4 ms·
Which is actually part of the problem. Higher density cities allow for/require good public transport, which increases quality of life for young people, the elde
by estebank 9y ago
Which is actually part of the problem. Higher density cities allow for/require good public transport, which increases quality of life for young people, the elderly and people that like to go out for a drink and would much rather not have to drive afterwards. Also, higher density with mixed use zoning allows for corner grocery shops, so you can walk to buy whatever you'll have for dinner that day, and possibly work close to where you live.
- tomjakubowski 9y agoThere are plenty of neighborhoods in the Los Angeles metro with these characteristics. It's just that many of them are among the more expensive areas (Downtown, Koreatown, Santa Monica, Fairfax, Echo Park, …). "City population density" doesn't strike me as a good metric for judging a city's ability to support good public transit. It's not like Los Angeles (as a whole) was any denser when it boasted an extensive network of streetcars and electric rail spanning the city (and surrounding towns like Pasadena and Santa Monica); LA city population was ~1.5M in 1940 and is ~3.97M today with no substantial change in land area.
- ng12 9y agoThe land area didn't change but car ownership and external competition [1] did. In the modern day having a car is too cheap and too convenient until you reach population densities similar to NYC. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_consp...