5 ms·
surprises me, since LA has so much sprawl
by DiNovi 9y ago
surprises me, since LA has so much sprawl
- handedness 9y agoI believe Curb's argument is that the sprawl was to some degree caused by the zoning, as it made high-density housing difficult to build. A lot of it, though, is just down to geography.
- klipt 9y agoFunny, I often hear people blame SF's high prices on geography ("it's a peninsula, there's no more room to build"). Seems LA wouldn't be geographically constrained in the same way.
- amyjess 9y agoMountains. Go switch Google Maps into satellite view and check out LA [0]; the whole metro area is a handful of valleys that are almost all filled up, and everything that isn't developed is a mountain. The only place in Los Angeles County where there's room to grow is in the Antelope Valley around Palmdale, and that's separated from everything else in the county by mountains so you probably won't want to live there and commute to any other part of the metro area. [0] https://goo.gl/maps/ePy7yztU7KL2 https://goo.gl/maps/ePy7yztU7KL2
- davidw 9y ago"Filled up" is not really true though. There's plenty of space to build up and in.
- selectodude 9y agoEverything is filled up with grass and single family homes. The amount of in-fill that LA could do is staggering.
- virmundi 9y agoBoth are more constrained by man than nature. SF could build up and up and up. It's not zoned for that. Practical limit is 10 stories where housing is. Could be changed, the argument is that SF would not be SF any more. It always makes me tear up when I hear that, tiny violin and all.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]