4 ms·

Building vertically instead of horizontally would make the infrastucture even more cost-efficient.

DoreenMichele 8y ago
True, but 100+ years ago, there were practical engineering limitations on building vertically. I don't remember the details of the history I read. It was a long time ago. I just remember that it made the point that LA sprawled from the beginning and this had to do with what made financial sense at the time. What we can do today is different from what was feasible back then.
- cimmanom 8y ago
  100 years ago, NYC already had 20-story buildings. Cities built longer ago tend to sprawl LESS because most people got around most of the time on foot. Most of LA (by square mileage) was built up since the 1950s (later than the Empire State Building). There’s no reason except political will that it couldn’t have been built in clusters of 2-4 story multi-family units within walking distance of transit.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    You say that like political will is merely a matter of wanting it bad enough. I don't think that's true. As a college student, I wrote an alternate commuter rail plan for Solano County around 15 years ago. It was based on GIS and research and lacked the politicking that strongly influenced the existing rail plan. I was told gas would need to be $4/gallon before the stations would be built. I was sick and going through a divorce and had been a homemaker for 2 decades. I have no political connections and no political know how. Some months ago, I tried briefly to figure out how to promote that plan. It basically went nowhere. The first rail station had its grand opening in April. I believe this increases the odds that Travis AFB will finally leave California like the federal government has threatened for years. The worst of the three stations has yet to be built. I updated the website yesterday and stuck a link in my HN profile. That's probably as far as it will go. I'm no longer in California. I'm still struggling to solve my own problems. The rail plan research I did is dead in the water. I wish I had the know how. I wish I had the right connections. I wish people took me more seriously than they do. I wish I had to be time and energy to pour into figuring this out. I don't. I have to get on with my life and none of that fits into my schedule. I've tried. It went nowhere. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by entropy.
  - munificent 8y ago
    > 100 years ago, NYC already had 20-story buildings. Well, it was also land-locked and not earthquake prone. Should we be surprised that different incentives produce different outcomes?
dsfyu404ed 8y ago
Building vertically costs more than running utilities an additional 100ft. Building vertically is even less attractive when you consider CA's geological situation.
- buildme 8y ago
  You can absolutely make seismically safe tall buildings. Even so, building vertically doesn’t mean 50-story skyscrapers. It could be as modest as a three to six-story apartment building, which can nicely coexist in neighborhoods (like they do in Chicago). You could also get away with fourplexes. The point is that it doesn’t have to be JUST single-family homes. And don’t forget that the less densely you build, the less of a tax base you have. Suburbs are absolutely subsidized by cities because there aren’t nearly enough taxpayers to support all of the (aging) infrastructure required to support everyone and their grandma having their own mini estate.

True, but 100+ years ago, there were practical engineering limitations on building vertically. I don't remember the details of the history I read. It was a long time ago. I just remember that it made the point that LA sprawled from the beginning and this had to do with what made financial sense at the time. What we can do today is different from what was feasible back then.

cimmanom 8y ago
100 years ago, NYC already had 20-story buildings. Cities built longer ago tend to sprawl LESS because most people got around most of the time on foot. Most of LA (by square mileage) was built up since the 1950s (later than the Empire State Building). There’s no reason except political will that it couldn’t have been built in clusters of 2-4 story multi-family units within walking distance of transit.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  You say that like political will is merely a matter of wanting it bad enough. I don't think that's true. As a college student, I wrote an alternate commuter rail plan for Solano County around 15 years ago. It was based on GIS and research and lacked the politicking that strongly influenced the existing rail plan. I was told gas would need to be $4/gallon before the stations would be built. I was sick and going through a divorce and had been a homemaker for 2 decades. I have no political connections and no political know how. Some months ago, I tried briefly to figure out how to promote that plan. It basically went nowhere. The first rail station had its grand opening in April. I believe this increases the odds that Travis AFB will finally leave California like the federal government has threatened for years. The worst of the three stations has yet to be built. I updated the website yesterday and stuck a link in my HN profile. That's probably as far as it will go. I'm no longer in California. I'm still struggling to solve my own problems. The rail plan research I did is dead in the water. I wish I had the know how. I wish I had the right connections. I wish people took me more seriously than they do. I wish I had to be time and energy to pour into figuring this out. I don't. I have to get on with my life and none of that fits into my schedule. I've tried. It went nowhere. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by entropy.
- munificent 8y ago
  > 100 years ago, NYC already had 20-story buildings. Well, it was also land-locked and not earthquake prone. Should we be surprised that different incentives produce different outcomes?

dsfyu404ed 8y ago

Building vertically costs more than running utilities an additional 100ft. Building vertically is even less attractive when you consider CA's geological situation.

buildme 8y ago
You can absolutely make seismically safe tall buildings. Even so, building vertically doesn’t mean 50-story skyscrapers. It could be as modest as a three to six-story apartment building, which can nicely coexist in neighborhoods (like they do in Chicago). You could also get away with fourplexes. The point is that it doesn’t have to be JUST single-family homes. And don’t forget that the less densely you build, the less of a tax base you have. Suburbs are absolutely subsidized by cities because there aren’t nearly enough taxpayers to support all of the (aging) infrastructure required to support everyone and their grandma having their own mini estate.