5 ms·

Practically speaking, it’s going to require the destruction of wealth on a vast scale. All that sprawling housing (and the associated businesses) will be physi

Practically speaking, it’s going to require the destruction of wealth on a vast scale. All that sprawling housing (and the associated businesses) will be physically or practically bulldozed to disincentivize use of private vehicles. GLWT.

tremon 7y ago
it’s going to require the destruction of wealth on a vast scale I don't see why that's a requirement. What exactly needs to be destroyed, and why? From my simplistic point of view, all you need to do is to start injecting dense cores in the middle of the sprawl. Those cores can provide both local employment and local shopping coverage, thereby increasing the utility of the local area and raising the land value. Providing local jobs already reduces the need to commute. Then start connecting the local cores with high-frequency public transport, then add park&ride infrastructure along those same lines to make the old city center private-vehicle free. That further reduces inner-city traffic while keeping the core accessible. After some 30-odd years or so, the sprawl cores will have matured to mostly-independent city cores themselves, and the need for regular commute is even lower. Then you can dismantle the old park&ride lots and replace them with more efficient use of that space. I don't see practical problems with that, nor do I see the need for bulldozing existing wealth. The only thing that needs to be bulldozed is the misplaced perception that living in sprawl is a symbol of high status.
- CapricornNoble 7y ago
  >>> all you need to do is to start injecting dense cores in the middle of the sprawl. It might be better to call it a "destruction of utility", in the sense of economic "utility maximization". Many people are living in the sprawl partly because they DON'T want to live in a "dense core". Injecting a dense core into their neighborhood might be considered a significant loss in quality of life.
- gamblor956 7y ago
  So basically you just described LA as it already is: a number of independent city cores that are part of a larger connected sprawling urbanized area, except without the high-speed public transport between independent city cores (though the public transport is now being built).
- Spellman 7y ago
  What sort of high-frequency public transport are you suggesting? The only thing that can work with the current system is more bus lines. But those are woefully inefficient for longer distances. Ideally you could have some sort of rail system (either above or underground). But both would be prohibitively expensive and require bulldozing quite a bit of property. Also, good luck bulldozing the rich folks' regions. Recently there was a proposal to add a freeway in Pasadena to greatly reduce congestion on the freeways. All the lawyers who lived there lined up and said they'd sue, in a queue, holding up the city by at least a decade in legal proceedings.

tremon 7y ago

it’s going to require the destruction of wealth on a vast scale I don't see why that's a requirement. What exactly needs to be destroyed, and why? From my simplistic point of view, all you need to do is to start injecting dense cores in the middle of the sprawl. Those cores can provide both local employment and local shopping coverage, thereby increasing the utility of the local area and raising the land value. Providing local jobs already reduces the need to commute. Then start connecting the local cores with high-frequency public transport, then add park&ride infrastructure along those same lines to make the old city center private-vehicle free. That further reduces inner-city traffic while keeping the core accessible. After some 30-odd years or so, the sprawl cores will have matured to mostly-independent city cores themselves, and the need for regular commute is even lower. Then you can dismantle the old park&ride lots and replace them with more efficient use of that space. I don't see practical problems with that, nor do I see the need for bulldozing existing wealth. The only thing that needs to be bulldozed is the misplaced perception that living in sprawl is a symbol of high status.

CapricornNoble 7y ago
>>> all you need to do is to start injecting dense cores in the middle of the sprawl. It might be better to call it a "destruction of utility", in the sense of economic "utility maximization". Many people are living in the sprawl partly because they DON'T want to live in a "dense core". Injecting a dense core into their neighborhood might be considered a significant loss in quality of life.
gamblor956 7y ago
So basically you just described LA as it already is: a number of independent city cores that are part of a larger connected sprawling urbanized area, except without the high-speed public transport between independent city cores (though the public transport is now being built).
Spellman 7y ago
What sort of high-frequency public transport are you suggesting? The only thing that can work with the current system is more bus lines. But those are woefully inefficient for longer distances. Ideally you could have some sort of rail system (either above or underground). But both would be prohibitively expensive and require bulldozing quite a bit of property. Also, good luck bulldozing the rich folks' regions. Recently there was a proposal to add a freeway in Pasadena to greatly reduce congestion on the freeways. All the lawyers who lived there lined up and said they'd sue, in a queue, holding up the city by at least a decade in legal proceedings.