LA Ran Out Of Room To Build Out So It Is Building Up

  • metta

    Posts: 39125

    Sep 22, 2016 4:50 AM GMT
    In Cranes’ Shadow, Los Angeles Strains to See a Future With Less Sprawl

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/in-cranes-shadow-los-angeles-strains-to-see-a-future-with-less-sprawl.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

    Even in the suburbs, buildings are getting taller. Instead of just one and two story buildings, we are seeing more 5-7 story buildings, especially mixed use and apartment buildings. Mixed use normally means a little retail on the bottom floor with apartments or condos on the top floors.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2016 10:29 AM GMT
    metta saidIn Cranes’ Shadow, Los Angeles Strains to See a Future With Less Sprawl

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/in-cranes-shadow-los-angeles-strains-to-see-a-future-with-less-sprawl.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

    Even in the suburbs, buildings are getting taller. Instead of just one and two story buildings, we are seeing more 5-7 story buildings, especially mixed use and apartment buildings. Mixed use normally means a little retail on the bottom floor with apartments or condos on the top floors.

    Is that wise in an earthquake zone?
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Sep 22, 2016 12:41 PM GMT
    This is awesome news, Los Angeles just like Tokyo and Seoul are becoming spectacular, modernist, skyscraper metropolises. Granted there is a major earthquake risk but these buildings are specially designed to withstand violent seismic shaking providing that they are on solid rock and not on soft, silty soils like New Orleans and Miami or soil that was once a lakebed like Mexico City and Guadalajara. I would love to see both Detroit and Buffalo revitalize and rapidly build up their densities and start designing and building modernist, cutting edge skyscrapers in their downtown cores.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2016 12:59 PM GMT
    roadbikeRob said
    This is awesome news, Los Angeles just like Tokyo and Seoul are becoming spectacular, modernist, skyscraper metropolises. Granted there is a major earthquake risk but these buildings are specially designed to withstand violent seismic shaking providing that they are on solid rock and not on soft, silty soils like New Orleans and Miami or soil that was once a lakebed like Mexico City and Guadalajara. I would love to see both Detroit and Buffalo revitalize and rapidly build up their densities and start designing and building modernist, cutting edge skyscrapers in their downtown cores.

    Well, regarding style I'd favor an art deco retro look.

    But aside from my personal design bias, would you really want to fork over your Federal taxpayer dollars to have to rescue them and rebuild the high-rise property of these Los Angelenos when a big earthquake strikes? Until the next big one hits? To keep indulging & encouraging their poor judgment? An attractive area in many ways, but I view it as merely building on sand. And forget San Francisco altogether.
  • metta

    Posts: 39125

    Sep 22, 2016 4:06 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    metta saidIn Cranes’ Shadow, Los Angeles Strains to See a Future With Less Sprawl

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/22/us/in-cranes-shadow-los-angeles-strains-to-see-a-future-with-less-sprawl.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

    Even in the suburbs, buildings are getting taller. Instead of just one and two story buildings, we are seeing more 5-7 story buildings, especially mixed use and apartment buildings. Mixed use normally means a little retail on the bottom floor with apartments or condos on the top floors.

    Is that wise in an earthquake zone?


    There is engineering for that. That is the main reason why LA took so long to build high rises.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 22, 2016 4:59 PM GMT
    Some time too much is too much ...
    Why not building in the valley ?
    Everyone want to be in the city ...ugghhhh
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4435

    Sep 22, 2016 8:51 PM GMT
    I thought for a while that we might need to relocate to LA for my partner's career so we went and stayed a while and toured, even met with a realtor to get a feel of neighborhoods/prices. I've got to say, LA may be the ugliest major city in the US architecturally. Even the extremely expensive areas are, for the most part, butt ugly. The houses are ugly, the condo projects are ugly, the commercial areas wouldn't begin to cut it in any other city. We were mainly in the West Hollywood/Beverly Hills area but also looked at Silverlake and Santa Monica areas. We stayed at the LA Athletic Club downtown. So we saw most of what was to be seen, except Malibu which was too far out. If going up will begin some rethinking of the urban aesthetic, I think that is a good thing. There is just no there there. I'm sure it is a great place to eat and be entertained so not knocking the city, just the architecture.
  • metta

    Posts: 39125

    Sep 22, 2016 9:02 PM GMT
    ^
    You can find pretty much any type of property you want in LA. You just have to know what you want, what you are willing to pay, how far you are willing to be from work, etc. If you have enough money you can have pretty much anything.
  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4435

    Sep 22, 2016 10:27 PM GMT
    Ya, it is. Look up Seaside (the Florida one), Rosemary Beach, Alys Beach. All part of Destin. LA is tacky. Ya, I'm east coast. Savannah originally. LA looks like one giant past-its-prime strip mall.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14354

    Sep 23, 2016 12:14 AM GMT
    WestCoastJock said
    Destinharbor saidI thought for a while that we might need to relocate to LA for my partner's career so we went and stayed a while and toured, even met with a realtor to get a feel of neighborhoods/prices. I've got to say, LA may be the ugliest major city in the US architecturally. Even the extremely expensive areas are, for the most part, butt ugly. The houses are ugly, the condo projects are ugly, the commercial areas wouldn't begin to cut it in any other city. We were mainly in the West Hollywood/Beverly Hills area but also looked at Silverlake and Santa Monica areas. We stayed at the LA Athletic Club downtown. So we saw most of what was to be seen, except Malibu which was too far out. If going up will begin some rethinking of the urban aesthetic, I think that is a good thing. There is just no there there. I'm sure it is a great place to eat and be entertained so not knocking the city, just the architecture.


    What an east coast snob. Like Destin Harbor Florida is so much better - architecturally I mean.
    If Destinharbor wants to see architecturally ugly along with suburban style cityscapes, he needs to visit Texas horrendously overrated capital city of Austin. Billboards, overhead power lines, strip plazas, seedy bars, streets with little or no storm water drainage, and a pawnshop on almost every goddamned street corner, that is Austin. Ugly, weird, and disgusting and meant to stay that way permanently. The ugliest, dumpiest state capital city in the USA.
  • metta

    Posts: 39125

    Sep 23, 2016 12:23 AM GMT
    We actually have some very famous buildings. You just have to know where to look. And it just depends on what kind of neighborhood you want to live in: small town feel, urban, suburban, etc.

    Urban:
    Century City
    Marina Del Rey
    Old Town Pasadena

    Suburban:
    Sierra Madre, CA
    Santa Monica (off Montana)....but I will say that traffic has gotten ridiculous in Santa Monica
    If you like old homes, you might want to look at cities like South Pasadena, San Marino, etc. You can find some Victorian homes in South Pasadena. The Pasadena area is known for spanish and craftsman homes.