9 ms·
How should LA urbanize? Look to Seoul
- pcr910303 7y agoHello, Seoul resident here — AMA! It’s always surprising when you see our city’s name in HN... Looks like the TLDR is that LA only has subways in downtown (I can’t understand the reason... why would people use subways then?), they should fix them. Looks like it strongly correlates with the car-centric culture of the US...
- lovebes 7y agoalways thought the reason is LA is prone to earthquakes
- toasterlovin 7y agoNo, it’s because LA’s subway system is relatively new and, since subways are so expensive to build in the US, not very extensively built out. To be honest, it’s a miracle that LA has a subway system at all, given how irrelevant it is to most people in the city.
- mike50 7y agoI know NYC has extremely construction costs per mile but I've never heard that about Chicago, Washington DC or Philadelphia.
- barbecue_sauce 7y agoPhiladelphia hasn't really expanded its subway system since the 1950s as far as I can tell. Only a few renovations of certain stretches of track (much of which is actually elevated, not underground). Even then, its not a very extensive system; just a north<->south line and a northeast<->west line.
- bogomipz 7y agoThe Blue line opened 30 years ago in 1990 and the most recent line ,the Gold Line opened 17 years ago. The four other lines opened between those years. It's only new relative to say New York's subway or London's but it's not really new to Angelinos at this point.
- clairity 7y agobut construction hasn’t stopped. the expo line for instance opened in 2012 and was extended to santa monica in 2016. the purple line extension and the crenshaw line, to name a couple more, are highly anticipated and ongoing as well.
- joelhoffman 7y agoMexico City is too -- their subway is extensive, heavily used and well designed.
- bestnameever 7y ago> Looks like the TLDR is that LA only has subways in downtown This is not really true. The rail system extends out to other areas but those areas are typically served by a single line. While the rail system benefits many people, I also wonder whether it has led to more people moving here, increased rents, and ultimately more traffic as people realize they need the expense of a car to fully get around.
- mike50 7y agoThe same argument applies to highways or any other type of transportation infrastructure improvements.
- BurningFrog 7y ago> I also wonder whether it has led to more people moving here, increased rents, and ultimately more traffic This argument applies to anything that improves a city.
- bestnameever 7y agoBy that logic, any movement to decrease rents will degrade a city.
- summerlight 7y agoThis inverse statement is not equivalent to the parent comment. The logically equivalent contrapositive is "something to degrade a city will decrease rents". Though, this might be an intentional confusion.
- pcr910303 7y ago> ultimately more traffic as people realize they need the expense of a car to fully get around. Well, IMO that’s an indicator of a misdesigned rail system. In a properly designed rail system, one should prefer using the subways instead of cars, and use them most of the time. They should not use the car most of the time, for example commute.
- 7y ago
- zanny 7y agoThe thing is that your average city council voting LA resident doesn't want to use trains. They were sold on a "vision" of lifestyle where they have a personal plot, personal vehicle for themselves, and use that everywhere. They see the congestion of LA and think the city needs more roads, not more transit. This also inspires the pandemic of NIMBYism that keeps zoning so ostentatious. Residents of most cities don't want to live in a proper 21st century city - they want it all, a personal separated residence, the ability to go anywhere they want whenever they want via personal car, but also immediate and local access to arts, entertainment, and workplaces while not actually living near any of those because they don't want the people around them. Its generally just not going to go away until the current populations of these cities age out of them. Its a cultural identifier hallmark now that you can't try to displace with facts and data.
- pcr910303 7y ago> The thing is that your average city council voting LA resident doesn't want to use trains. They were sold on a "vision" of lifestyle where they have a personal plot, personal vehicle for themselves, and use that everywhere. Yeah, hence the mention of the car centric culture of US. I personally can’t understand why one would like to use a car if the subway is faster, more predictive, cheaper, and less tiring, but looks like a cultural difference. > Residents of most cities don't want to live in a proper 21st century city - they want it all, a personal separated residence, the ability to go anywhere they want whenever they want via personal car, but also immediate and local access to arts, entertainment, and workplaces while not actually living near any of those because they don't want the people around them. Well, isn’t this the problem that subways are designed to mitigate? Like... if you want to go to a art center, go to the subway station, ride the subways to the desired station, and see the arts!
- ccktlmazeltov 7y agoNot sure why you're being downvoted :/ That's a big problem in the bay area as well, there is no reliable and fast public transport if you want to commute.
- jhwang5 7y agoDownvotes are probably due to jealousy / discomfort
- bestnameever 7y ago> Longer term, California must cut down on vehicle travel in order to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and stave off climate change. Is this statement really true if car manufacturers continue to migrate towards electric vehicles?
- benrbray 7y agoYes, using less energy is better, dirty or not. Reducing our dependency on cars also has many other benefits: fewer traffic accidents; reduced parking requirements means more space for people in cities; less sound pollution, which is better for our bodies and for our ecosystems in and around cities; lessen the cost of living by no longer requiring a $15,000 machine as a prerequisite to having a job; increased density means increased foot traffic to small businesses, encouraging healthy competition; increased density can (has the potential to) mean a stronger, more connected community, less segregated by wealth etc. etc. etc.
- bestnameever 7y ago> Yes, using less energy is better, dirty or not. But that is not the question. The question is whether California must cut down on vehicle travel in order to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and stave off climate change?
- 0xddd 7y agoThe hyperlink in the section you're quoting points to a Vox article that aims to address that very question. It explains that passenger vehicles are responsible for a major portion of California's emissions and the switch to EVs is not happening anywhere near fast enough to meet the desired reduction targets.
- Barrin92 7y agoThe emission levels of an electric vehicle curently are 70% of a normal vehicle so yes. Electric cars are only as clean as their energy input which is still overwhelmingly carbon-based and will be for the foreseeable future. Also the resources needed for the battery creation and lots of the parts effectively wreak havoc on the environment in the third world. There's a rush on minerals including practises such as strip mining which is hugely ecologically damaging. Also cars will always be a colossal space waste: https://imgur.com/gallery/sCvRIEd https://imgur.com/gallery/sCvRIEd Having every individual carry two tons of steel around whenever they go grocery shopping will probably make our ancestors look at the us the same way we look at people in caves to be honest
- clairity 7y agoi'm just gonna repeat my little mantra that all residential parcels should be at least 4+1 (fourplex + granny unit) by right and all commercial parcels should be highly, highly encouraged to be mixed-use. i love LA, but it would be even better if everyone didn't feel the need to use a car to get everywhere. i've been to both seoul (too long ago to remember much) and tokyo, and it's fantastic to get around by subway and foot everywhere.
- techsupporter 7y agoVery agree. Four floors and corner stores wherever residential can be built and not just on arterials. We neatly avoid a huge swath of the gentrification and massive upswings in property cost if we don't artificially restrict where walkable, moderately-dense neighborhoods can be built.
- defterGoose 7y agoYeah, having spent time in both Chicago and New York, as well as several European cities, trains/subways are definitely the way to live. We have those pesky tectonic instabilities here, but then why have any of the underground trains that we do?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Jommi 7y agoI think you can look at nearly any city and the layout makes more sense than LA currently. It's a shitshow.
- ccktlmazeltov 7y agoStop building cities around cars. Create pedestrian only zones. Another thought: I've always seen public transport as lagging behind the people's needs in the west, as opposed to how it is in China, Korea, Taiwan, HK, etc. (Japan is one extreme)
- monadic2 7y agoBoth YIMBYs (who argue for affordable housing) and PHIMBYs (who argue for public housing) make an excellent case for high-density housing. This is a prerequisite for modern cities. Also: cars ruin cities.
- defterGoose 7y agoWatching the smog modulate day to day here in LA with the stay at home order has been truly eye-opening. I think most people are oblivious, though.
- viburnum 7y agoWrong, the Netherlands.
- stormdennis 7y agoThere are many reasons why people in an American City would be wary of traveling by mass transit, reasons that simply don't exist in Korea.
- jbarham 7y agoI've lived in LA. I've also lived in Seoul. I miss living in LA. I do not miss living in Seoul. Seoul is a concrete jungle where the vast majority of people live in tiny concrete apartments. (Literally concrete, I destroyed a lot of masonry drill bits trying to hang pictures on the concrete walls of our apartment.) Sure the subway network in Seoul is extensive but it's still not exactly a fast way to travel. Speaking from experience the fastest way to get around Seoul is on a scooter. That's because scooters routinely jump red lights, go the wrong way down one-way streets and take shortcuts on sidewalks with impunity. Lots of fun when you're young with no kids, as I was at the time, but it doesn't scale and would never be allowed in LA. The easiest way to cut down on vehicle traffic is to stop forcing people commuting to workplaces where they sit down at an internet connected computer that they could just as easily do at home. As the current pandemic has forced so many of us to do, which is one big upside.
- lukeschlather 7y agoWhat do you mean when you say it "doesn't scale?" * Seoul has twice the population density of LA. * Seoul has less than half the number of road fatalities per 100,000 people. The point about "not a fast way to travel" is interesting but it's also worth recognizing that with double the population density there are twice as many destinations to visit, so that can be deceptive when you look at trip length. If there are 5 grocery stores within 5km vs. 5 grocery stores within 10km, it doesn't matter at all if it takes twice as long to travel 5km in the former case, it's equivalent. (And it's more likely you can do it on foot, which is healthier in terms of lower pollution, more exercise, and fewer road fatalities.)
- culturestate 7y agoI tend to agree; if the author wants to look at any Asian capitals as a model, Tokyo and Singapore would seem like better choices. Both feel substantially less claustrophobic than Seoul or Hong Kong, and I think Singapore fits especially well with its emphasis on quality of life factors. Instead of maximizing land utilization, for example, most residential buildings make allowance for amenities like gardens and pools. The government encourages (and in some cases, subsidizes) mixed-use development and has aggressive targets for increasing the already considerable amount of green space in the city. Frankly, at street level, there are a lot of places where you'd have a difficult time telling the difference between Singapore and LA or Miami.
- epa 7y agoTLDR: Have an extensive efficient subway system
- vondur 7y agoHow is this feasible? Redeveloping land in SoCal would be cost prohibitive. Even in the area of Long Beach they were using as an illustration, the average house price is at least $500,000. It's part of the reason the last major freeway to be built, the 105 had to be scaled back from going to from LAX to Riverside (Like 60-70 miles) to ending in Norwalk, (less than 20 miles). And that was in the late 60's to early 70's when that was being planned.
- gok 7y ago> On the other hand, the average cost for a studio in a “normal” neighborhood in Seoul is only 537 dollars. From the link, that's a 480 sqft studio with no parking, which is essentially illegal to build in any "normal" LA neighborhood.
- deathgrips 7y agoI'd rather rent that small apartment than be homeless.
- keiferski 7y agoShould LA urbanize? I find the lack of density to be a benefit, not a problem. The problem is rather the lack of public transport + lack of self-driving, green vehicles + lack of widespread remote work. Making LA as dense as Seoul or NYC would kill the unique vibe it has IMO. There are many cities in the world which manage to have effective public transport and not be ultra-dense. Warsaw, in Poland, is a good example and probably one more useful in a comparison to LA, as both cities are mostly flat, sprawl for miles/kms and have large road systems that can’t easily be removed and replaced. Berlin is another good example, although it’s more dense than Warsaw.
- bestnameever 7y agoI agree. Change L.A and many of the reasons why people who live in L.A love L.A go away. Although others will find to love it for other reasons.
- xvedejas 7y agoLA's high housing price is one of the top social issues that people who live there face, due to low supply. I think a little bit more urban character in exchange for lower rents is a fair price to pay. I lived in the LA area for five years and found that the more urban areas were the more lively and interesting, but there were a lot of dead sprawling areas too. LA stands to gain a lot from having more of the former and less of the latter. I suppose I agree that becoming Seoul is not necessary; but the lack of density isn't ideal.
- keiferski 7y agoI agree that building more housing is good, however: better public transit, self-driving cars, and remote work are a far more viable path for LA than turning it into a super-dense city.
- Ididntdothis 7y agoYou can’t really have good public transport in LA because the distances are so huge.
- jerzyt 7y agoThe biggest stupidity in LA is that the train does not reach LAX, but ends a couple miles short of it. This alone would greatly reduce LA traffic. What city planners didn't see that?
- clairity 7y agoit’s even dumber, given the hub-and-spoke model, that one of the first lines wasn’t directly between downtown and LAX. lobbying by LAWA (the org that runs LAX) to protect parking revenue and the taxi industry is apparently to blame.
- jerzyt 7y agoInteresting, I always thought it was the taxi companies lobbies that stopped that. Never thought about the parking lobbies, but it sure makes sense.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- Animats 7y agoNot a problem. 20 more years and most cars in California will be electric.
- chrstphrhrt 7y agoReplace car parks with social housing.