Why didn't Los Angeles make the U.S. News top 100 places to live list? (Glendale: neighborhoods, cinema)

[JB316]

Originally Posted by Burkmere

Just a little time filler while I'm trading and answering emails. You don't have to worry about me. But thanks for caring...oh, and for my huge pension!!

You might want to try "reading." I lived in the Bay Area for 35 years. Spent much time in El A and surroundings. Ok, time to work out and get ready for happy hour. About 100 places for those within half a mile of where I live...

No one cares.

You’re not important.

[JB316]

Silly lists like this are simply clickbait/advertisement.

Obviously, the most coveted cities to live in in this country are the most expensive - the market decides.

LA is one of a handful of world class cities that we have in the country, as long as you can afford it. Otherwise go run along and enjoy Fayetteville or Colorado Springs or some ****.

[Pro1000]

You gotta have affordable and abundant housing to be on these types of lists

[Coseau]

Originally Posted by Veritas Vincit

L.A.’s reputation in general isn’t that great. Its general urban form and structure are often criticized from the Left as much as its politics and demographic changes are criticized from the Right. Thats why all the rich super liberal IT types are up north instead and all the guys who like pickups and guns are heading to Arizona or Texas.

If you look at media portrayals of the area, very few are unreservedly positive, many are more negative than positive. I think both on the East Coast and outside the US its seen as crass and its sprawl is seen as dystopian almost.

L.A. is the poster child for car centric sprawl. Most American cities are similar in form in which the city is built around the car it is just that L.A. is car centric on steriods. From Atlanta to Austin to D.C. -Maryland- NOVA MSA the majority of the populace in most American metro areas lives in car centic communities dominated by wide pedestian unfriendly streets and endless strip malls. In other advanced 1st world nations from Asia to Europe it is the other way around in which the city is built to be pedestrian friendly.

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by Coseau

L.A. is the poster child for car centric sprawl. Most American cities are similar in form in which the city is built around the car it is just that L.A. is car centric on steriods. From Atlanta to Austin to D.C. -Maryland- NOVA MSA the majority of the populace in most American metro areas lives in car centic communities dominated by wide pedestian unfriendly streets and endless strip malls. In other advanced 1st world nations from Asia to Europe it is the other way around in which the city is built to be pedestrian friendly.

-The Los Angeles region in its early years did have widely scattered settlements but even those settlements were not particularly low in density and they were NOT the result of automobile driven sprawl. They were the result of the 1,000 mile plus inter-urban street car system which extended across the region.

-Since World War II, moreover, the density of the Los Angeles region has climbed dramatically, while that of some older cities in the North and East have declined. By some measures, it is one of the most dense metro areas in the nation.


https://www.laweekly.com/news/la-is-...g-city-5392510

-Los Angeles has always had relatively small lot sizes, very little abandonment and, because of geographic constraints and the difficulty in obtaining water, almost none of the really low-density suburban and exurban development that extends for dozens of miles in all directions outside other cities in the United States.

-While the automobile is the dominant mode of transit in Los Angeles, it is far less sprawling and pedestrian unfriendly than other sunbelt cities. Its walk score rank it 18th overall in US cities with a population over 200,000.

https://www.moneytalksnews.com/slide...es-america/19/

[sean1the1]

Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks

-The Los Angeles region in its early years did have widely scattered settlements but even those settlements were not particularly low in density and they were NOT the result of automobile driven sprawl. They were the result of the 1,000 mile plus inter-urban street car system which extended across the region.

-Since World War II, moreover, the density of the Los Angeles region has climbed dramatically, while that of some older cities in the North and East have declined. By some measures, it is one of the most dense metro areas in the nation.


https://www.laweekly.com/news/la-is-...g-city-5392510

-Los Angeles has always had relatively small lot sizes, very little abandonment and, because of geographic constraints and the difficulty in obtaining water, almost none of the really low-density suburban and exurban development that extends for dozens of miles in all directions outside other cities in the United States.

-While the automobile is the dominant mode of transit in Los Angeles, it is far less sprawling and pedestrian unfriendly than other sunbelt cities. Its walk score rank it 18th overall in US cities with a population over 200,000.

https://www.moneytalksnews.com/slide...es-america/19/

Even suburban developments here are much denser than anywhere else. For instance the Ontario Ranch is being developed for 46k homes on 8200 acres. While in Houston Cinco ranch the exact same size will only have 14k homes.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Coseau

L.A. is the poster child for car centric sprawl. Most American cities are similar in form in which the city is built around the car it is just that L.A. is car centric on steriods. From Atlanta to Austin to D.C. -Maryland- NOVA MSA the majority of the populace in most American metro areas lives in car centic communities dominated by wide pedestian unfriendly streets and endless strip malls. In other advanced 1st world nations from Asia to Europe it is the other way around in which the city is built to be pedestrian friendly.

They were built when there wetr only pedestrians and horses. The layout fit that. LA was not built like that, as it began to grow after the Industrial revolution and cars and trains, for distant travel were common.

[Dave Coe]

To much sprawl and to much of an extreme in inequality caused by NIMBYism and illegal immigration.

[Coseau]

Originally Posted by sean1the1

Even suburban developments here are much denser than anywhere else. For instance the Ontario Ranch is being developed for 46k homes on 8200 acres. While in Houston Cinco ranch the exact same size will only have 14k homes.

The problem is that if Ontario Ranch is being developed in which all those 46k households need automobiles for transportation to work and everyday needs such as shopping, then that is 46k to 92k plus more cars squeezed in a small geographical area of 8200 acres causing more traffic congestion on the roads and highways. From the look of it seems that the planners of this development realize that this cannot be an auto dependant city so they are planning to design this community with new urbanism in mind.

[Coseau]

Originally Posted by expatCA

They were built when there wetr only pedestrians and horses. The layout fit that. LA was not built like that, as it began to grow after the Industrial revolution and cars and trains, for distant travel were common.

Most of the growth in the Chinese cities has occured just in the last 30 to 40 years. In 1979 Shenzhen was a small city of some 30,000 inhabitants. Today it has about 13 million inhabitants. The Chinese urban planners could have planned their cities according to the principles laid out by Le Corbusier and Ebenezer Howard that became the orthodox of American urban planning by the mid 20th century. Le Corbusier's "The Radiant City" and Ebenezer Howard's " The Garden City" combination exempified by Atlanta, Detroit, L.A., Houston, etc. Instead the Chinese decided to develop their cities the way cities developed during most of human history, for the pedestrian not the automobile.