Los Angeles Infill House

3 thoughts on “Los Angeles Infill House”

    1. Actually LA is now more dense than NYC. LA has been changing incrementally for decades, but the old 1950’s vision of the city still remains in everyone’s mind.

      1. Urban area to urban area, so long as you don’t count inland empire as L.A., that is correct. L.A. has denser suburbs, and that started before 1950, with the pacific electric company:

        P.E. was largely a real estate development scheme. They build streetcar suburbs on small lots. The streetcars and much of the old housing disappeared, but the small lot sizes remain in much of the city.

        The other reason is found also on this relief map- the san gabriel mountains.
        While NYC’s big geographic crunch was created by the bronx, east, and hudson rivers, L.A.’s was the San Gabriel mountains. When you’ve got Emily Roebling and later Robert Moses, a flat and fairly narrow set of waterways quickly gives way to open land. When you have a limited number of fairly narrow mountain passes, and the environmental movement, you have a medium-density city which sprawls nearly uninterrupted to its natural barriers, and then comes up in a polycentric, chaotic fashion.

        Should we not count the Inland Empire in the L.A. urban area? The two seem fairly contiguous to me, unlike the San Diego and L.A. areas, which are cleaved by the largess of the federal government (Camp Pendleton).

        When you count I.E. as part of L.A., you don’t have a very dense metro area at all. The line is a blurry one.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s