4 ms·
This is technically true, but kind of a stretch. The population of LA in 1900 was only ~100k people. By 1920, there were over 500k. And it continued to explode
by the_gastropod 8y ago
This is technically true, but kind of a stretch. The population of LA in 1900 was only ~100k people. By 1920, there were over 500k. And it continued to explode in growth through the '70s.
The "sprawl" was less sprawly than it was a collection of multiple cities that have been annexed over the decades. In the 1890's, LA was 28 square miles (and that 28 "original" LA is still very evident today). Today, it's 469 square miles. LA's current sprawl is absolutely because of the car. There's a very clear reason old east coast cities and european cities look so much different than newer cities like LA.
- DoreenMichele 8y agoI have read a history of the origin of LA. It didn't agree with you. LA sprawled from the start. This likely made it well suited to developing their cult of the car, not the other way around.
- wwweston 8y agoWhich history? I'd love to know more. I've got stories of relatives living anywhere from Hermosa Beach to Huntington Park pre-depression, so I'm inclined to believe LA certainly spread out early on, but I'd guess most of the density was along the coast and rail.
- DoreenMichele 8y agoI don't recall. I believe it was part of a book with short excerpts from many famous urban planning books. I was (or had been) bedridden. I had been to San Francisco for the first time and fallen madly in love with the city and I spent $300 at the bookstore on the way home on urban planning books and other books that I felt made sense for my mad, mad scheme to get well and someday be an urban planner. (And also to keep me occupied while I recuperated.) I'm terrible with titles anyway and this was a particularly bad time in my life. Sorry.
- trgn 8y agoNot sure why this get downvotes. American cities were overbuilt from the start. In most american cities, from the late 1700s onward, wide roads on a grid were a desirable feature, a hundred years before cars were a thing. These wide roads were originally a buffer space for all the smoke and filth of the industrial city. As a weird unintended consequence, the car could become commonplace so early because american cities already had the roads to accommodate them. And now with cars, these roads became dangerous and noisy as well. When industry left the city proper, early 20th century, the cars remained and continued to make the city an unpleasant place to live in. No wonder people decided to move out, first using streetcars or trains, and then yes, with their cars, which paradoxically contributed to why the city was awful in the first place. LA, even though younger than most american cities, follows a similar template.
- Spooky23 8y agoPeople get very emotional about this stuff. Places emerge because of culture, economics and time. LA is LA because it entered a long boom that lined up with the explosion of automobiles. People wanted cars and people wanted to live in LA. They got what they wanted. Ironically, at the time many of the "immigrants" from LA are fleeing the crowded cities of the east and midwest. Now, we're in a era of wage stagnation where land is expensive and industry is consolidating into a few places. So apartments that were crack dens in the 80s are hot properties today.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- AnimalMuppet 8y agoLooking at a map of the Pacific Electric suburban system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Electric), I'd say that LA sprawled quite a bit by the 1920s. So it seems unreasonable to say that the car caused the sprawl.
- jayd16 8y agoWhile certainly influence by the car. LA also just has a history of filling in old large scale industry with more people. Orange groves, mountain ranges, oil fields, and huge movie studio back lots are all part of LA's history.