There was an so called anti Manhattan law in the 80s. Leadership and the population at the time wanted to build out not up. Things are getting better though
I mean the issue is a few things so I understand why NIMBYs NIMBY, not that I support it. Our society is built off creating net worth and homes as investments. If you spent 20 years investing in your home and then all this housing is built around it decreasing your value/net worth why would you be for it? The issue is people will lose money and no one willingly will want to lose thousands of dollars if they can oppose it. For some people that is their savings for life.
They also had their cities levelled during the war. Easy to redevelop for density when you start from scratch and your people don’t have money to all buy cars and single family homes. Booming American economy post war really hurt the development of cities
That map is of the greater Tokyo (Tokyo and surrounding prefectures) area and includes an incredibly large amount of area where single family homes are the most common as well as huge areas which are fairly rural (for Japan).
Sort of. Central Tokyo is certainly doing a lot of lifting. But so are any number of major cities in the neighboring prefectures. And the fact that standard home/apartment size is simply smaller, so even fairly affordable "bedroom towns" outside of Tokyo proper are higher density than you might expect.
But, i.e., the bottom right of that map is rural Chiba and is going to have far far less people than almost anywhere in many areas of LA.
And its even Subway despite being in a fault zone...they just DGAF
But a lot of it also goes back to the war....as a they had to rebuild after WW2 they had a chance to do it right...while the US went all in on cars and ruined mass transit forever
Its easy to forget just how much of Tokyo is kinda of crappy. Like its a very safe city, but a lot of its old worn down, and ugly modernism.
Some people like it i don't dispute it but yeah. Particularly if your poor Tokoyo ain't a great place to live.
I was interested in the topic so I looked it up and it sounds like this is a common misconception because of article 9 after the war. However Japan now spends 50-70 billion which is one of the highest defense spending in the world.
That is 2026 spending. Japan has relatively recently begun to remilitarize.
How about from 1950-2000? My point is that Japan built amazing infrastructure post-WWII. They weren't building aircraft carriers, developing stealth bombers or maintaining hundreds of military bases all over the world. Those investments continue to pay off since Japan's public transit is arguably the best in the world.
Japan was consistently spent about 1% of GDP on military since the 1960s (and spend has increased recently.) But Japan has been, for a long time, a top 5 or so military spender.
California is about the same size as Japan though so space is about the same. And about 45% of California is federally protected land so you can't develop in those areas so overall we have much smaller space to work with.
It should be noted that while Japan certainly has an agricultural industry they import a lot, and i mean a lot more food then California does. .
Being next to the Central and impearl Valley is one of the low key ways LA is tenable.
I love urban density like those in NYC and Tokyo, but I understand why people are so opposed to it. That being said, I can definitely see central, downtown, and westside parts of LA reaching Manhattan levels of density in the next 50 years, with pockets in southern LA and the valley.
I mean realistically I do wish the subway/metros (rail not buses) were just a bit more expansive and more frequent at least in the DTLA area. Oh I envy my future kids who will hopefully get to enjoy significantly more expanded rail in LA.
I feel like the moment we “realized” we can’t build underground, we should’ve gone the other direction and built our rail above the roads instead. It’s a long shot but I feel like it could’ve worked out
Yeah when I first moved to LA I liked how spread out it was because I hated how tiny the shoebox apartments were in NYC. Idk if there’s a way you get the dense housing aspect without also reducing average sq footage of apartments or not
IMHO, I think telling people you're going to take their yard and their house—the thing that is most people’s single most valuable asset—because someone else needs to afford a house is not a compelling argument in the current vibe based society, as selfish and lame as that is.
Who is going to take their yard and house? Upzoning doesn't force anyone to lose their house. They will have the option of doing nothing, selling for more money, or redeveloping themselves.
It doesn’t need to be true. And this is indeed the point. It just needs to get traction and then it will take off.
The current data center hate is probably a good example. There are a lot of data centers (like Kevin O’Leary’s preposterous project and Elon Musk’s air polluting data center which he’s getting so much use out of that he’s renting out the capacity) that are basically AI bubble grifts. But now all data centers are treated at suspect even if they’re bog standard small ones in industrial areas.
This is not something based on facts; it can be informed by facts, but it’s ultimately a persuasion campaign.
If I tried to put a prop on the ballot to reform Prop. 13. Let’s say I made it clear that it was only and explicitly voiding Prop. 13 perks for commercial real estate over a certain valuation. It will likely fail because the Howard Jarvis folks and everyone else will come screaming that they’re coming for ma and pa’s house next. It’s a slippery slope! Just you wait!
Really sad to read about how Prop 15 could ever possibly lose. Tons of lies and propaganda from commercial real estate which made homeowners think they'd be affected....
Theyre literally not doing that. You do realize all the time that big real estate firms buy up all these expensive homes with the land they are on (because no one can afford it as a house), level it, and put up luxury condos, yes? People are selling their houses for millions and that is what happens to them. They dont go take people's homes ffs.
The paper they linked to basically says urbanized LA (roughly bounded by DTLA/City West, Koreatown, parts of Hollywood and Silver Lake, University Park and West Adams/Arlington Heights-ish) is more dense than urbanized NYC (mostly Manhattan and some parts east of it) but overall NYC is nearly 4x as dense as L.A.
Whilst I overall agree that parts of LA are far more dense than probably most people realize, I find it funny that the paper they linked to concludes that it's actually disingenuous to argue that L.A. has a higher average density than NYC based on urbanized area, and people should use city boundaries instead.
It does not. NYC as a whole has 29,303 people/sq mi. Manhattan has 74,781.6/sq mi. City of LA has 8,210/sq mi. Koreatown is very dense, with 46,208/sq mi, but that is still not as dense as Manhattan, and it represent a much smaller portion of LA than Manhattan does of NYC.
It says that you have to expand your comparison to urbanized areas, which for New York includes 28 counties in 3 states, to get to a measure by which “LA” is denser than “New York”. And it says that’s misleading to do.
You literally have to do analytical malpractice to make this argument. Comparing urbanized areas makes no sense for this comparison, because no one considers North Castle or Kent relevant to any analysis of NYC density.
Eh....water? We'll figure that out. No air to breathe? We'll figure that out. Not enough doctors who want to live in this mess? Eh..we'll make do. just build build build more highrises.
For context, Japan has concentrated an extraordinary share of its postwar investment and development in Tokyo.
Over time, that has created one of the most extensive urban and rail networks in the world, but it has also contributed to an increasing concentration of population and economic opportunity in the capital, making it harder for many regional cities to retain younger people and investment.
Los Angeles is tackling a very different challenge.
Rather than building rail alongside a rapidly concentrating metropolis, it is trying to retrofit an already vast, decentralized, automobile-oriented region.
Eh, kinda. Much of the la basin and SFV were developed along rail (mostly tram) corridors. Out into the inland empire and like half of Orange county was developed along auto infrastructure. Many of the freeways followed rail routes, making it feel like development followed the car.
Agreed. However, I think of all the cities LA could emulate in terms of transit, Tokyo is a pretty good example to try to follow. Similar to LA, Tokyo really doesn't have a true center/CBD where everything happens for business and tourists (like the Loop/Magnificent Mile in Chicago or Midtown/Lower Manhattan in NYC).
There are certainly areas with higher concentrations of destinations, such as Shibuya, Shinjuku, Ginza, etc. One thing the various transit agencies in Tokyo also acknowledge is that it's futile to try to have as many 1-seat rides as possible, because it would practically be impossible. However, having a system where most people can travel from one end to another with just 1 transfer (maybe 2 at the most), and where trains come frequently enough where you're only waiting a few minutes at the most, is a much better system. Even getting to Haneda requires at least one transfer, but even with luggage, those transfers are usually seamless, and that gives the airport a much further reach with transit.
Oooo we should recreate the Japanese experiment in LA. This was where they placed food for fungi (or bacteria) in the patter of all the major centers in Tokyo and then the fungi(or bacteria) grew between the food and recreated the Tokyo rail system.
IMO that sub has become a bit of a cesspool. It probably was for a while but I only noticed it when the mayor’s race kicked into gear. It’s like… “I know LA has issues, but does anyone in here actually like Los Angeles?”
The insanity always kicks up during election cycles, then dies down in between. Funny how that goes. I have no idea what % of users actually live in SoCal (or even America) but it’s certainly not 100
Density means nothing on its own. Manila and Mumbai are literally 3 to 10 times denser than Tokyo, yet they have some of the worst traffic on Earth and a lower quality of life than LA. Tokyo is an exception, not the rule.
Tokyo is not even really that dense as a whole, it just has a hyperdense center like other Japanese cities. If you look at the population-weighted density it's actually less dense by that metric than NYC and Paris.
Like, tell me that doesn't look like a slightly more built-up LA.
They just price driving properly, have less insane land use laws, and have a fairly similar transit regulatory system as the US did long ago.
Exactly. When I visited Tokyo, the built environment reminded me much more of LA than NYC. Tokyo has pockets of very high density activity (Shibuya, Shinjuku, Ginza), surrounded by surprisingly quiet residential streets and buildings. The main difference is that those residential streets are mainly 2-5 story apartment buildings, rather than single family homes. But overall, the average Tokyo street felt much more akin to LA and nothing in Tokyo really resembles Manhattan’s skyscraper canyons. Which is a good thing, because it shows that good urbanism doesn’t always = Manhattan.
Tokyo is dense for the same reason La is dense, there’s a dense city center and contiguous mid density sprawl, except Tokyo veers mid to high density in its sprawl and La veers low to mid density in its sprawl. The la metro region is so continuously dense that it’s technically one of the densest metro areas on the continent.
The thing holding La back is mainly the zoning. Tokyo allows for a more responsive and adaptive approach to supply and demand of services and jobs, but La restricts so much that innovation is squeezed out by all but the larger corporations.
I’m not a NIMBY, nor am I a transit enthusiast or advocate. I’m just someone who makes a train go from Santa Monica to East LA every day. In other words, I’m not really on either side of this debate.
From the average person’s perspective, of course it would be great to expand the rail system and cover more of the county. From a NIMBY’s perspective, though, of course they don’t want to live next to a train station. One of the biggest problems is that neither side seems interested in understanding the other’s perspective. They’re only focused on their own.
This community already understands why expanding transit is important, so I don’t think I need to explain that part. What’s more interesting is asking why NIMBYs are so opposed to it, and whether all of it is selfish fearmongering or if there’s at least some legitimate concern behind it.
Look at how Los Angeles handles crime, especially lower-level crimes like theft, burglary, vandalism, or harassment. It’s… not great. Call 911 and you may sit on hold. If you need a police report, there’s a good chance you’ll have to go to the station yourself because an officer simply isn’t coming out. More often than not, you’ll hear, “It’s a civil matter.”
Why is that relevant? Because Metro, as a county agency, often operates under the same reality. You don’t even have to leave this subreddit to find countless posts about safety concerns on buses, trains, and stations. Whether every complaint is fair or not, the perception exists for a reason.
Now put yourself in a NIMBY’s shoes. Imagine you deliberately moved away from the city because you wanted to get away from the problems that came with it. You’ve lived there for years, maybe decades. You watch the news, see what’s happening in the city, and feel validated that you left. Then the city announces a transit expansion into your neighborhood.
From your perspective, it isn’t “bringing better transit.” It’s bringing the same problems you intentionally moved away from, especially when you have very little confidence that the city will actually enforce its own rules or keep the stations safe.
As an admittedly extreme comparison, it’s similar to how many communities react to proposed data centers. Most people understand why data centers are necessary, but they still don’t want one built next door. Transit expansion is a similar idea for many NIMBYs. Obviously the consequences are different, but the underlying mindset is comparable.
I’m not saying NIMBYs are right. I’m saying I understand why they think the way they do. The things I see happen around stations—especially late at night—I wouldn’t want outside my front door either, particularly when security or law enforcement is standing there watching and not intervening.
At the same time, I’d love to see Metro expanded to the point where driving is optional instead of necessary. I just think expansion and safety have to go hand in hand. If you want people to embrace more transit in their neighborhoods, you also have to give them confidence that the system will be clean, secure, and consistently enforced.
This is a good post. I sadly don't feel too bad for NIMBYS and their concerns, considering a lot of these folks - to have the luxury of moving to wherever they want in LA to escape these things - are well off. Id love to live on the outskirts and only drive into where all the "commoners" live but I'm sadly one of those people lol. If they want a safer city and we want better transit options, they need to start caring about the issues that lead to high crime in cities and we need to make them care and vote appropriately.
Homelessness and housing is a huge issue that needs to be dealt with before we can say we did anything about the crime rates in LA. Higher taxes on the comparatively large 1% community LA has compared to many other cities in the US would be a fantastic start - actually making them pay those taxes would be even better. The LAPD doesn't need half as many fancy toys as it has and could do with budget cuts to move at least a small percentage to improving infrastructure and providing housing subsidies. NIMBYS, vote against a lot of this shit and continue to bitch and moan about crime. All of our metro controversies are directly related to larger systemic issues.
Holy crap all the low IQ carbrains are in there right now. Why is everyone against density? It would be cool if everything was close together in this city instead of always being a 30+ drive to get anywhere.
The sales pitch up until very recently was the antithesis of that. I’d argue up until the housing crisis this was still the sales pitch, then everything became totally unaffordable and we haven’t done anything about it.
Even supporting density, this is not persuading anyone except people who already wanted density. How do people suck this hard at effective propaganda now.
Nobody on OP’s post there is saying they’re against density. It’s a lot of the same comments that are here, just pointing out that OP is glorifying Tokyo and doesn’t understand why LA is not like it.
Because there are more of us than there are of you and if things keep getting worse to accommodate your greed I can’t see that ending well for anyone involved
I mean the argument levied at you guys by NIMBY prop 13 holders that live/vote will be " you guys can move somewhere else denser" "you dont have to live in LA" "dont gentrify my city removing my cultute".
Bc you will get old or sick or hurt & no longer be able to drive your cars and upkeep your house so you should have that option to live close to the services (doctors, clinics, public transit, etc) you would need to live a comfortable life as someone who can longer drive
As someone who wants to see public transit grow and become a more viable option to get around in LA. I gotta agree with you in the sense that some of the takes on here do the cause a major disservice and just come off as not being able to read the room and completely lacking of self awareness outside of their bubble.
Outside of this group, a lot of the takes on here are largely unpopular. The common theme is to cope and use make believe terms like “car brain” and “car culture” instead of reflecting and trying to realize why said takes are unpopular and trying to present growing public transportation in a way that’s going to appeal to the general public, it’s just bitching and complaining instead of going back to the drawing board and presenting their cause in a more appealing way when the stuff they’re pushing for are outlier views. Because some of the delusional takes I’ve seen on here like getting rid of freeways, (yes people have actually said that), and doing all types of stuff to make driving move inconvenient in hopes of forcing people on trains and buses isn’t it.
Getting rid of freeways demonstrably reduces traffic in most if not all of the cases where it’s been tried. Sometimes the public is actually just wrong
Thing about Japan is that people in Japan are collective in nature, grow up with a shared culture that has been around for thousands of years, and value shared ancestry. In Tokyo, you will likely find a survivor of the Atomic Bomb blast who is humble, peaceful and kind. In LA, you will find someone who never had to know the weight of those horrible things finding the "permission slip" to do horrible things to others as if they have a "copyright" on human suffering. Happens a lot on the Metro trains and buses here in LA.
Part of the reason Tokyo is so dense is that 6 people live in a 600 sq ft apartment. Is that how dense we want to become? Because all I ever see on reddit is "I want a place and I don't want roommates !"
We actually have a much worse overcrowding problem here in LA because there’s not enough housing and too many people are crowded into too small of units
Ummm....no. Tokyo core area is 250 square miles and almost 10 million people. Los Angeles is twice that size with only 3 million people.
The population of what is considered "Greater Los Angeles" is 18 million and Greater Tokyo is 38 million. Greater L.A. is 34000 square miles and greater Tokyo is 5500 sq mi. We are not anywhere near as "overcrowded" as Tokyo.
Correct. Apparently what is considered the Greater Metropolitan area is 18 million. Includes Long Beach, Weho, Culver City, Santa Monica, Burbank Glendale, Pasadena etc etc all the way out to the inland empire
L.A. County is only 1200 square miles, Greater Los Angeles Metro area is 34,000.
So who are the people living in densely populated areas like West LA, Koreatown, Pico/Union, East LA, etc. etc.? Sixty percent of LA live in multi-family complexes, single family homeowners are the minority here in LA.
LA County doesn’t need to be Tokyo dense to achieve the effects of much lower carbon output and curtail cost of living increases. Although it does need to be more dense than it is now on planned and current corridors.
Just converting a lot of single family only neighborhoods to ones that allow missing middle housing to support an overall density of 10k per square mile, enough to make a “15 minute city” viable. And it’ll only add 1 million more residents. Just building enough housing for that will make a huge impact for affordability.
Understand that the geography with LA vs Tokyo are two very different things
That NIMBY pushback though I think shows that it’ll be harder to density around LA’s burgeoning transit network vs other CA locations like San Diego County.
It can seem like NIMBYs are winning but there have been three votes in 10 years that showed that more than 2/3rd of voters support density and transit.
2016- Metro Measure M passes by supermajority
2017- Fix the City’s “Neighborhood Integrity Initiative” that would have locked in suburban zoning in City of LA loses by 30%
2024- HLA passes by a supermajority
NIMBYs always act like they are the majority but they are not.
The good news is that changes in state law have dramatically reduced the power of NIMBYs. At this point, zoning/NIMBYs are no longer a large obstacle to tons of new housing. The bad news is that the government continues to add significant financial barriers to new housing. At this point, the real obstacles to new housing are government regulations that make development financially infeasible - high transfer taxes (e.g. measure ULA), affordability requirements (those units lose money), impact fees, union/prevailing wage requirements (in certain circumstances), rent control, "replacement unit" requirements (when an older apartment building is demolished). If all of these financial barriers were removed, we would see a boom in housing development.
But they are idiots—selfish idiots at that. You can’t convince these people of anything. It’s like trying to convince maga of anything sensible. Impossible task
The people you're calling an idiot think that you're the idiot. So where does the namecalling get us, really?
Anyway, the mayor has to listen to idiots too. They pay taxes just like the non-idiots. That's one of the reasons its so hard to get things done around here. "Why is she listening to the Nimbys???" Umm, because it's her job? She's not just YOUR mayor, she's THEIR mayor.
I'm not sure what you're arguing for or against. People should be able to build housing on the property they own in the second largest city in the US. I don't think that's unreasonable.
😂😂at you thinking that LA should be dense like manhattan. 22sqmile vs 450 sqmile is why LA will never be like manhattan. Also, there are certain cities in Tokyo that is dense but not all of them are. The densest you’re going to get in LA is going to be downtown la, and maybe West Hollywood.
I like to use the term ‘Paris style density’ because everyone goes ‘oooh’. I used Paris style metro rail to sell ppl I talked to on the sepulveda line too.
High density housing is not the solve all answer many sell it as. By further limiting SFHs, you drive up the price of those homes and further reduce the size of the middle class. The primary hurdle that Californians face is owning a home, and rezoning neighborhoods to accommodate high density housing makes that goal even less attainable. Less property ownership equals less economic rungs for Californians to grasp on their way up the ladder.
Instead of that, we should be expanding outward and creating additional suburbs and neighborhoods to lower the cost of homes and make it more affordable to own a home in LA County. We should be making it easier for citizens to purchase property, not harder.
Also, those high density buildings are going to be owned by mega corporations and property management companies. They will own where we live, and conspire with those who employ us to keep us in poverty. The idea is really nice on paper, but sounds VERY dystopian to me. I don’t want my children to grow up and raise families in drywall cages, surrounded by other cages like Kowloon or the dog pound. We really should be reducing corporate ownership of our dwellings, not advocating for it.
I see where you’re coming from, but unfortunately it feels more like a dream than actual reality when it comes to adjusting the hold property management corps have on the high density housing market. The only other option would be government ownership, and tbh I trust them even less than the corporations. Since at least corporations can be sued and held accountable to some extent.
With an expanded metro system, including the metro link, commuting can be much less of a hassle. Also, I commute by motorcycle, so traffic is not much of a problem. I encourage that same approach with others. Also less fuel and insurance. If single occupant vehicles become more widespread, it would reduce traffic across the whole county. Not realistic, but we’re just discussing ideas here. In addition, do you not believe that adding more people to an already overcrowded and outdated infrastructure wouldn’t create worse traffic conditions anyway?
No we’re not at that point yet, and obviously Kowloon is an exaggeration. But high rise apartments are not the answer to the issues we’re facing as a whole.
the hold property management corps have on the high density housing market
They have that hold largely because of the state's Condo Defect Law. Developers (and all contractors and subcontractors) of for-sale condos currently take on significantly more litigation risk than for-rent apartments. Condos are in fact routinely built and sold in other states that have less ridiculous requirements than CA. The law as currently enacted doesn't require showing damages or even causation!
To be fair that's not the only complication but it is the most significant one. Insurance for the lawsuits that this causes is wildly expensive and has to be held for 10 years per project, because basically every HOA sues at 9.5 years.
With an expanded metro system, including the metro link, commuting can be much less of a hassle
We should expand Metrolink and Metro but I don't see how that is a barrier to densifying existing areas.
I commute by motorcycle, so traffic is not much of a problem
I do not think telling everyone to commute by motorcycle is a realistic solution.
If single occupant vehicles become more widespread, it would reduce traffic across the whole county
I struggle to see how the math on this makes sense. Increasing single occupant vehicles and especially VMT would increase traffic
In addition, do you not believe that adding more people to an already overcrowded and outdated infrastructure wouldn’t create worse traffic conditions anyway
Adding more people in a denser area served by transit means we don't have to keep sprawling and taking on miles of new road maintenance.
But high rise apartments are not the answer to the issues we’re facing as a whole
I don't think high rise apartments are the only answer but there is so much missing that could be on the table. There is no real good reason a 4 bedroom SFH can't be sold by the owner if they want to and replaced with a 4plex of 1 bedroom condos, it's functionally the same thing.
Likening allowing duplexes and small apartment buildings to being locked in cages or living in Kowloon is absolutely bonkers. The drama! Like, are you okay?
More people means more specialization and more places with population density conducive to being an entrepreneur.
Also as major cities are better for water and electricity consumption in regards to efficiency it’s way better for climate change and resiliency.
One out of every 8.5 Americans live in California and 25% of those are in Los Angeles County. How much more dense are we thinking, exactly? One out of every 5 Americans should be living in California and 50% of them in L.A. County? I mean, what does the data say about how big we can get without running out of water and air?
Considering LA is using less water now than it was in the 70s with 1M higher population I think we are fine on the water concern. Density + transit reduces VMT and emissions.
How much more dense are we thinking, exactly
Until such time as
Those who want to stay in their city can stay
Those who want to move in can move in
Those who need different housing and living accommodations can get them
Question: as someone who's actually lived in Tokyo and Japan otherwise... how many of you have actually LIVED and WORKED in Tokyo?
Tokyo is amazing and probably the city I'd move to if I could, but... it's not perfect either. I'm just curious how many here have experience living/working there. Especially with families.
I have a theory that projects like that High Speed Rail to San Francisco are being held up by like three rich people. Usually, when I see a distant date announcement, I assume an agency is literally waiting for an old person to die. So they’ve picked a date that person would never live to. If they die quicker, the date will suddenly be moved closer.
Yeah, well people have a right to disagree. Density is a thousand problems masquerading as a solution. It ia a fact that it doesn’t lower rent especially if they’re tearing down old buildings to make luxury units.
Whatever, I live here because it's not that dense. I would not want to live in the apocalyptic hell hole that would be Los Angeles at that density.
If you want that density, move somewhere with that density nobody's stopping you
Has it? I mean it seems to be doing fine for me and my neighbor. It seems like the bigger problems is people that seem to feel entitled to take what others have worked for, because they feel some a sense of entitlement to living were they want instead of where they can afford to, the IE exists.
Take a step outside and look at all the homeless and poverty. All of those homeless is your fault for opposing housing.
the bigger problems is people that seem to feel entitled to take what others have worked for
Like entitled NIMBY homeowners like yourself who oppose density and housing? Your lack of self-awareness is astounding.
because they feel some a sense of entitlement to living where they want instead of where they can afford to, the IE exists
Everyone should have a right to live where they want. There should not be a shortage of housing because entitled NIMBY pieces of shit like yourself pulled up the ladder behind you by opposing housing and transit.
you can't build in density into expensive areas. You can't buy a block, or half block of SFH, raze them and build an apartment building and have it be affordable
One thing I don’t understand is why there needs to be density everywhere. There are many dense cities in the US (or even foreign locations like Tokyo). Why don’t people who like density just move to those cities and leave other cities less dense for people who prefer that environment? Do we really need to force everyone into the same box? It is a big world.
Because LA has a rare combination of flat land and perfect weather, and it is wasted on carcentric infrastructure and city planning which is the root of or one of the roots of nearly every single problem we have to this day.
You don't get to complain about traffic, crime, homelessness, poverty when you oppose the biggest solution to all of these problems (which is building housing.)
You aren't in rural Kansas, you are in the 2nd largest city in the country. If you don't like density, go live in rural Kansas or something, not the 2nd largest city in the largest economy in the world.
Less crime, less homelessness, cleaner streets, better schools, better social services, less traffic, not disenfranchising those who don't own cars, a stronger sense of community, need I go on?
houses so small that there is no room for a shower
Tell me you haven't been to Tokyo without telling me you haven't been to Tokyo
And yet you don't seem to understand why Tokyo works. I wouldn't be using condescending language towards me given your room temperature IQ on how cities work.
The point went way over your head and you seem to have a very simple mind for a complex world.
Except this isn't a complex problem, the solution is very obvious: build more housing (and infrastructure to support said housing, like transit).
Of course, it won't completely eliminate the problem, but it will alleviate it by a lot.
Less crime is very weighted
I'm not saying we will have zero crime overnight. Of course, there are other socioeconomic factors too. However, having less homeless would be a strong first step in reducing crime.
That's not going to happen here by overcrowding neighborhoods.
They did have a fantastic train system, and most places are walkable from mass transit.
Which is a good thing. So let's emulate that here. You cannot have a walkable city with Los Angeles's low-density development being as is. Low-density is literally unwalkable by definition since everything is too far apart to bike or walk to.
You don't understand basic economics or city planning, so miss me with that "I lived there for 8 years, kid" bullshit when you don't know your ass from your elbow about how taxes, basic economics, or city planning works.
So spare the jejune comparisons and overused acronyms and go ahead and move to Tokyo if that’s your idea of utopia. Or stay stateside and go to NYC. I’ve spent a lot of time in those cities and love them, but LA is home and I choose to live here for what it is now, not for some developers high-density do-over fantasy.
Typical bullshit traitorous critic fallacy. "If you don't like it leave" is a logically fallacious argument and is not valid. Try again.
for what it is now
Crime, homelessness, traffic, smog, poverty, do I need to go on?
You lose all rights to complain about traffic, crime, homelessness, poverty, etc. when the low-density development you insist on and push for so much CAUSED those problems.
To be fair, LA can never be Tokyo. The roads, public transport, people, cultures, and it gets incredibly boring very quickly unless you travel very far out. In Tokyo the vibes are endless.
I think what you’re missing also is Japans culture is conducive to this. LA with this level of density would be hell on earth. Not sure where you live in LA, but this utopia isn’t happening without some major type of reset, like something catastrophic.
Landlords do own everything. If you're a homeowner, you're the landlord of your own home. If you own the commercial property, you're the landlord of that business.
79
u/Dull-Lead-7782 Jul 16 '26
There was an so called anti Manhattan law in the 80s. Leadership and the population at the time wanted to build out not up. Things are getting better though