a great city.

TofuTheAlmighty: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Maybe some people don't want to live right next to closed minded assholes like you.

/not subby

No one's forcing you to live in the city; feel free to trade more house for long commutes and tithes to the house of Saud. But we city dwellers shouldn't have to subsidize your chosen lifestyle.

Then let me pump my own water and have a septic tank...I'm tired of being forced to by services I don't want/need to subsidize city folk. And yes, my road is privately owned and maintained.

t3knomanser: SN1987a goes boom: I think we found Mitt Romney's fark handle.

Perhaps I should have been more clear- it's called "a park". I don't live right on the park, but it's just on the other side of the school next door.

Yeah, you should be clear. The way you wrote that made it seem like you lived in a suburb with large yards. Those exist you know.

After trying to return to college and get my architecture degree I read a paper that lead me to believe that most cities are really Ponzi scheme's by industrialists to drive down labor costs and remove resouces from a region for their own pockets, then leaving the region to decay, example Detroit.

Rent Party: ProfessorOhki: caddisfly: I live in Portland, a well-planned, dense city. My 2001 Acura (only car) just hit 50k this week, and I commute into downtown every weekday. My home is surrounded by 200-ft pines and I hear birds every morning.

I have no problem with this.

Portland: 4,288.38/sq mi
Los Angeles: 8,092.30/sq mi
New York: 27,012.5/sq mi

Hell, my hometown is 5,300/sq mi and I wouldn't call it dense. I guess maybe Portland has all the people in one spot, but a bunch of empty land or something... but from numbers alone it's not that dense.

Comparing the two most densely populated urban areas in the country to Portland (or any other urban area) isn't quite a fair measure of density.

But for the record, the Portland area is the 14th most densely populated area in the country, so yes, it is dense. Almost 60% of the state's residents live there.

And Portland is still a great city.

Not saying it isn't a great city. I don't think the comparison against LA is that unfair considering that this is a thread about LA and it's density and you brought up Portland as a counter example of a dense city done correctly. Bringing up New York... alright, that one is a bit unfair.

I'll admit to knowing nothing about Portland, but from satellite maps it looks like dense city along the waterfront, but then I'm seeing neighborhoods like Ashcreek, Crestwood, Maplewood and Hayhurst which look suburban, at least from the air.

Low density living = pollution, global warming, obesity... the list goes on and on. Car-centric city design was a horrible 20th century mistake.

I'm in the mountains NE of LA. have a nice little house surrounded by 3 acres of pines. lived for 35 years in suburbia, chose to relocate closer to nature. you can have your urban density- if you can
find a place to put it...

ProfessorOhki:
Not saying it isn't a great city. I don't think the comparison against LA is that unfair considering that this is a thread about LA and it's density and you brought up Portland as a counter example of a dense city done correctly. Bringing up New York... alright, that one is a bit unfair.


NY and LA are the most densely populated area in the country by huge margins. You can't compare any other region to them fairly because there are no other regions that are even remotely close to them. You're using the extreme edge of the bell curve as your basis for comparison. It's like saying "Alberto Pujols is a shiatty baseball player because he only has 450 home runs and Hank Aaron has 755 and Babe Ruth has 714."

Portland *is* a dense city done correctly. LA and NY are not.

What Smart Growth might look like.

TofuTheAlmighty: We should be promoting greater density, not lower, doltmitter. CIties, especially the walkable sort, are considerably more efficient, both economically and ecologically.

Suburbia is an artifact of American land wealth and plentiful fossil fuels. The former we still have; the latter, not so much.

Yes because history has never shown us the this promotes disease and other issues.

sharkbeagle: California
[www.holocaustresearchproject.org image 422x450]
Uber Alles

From Man's Search For Meaning by Viktor Frankl:

"We could lie all day in our little corner in the hut and doze and wait for the daily distribution of bread, which of course was reduced for the sick...but how content we were; happy in spite of everything...When I explained, my listeners understood why I did not find the photograph so terrible: the people shown on it might not have been so unhappy after all. Pg. 68-9.

That book was hard to get through.

Portland is not all that. Neither is Seattle. L.A. sucks, of course, but so do Phoenix, Denver, Houston and a bunch of other places.

I happen to love Cities like Manhattan, so I hope Villaraigosa stacks all those Angelenos up in one place and puts businesses on their first floors. And everyone gets a job within walking distance (if they deign to work at all) and we only have taxis and town cars. Maybe eventually L.A. would then have art and restaurants.

/Happy with the decision

Atypical Person Reading Fark: Portland is not all that. Neither is Seattle. L.A. sucks, of course, but so do Phoenix, Denver, Houston and a bunch of other places.

I happen to love Cities like Manhattan, so I hope Villaraigosa stacks all those Angelenos up in one place and puts businesses on their first floors. And everyone gets a job within walking distance (if they deign to work at all) and we only have taxis and town cars. Maybe eventually L.A. would then have art and restaurants.

Manhattan is the worlds largest shiathole, followed closely by LA. The only difference between the two is one set of pretentious assholes think Manhattan is the only place on earth with all night Chinese (or that it's a big deal) and the other set of pretentious assholes think LA is the only place on earth with beaches and sunshine.

Iniamyen1: TofuTheAlmighty: We should be promoting greater density, not lower, doltmitter. CIties, especially the walkable sort, are considerably more efficient, both economically and ecologically.

Suburbia is an artifact of American land wealth and plentiful fossil fuels. The former we still have; the latter, not so much.

Efficiency does not correlate with quality of life. In fact one could argue that it is at odds with it. Here are some disadvantages to cities:

-Cost of real estate
-Air pollution
-Noise pollution
-Crime rates
-Stress level (anecdotal)
-Spread of disease

I guess I agree with you that cities are more "efficient" but to be honest I am more concerned with looking out for #1 (and #2, #3, etc...), than I am about the human race being efficient. I suppose If I ever have 3 kids, I'll have an obligation to do so. Until then, I am happy there are plenty of people that actually like living in the city, so I don't have to. It's worth it (to me) to pay more for gas.

I've only lived in 3 neighborhoods in L.A. (Los Feliz, Eagle Rock, Mt. Washington), but they've all been quiet and I've never been a victim of crime. I'm a mellow, un-stressed, disease-free person also.

The only way I can fathom avoiding air pollution would be to live on an isolated ranch far from freeways and Interstates (and chemical plants).

Of course the average rent is higher in a thriving city -- it's not the boonies!

chiefsfaninkc: TofuTheAlmighty: We should be promoting greater density, not lower, doltmitter. CIties, especially the walkable sort, are considerably more efficient, both economically and ecologically.

Suburbia is an artifact of American land wealth and plentiful fossil fuels. The former we still have; the latter, not so much.

Yes because history has never shown us the this promotes disease and other issues.

The deadliest epidemics happened in a medical & hygienic dark age.

CoonAce: I've only lived in 3 neighborhoods in L.A. (Los Feliz, Eagle Rock, Mt. Washington), but they've all been quiet and I've never been a victim of crime. I'm a mellow, un-stressed, disease-free person also.

For me it was Eagle Rock, Mount Washtington and Tujunga.

Sucks not to be able to afford the beach.

Rent Party:NY and LA are the most densely populated area in the country by huge margins. You can't compare any other region to them fairly because there are no other regions that are even remotely close to them. You're using the extreme edge of the bell curve as your basis for comparison. It's like saying "Alberto Pujols is a shiatty baseball player because he only has 450 home runs and Hank Aaron has 755 and Babe Ruth has 714."

Portland *is* a dense city done correctly. LA and NY are not.

Your point is almost exactly my point: saying "X is a dense city done right" when X is half the density is sort of like saying the Prius is the most fuel efficient SUV. Take Portland, double the population, and see if it manages to stay as "right" as it is now. That's all I was saying.

Right. Because if there's one thing LA needs it's definitely MORE traffic. The freeways are not slow enough, dammit!

ProfessorOhki: Rent Party:NY and LA are the most densely populated area in the country by huge margins. You can't compare any other region to them fairly because there are no other regions that are even remotely close to them. You're using the extreme edge of the bell curve as your basis for comparison. It's like saying "Alberto Pujols is a shiatty baseball player because he only has 450 home runs and Hank Aaron has 755 and Babe Ruth has 714."

Portland *is* a dense city done correctly. LA and NY are not.

Your point is almost exactly my point: saying "X is a dense city done right" when X is half the density is sort of like saying the Prius is the most fuel efficient SUV. Take Portland, double the population, and see if it manages to stay as "right" as it is now. That's all I was saying.

Doubling the population of any of the areas not LA or NY still doesn't get you to LA or NY. By your measure, no place in America *except* NY and LA are densely populated. LA is almost four times as dense as the next in line, Miami. New York is almost 8 times as dense.

That's why your comparison fails.

Rent Party: Doubling the population of any of the areas not LA or NY still doesn't get you to LA or NY. By your measure, no place in America *except* NY and LA are densely populated. LA is almost four times as dense as the next in line, Miami. New York is almost 8 times as dense.

That's why your comparison fails.


Alright, I'm going to try this one more time: my entire point was that the comparison fails. No matter how many times you reword and reaffirm what I said in insisting that I'm wrong, that was still my original point.

The result of my comparison is saying "these two things cannot be compared."

I am not the one who implied a comparison.

You are agreeing with me: there is no comparison. I made no comparison.

/Portland might be dense
//Not dense enough to be terribly relevant in a thread about LA

TofuTheAlmighty: We should be promoting greater density, not lower, doltmitter. CIties, especially the walkable sort, are considerably more efficient, both economically and ecologically.

This.

We live in a pretty dense area of Los Angeles. Yeah, we live in an apartment, but it's actually quite family-friendly. There are other kids in our building, and there's a park next door where the kids can play. There are plenty of restaurants, boutiques, coffee shops, and more within a comfortable walking distance to our apartment, something that you won't find in a suburban sprawl. And we're just a couple miles from the ocean to boot. In addition, our neighborhood school is some fancy charter school* where students consistently earn top scores on standardized tests.

The only down side of living in an apartment is NOT the lack of a back yard; it's having to put up with annoying neighbors.

*The school is 90+% Caucasian, and most of the remaining 10% is Asian; depending on your perspective, this could be a good thing or a bad thing.

CoonAce:

The only way I can fathom avoiding air pollution would be to live on an isolated ranch far from freeways and Interstates (and chemical plants).


Or, as so many [relatively well-off] folks in our area do: live as close to the ocean as you can, but still be west of the 405; the ocean breeze blows all the pollution eastwards so that the air quality is actually quite good.

\The San Fernando Valley is less dense than our part of Brentwood/Santa Monica
\\but has worse air quality

JackieRabbit: StopLurkListen: Server's already down, so I guess I can't contribute to the dicussion...

Bwahahahaha I almost could get through saying that with a straight face

Yeah, webmasters of small sites must hate Fark.

Fark could use coral-cache (that's still around, right).

hailin: I think all multi-family structures should have some sort of park/play area available to its residents (either a park located with a couple blocks or outdoor community space attached to the building. Single-family homes in the middle of L.A. seem wasteful though.

The best example of that is when you drive through a well-off suburb and you see a plastic jungle gym and a pool in every yard, and of course, almost none of them are being used at any given point. This guy doesn't seem to cite any real proof traffic is worse. I've seen studies that actually show that building new freeways often make traffic worse (new developments immediately spring up farther and farther from the city core.)

At one point I could, in under 5 minutes, walk to my doctor, my pharmacy and the grocery store, as well as several restaurants and the post office. (The doctor's office moved a few miles away and the grocery store/strip mall has threatened to block off the access routes because people keep bringing the carts off premises. A lot of old people live in my apartment complex, and a lot of them don't drive anymore. The podiatrist was a little farther away and with heel spurs it was a bit too far. On top of all of that, when I look out the window about 90% of my view is trees.