Running out of Space?
This morning, our Urban Lab encouraged us to explore the
nature of Echo Mountain and record our observations on the surrounding scenery
and people. The Mt. Lowe and Inspiration Point hiking trails are only two
examples of what attracts countless families, hikers, bikers, and photographers
to this region and what makes this spot so important. One of the most striking
things my group noticed towards the beginning of our short hike was the proximity of Altadena houses
to the mountainside—from the first lookout point on the trail, we could see many houses and their elaborate pools directly below us, coming dangerously close to
encroaching on this natural territory. And as it stands, nothing other than a
rusty, bent fence is stopping those homeowners from expanding their lot or real
estate agents from building new houses. Did you notice any other visible human interferences with the nature of the canyon?
As we know from our Land of Sunshine readings and past class
discussions, realtors are constantly looking to create homes where there were
previously none and make space to accommodate all of the newcomers eager to
start their lives here. Even the very real danger of possible landslides and debris flows in the mountains does not dissuade people from building houses there, likely because the need for more living space exceeds the number of living hazards. Since L.A. has never lost its appeal or stopped attracting
immigrants, its cities are becoming ever more crowded: a 2014 L.A. Times
article calls this city an “epicenter of overcrowded housing.” The article
states that more than half of Southern California’s population is packed into
Los Angeles and Orange counties, where almost 45 percent of homes occupy more
than one person per room. Have you ever noticed significant crowdedness in your
own life or in the city? If so, where?
The question of how many more newcomers Los Angeles can
support is a prevailing topic of discussion: do you think it is justifiable to
limit the number of people who can become residents of the L.A. area? What would the main reason be to discourage people from living here?
If people do stop extending residential neighborhoods up
into the mountains, it seems that the only other way to expand would be to build upwards in another sense—to stack houses
and create enormous high-rise buildings full of tiny apartments that accommodate
many more people. Do you see this as a better option? Why or why not? Can you
think of other alternatives to this prevalent and pressing housing issue?
If you'd like to read the article: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-crowding-20140308-story.html
Aesthetically, building higher would not be a better option, but it's the only feasible option for us to support our growing population for a couple of reasons.
ReplyDelete1. Los Angeles is undergoing an urban sprawl. Poor urban planning leads to developers expanding further into cheaper undeveloped lands and building more roads and utilities to reach those new houses as a cheaper solution. Ultimately this urban sprawl is bad for a couple of reasons. As the distance of our commutes increases, the traffic we have to go through also proportionally increases which also increases the amount of pollution released creating a layer of smog
2. Horizontal expansion leads to more pipes, leading to more pipe leakage which accounts for a surprising amount of water consumption-up to 30 % depending on which study you choose. Oftentimes, skyscrapers are seen as big monstrosities that are terrible for the environment, but they often tend to be better than many of "green" houses. For example, the taipei 101 was able to decrease water loss by 30% through vertical integration, and also achieved the platinum LEED designation.
3. Building taller is cheaper than the future costs of urban sprawl because most of the investment is placed on a private contractor and the relative cost of building higher in terms of building material levels out after the 40th floor since most of the cost of a tall building is fixed( permits, design process, land). This leads to cities like hong kong where there aren't many extremely tall buildings, but every single building is pretty tall.
There is a possibility that building taller would confine us to a "concrete jungle" and block out sunlight, but such issues have been solved in the past through better city planning and better design such as the 1961 New York City Zoning act, and the chenelle flagship store in japan.
While on our hike I did notice multiple examples of human contact with the trails that led up into the mountains. The first thing that I noticed had been altered were the little fences that lined the trails in order to prevent mountain erosion. It was interesting to note because in some spots of the trail you could see the upper middle part or the fence. However in some spots the debris flow from the mountains was so great that it ran all the way to the top of the fence. Another area where I noticed human contact was in the multitude of graffiti that was sprayed/written across the pipes, trees and concrete elements that were scattered throughout the trails. Also further up along the trail our group saw a water reserve that had been built in order to save water when it rains. Answering the second question I have noticed a multitude of people and overcrowded areas in Los Angeles, the most noticeable instant being when I was driving back from Beverly Hills during rush hour. My meeting ended at 5:30 and I did not get home until 7:15 and for the first time in my life I experienced true road rage because I had actually been in the car driving for at least 4 hours of that day and I now can see why people get so annoyed if they have to commute far to work. Not just on the freeway do this number of people become evident, but at sporting events as well. Each week at USC, Rams, Dodgers, Lakers, Clippers, Chargers and Galaxy games a multitude of people view these games and just the fact that you could have 100,000 people and even more if you combined all of the sports teams that play at once can gather in a small span of 10's of miles and still not even disturb the hustle and bustle of the city shows just how crowded it is. In terms of limiting the number of people that can live in LA, I think that this practice is somewhat being carried out in the gentrified communities that have been popping up in Los Angeles. Slowly as areas become nicer and nicer it slowly pushes the lower in come community members out of there homes and therefore is slowly making LA a city that is harder and harder to live in as a citizen. Also as a result of this I think the only way to limit the amount of citizens that can inhibit LA is by raising the prices to live in the city which has been happening especially with the rise of all of the high rise buildings that are currently being built downtown. However other than raising the prices I do not believe that there is a possible way to limit the amount of inhabitants that LA has. I also do believe that if we have to except the fact that our city is growing the only way to fit more people into the city would just be to build upwards. However the alternative to this would be that the city would become extremely over crowed and become like that of a New York type city where mobility is extremely difficult.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFor a long time, I didn’t think of LA as over-crowded. Sure, I’d seen homes on the mountainside, like those that I saw in the cul-de-sacs below us this morning. But I always thought of those homes being built for luxury, panaroma views, proximity to nature—never for lack of space. The same goes for houses in Los Feliz or the Hollywood Hills. Because L.A. is spread out, I only saw select parts of it multiple times when I was growing up: Pasadena, Hancock Park, Brentwood—mostly residential neighborhoods. But more and more, I’m becoming aware of different living conditions in LA, and how crowded it is for so many people, especially those who can’t afford a house. I know someone who lives in a house less than half the size of mine, which is further subdivided and rented to multiple families. Even though L.A. as a whole isn’t a typical, dense city like New York, many people do live in close quarters. I think that some Angelinos have a somewhat delusional sense of space in the city because rhetoric more often revolves around its expansive nature. I know that I have more to learn about housing conditions and population management, so I’m not sure I can say what the best way is to address it. I think limiting the number of L.A. residents would be difficult and also problematic: How does the city choose those who stay and those who go? I wonder how the city has attempted to manage populations in the past, and how things like income and race weigh into decisions about urban planning.
ReplyDeleteI think that Los Angeles is indeed in need of change, there is obviously a problem with the housing situation in relation to overpopulation and in terms of the environment. However, I do not believe that the culprits are people coming to Los Angeles (immigrants, people attracted to the city). These people are statistically taking up the least amount of space. I think the root of the problem is the aesthetic need of large housing. I don’t think the question is necessarily how many newcomers LA can “support”. I think the question is if our city is willing to sacrifice imagined material needs in order to support our environment and people seeking a life in it.
ReplyDeleteWhen it comes to justice in housing how can we relate it back to a family of three living in a 6 bedroom house with 5 bathrooms when a family of 8 is living in an apartment for 2 downtown? Although people living in these luxurious situations are not the norm of our society I do think it has an impact on the housing situation.
Extending housing into the mountains has already proved to be dangerous for many reasons. It seems as though building upward was not tried as a last priority, but instead satisfied many aesthetic needs in order to accommodate for more people. As a city I believe building upwards can be a possible solution in some areas. That is not to say that the entire city needs to adapt to this type of housing. However, as a society what we value, whether that be large homes, the environment, making LA livable etc. does impact the severity of this problem.
The Los Angeles crowd isn't a question it's an expectation, an expectation that is kind of getting out of control. Not to the level of New York of course, but Los Angeles is an area of people, buildings and hustle. What is unique about Los Angeles is the blend of city and rural. The mountains are essential to the identity of LA because the angelino can have both. Yes, in the past the environment has been a significant factor and building block in the process of establishing the city we have today, but we need to know when to stop. The San Gabriel Mountains are a national monument because as much as industrial progress is important to our society, so is nature. Today on our hike, our group saw beer bottles and some trash that stood out as product from careless visitors. These careless visitors may not be as impacted by development in mountains, but we interviewed locals who shad close ties with the mountains that would be devastated. "Meditative" and "Spiritual" were popular terms to describe the San Gabriel Mountains. As human need increases, we need to find a balance between the natural world and the industrial world. Building up is obviously not preferred. Crowded, small apartments in corrupt apartment buildings do not create happy or even healthy living situations. Because we need to preserve as much of the natural world as we can, I think Los Angeles really needs to pour all efforts into thinking of a third alternative.
ReplyDeleteAs far as human interferences with the canyon, I also noticed how close the homes were to the trail, as well as how easy it would be to continue expanding on the land. On a different note, but still human interference, I noticed a lot of trash, cans, wrappers, etc. along the trail. This makes me question the people on these trails and if/how they respect nature. In this, I also consider how that poor treatment could translate to a lack of understanding/appreciation for nature, thus leading to insensitivity when expanding on housing, proving harmful to the surrounding land.
ReplyDeleteWhile I have noticed the increasing amount of people, especially young families, moving to different neighborhoods in LA, I didn't think of it as overcrowded. As this is clearly true, I do believe its important that we consider both sides of the argument to place a limit on residency. While it could be beneficial to do this, it's also not in the city's best interest to dissuade people from moving to LA. Also, I'm not sure that would be the most efficient way to control the situation, as individual financial situations unique to each person or family will arise. It would be difficult to decide who is allowed to live in LA and who is not, ultimately causing division among the community. I also see how building upwards instead of extending into the mountains and nature could be a possible solution. In this way, we may also be able to provide housing for some low income families, accommodating a wider range of residents. Ultimately, I think developers need to be environmentally conscious when deciding to expand housing anywhere throughout the city. I also think it would be beneficial for us to contribute to the conversation and brainstorm ways to solve this growing problem.
As we all read in "Land of Sunshine", nature is widely underutilized and under appreciated in Los Angeles, except when it comes to financial gains. When people swarmed to LA, real estate investors swarmed to purchasing beachfront and mountainside properties to capitalize on the opportunity of a lifetime. Nature in LA is valued only when it is able to turn a profit for the owner of the land. But that idea is inherently hypocritical because when nature is valued it should be preserved, not turned into houses or buildings or even views. In Altadena, especially where we were today, the mountains are slowly decaying due to increased population levels on the mountain. In the 1920's, an actor by the name of Groucho Marx bought and lived on a massive estate directly next to where we hiked today. Since then, those mountains have been constantly developed and altered to fit what we want them to look like.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that there is any real solution to the over-crowdedness of Los Angeles. It is an appealing place to live and that will never change. Over crowding is a difficult idea to solve. You either build upwards or build outwards. In LA neither of those is a great option, but one does seem more possible than the other. In order to preserve the beauty of the natural world that surrounds us, building upwards is the only direction that we can go. This issue is one that is far in the future, but it is encroaching every day.
While on our hike this morning, I noticed disgusting amounts of trash on the ground. Nearly everywhere on the ground there was some sort of wrapper left for the winds to carry somewhere else. Human interference is now considered one of the natural parts of the LA landscape. Some hikes lead to destinations filled with copious amounts of graffiti and trash left on the ground for other to clean up behind them. The main issue is that people see LA for its opportunities for fantastic lookouts and astounding property value, but they do not see it for its natural beauty.
I think like many of the parks around Los Angeles, and I'm sure across the world, litter is very prevalent in the canyon. I do believe that the intrusion of the houses is the most obvious and impactful that I noticed. I live in an area with a HPOZ (Historic Preservation Overlay Zone) which means that the houses in a certain amount square blocks have limitations as to how much of the original house they can change. This prevents large complexes from crowding my neighborhood. Somewhat close to my house, though, it the heart of Hollywood. I have noticed large billboards that say of "StopManhattanwood.org." The process of building large skyscrapers to accommodate the growing influx of residents in Los Angeles is faced with negativity as we might become another version of Manhattan. I honestly don't have a lot of experience discussing the increase in housing in Los Angeles and my perspective comes from little knowledge about the issue. I know that the housing problem obviously doesn't only correlate to the increase in space and people, but also the amount of cars on the road. I think there is potential in exploring the idea of limiting the amount of people to come to Los Angeles. Migration is a broad and controversial topic, especially when talking about the exclusion of people. I don't know if there are any other obvious solutions though.
ReplyDeleteOn our hike today I did notice the extremely close proximity of the surrounding houses. I think this was a very interesting aspect of the nature and urban relationship in Los Angeles. Echo Mountain was the perfect example of how Los Angeles combines urban city with beautiful nature creating such a unique city. I’ve never considered Los Angeles as a necessarily overcrowded area because I feel like Pasadena is a pretty normal city in terms of houses and amount of people. But I do think of the “LA traffic” and its infamous effect on those who have to commute far and wide everyday for jobs or school. When I go to Pittsburgh to visit my grandparents, they have 2-3 lane freeways and rarely have heavy traffic. In LA, we have 5-7 lane freeways and constant stand-still traffic. I think that the traffic in LA is an overwhelming example of the amount of people that inhabit Los Angeles and its surrounding communities. Although particularly in Pasadena I do not feel the sense of overcrowding. I think that Los Angeles is a symbol of hope and prosperity and many people come to live in Los Angeles in hopes of achieving fame, wealth, and great success. Los Angeles is a symbol of endless opportunities and I do not think it is possible to limit the number of people who become residents of the LA area. I think a main reason to attempt to discourage people from living in LA is the potential dangers of having an overcrowded city and the implications it would have on the cost of living in the area, locations to live in the area and options regarding transportation. I honestly do not know what a possible solution would be to the overcrowding of Los Angeles. I think that stack houses and high-rise building are potential solutions but I am not sure how many residents would be willing to spend money on such small living quarters. The truth is, I am not sure where to start in the possible solution of Los Angeles and the extension of residential neighborhoods and overcrowding.
ReplyDeleteI do believe that there are much more than "rusty old fences" that is stopping homeowners from expanding onto the natural territory. From what I understand, there are certain laws preventing people from encroaching onto such land, and if those laws were not in place, I'm sure that there would already be houses there. The most visible human interferences with the canyon I saw was just the abundance of litter (cigarettes, water bottles, gum wrappers, etc, etc) all over the trail and also the telephone lines, but I do not think that the telephone lines are that big of a deal. I have not seen such significant over crowdedness in my own life (probably because I live in pasadena), but when I drive closer to LA, it is obvious to me that there is a housing and overpopulation issue. I don't know the exact cities, but when driving closer and closer the LA the housing gets smaller and smaller and more and more crammed. This is probably because the most jobs are in Los Angeles, so people must live close to make this commute possible. I don't believe that it is either reasonable or justifiable to not allow people to move to Los Angeles. Many come to LA in search of jobs and opportunities and it would be simply criminal to take that away from them. If they are willing to live in such crammed housing, I feel that it is fair to allow anyone to do whatever they please. I do see high rises as a better option because that is the only option we have. If we can fit 100 or more people in the same area that we can fit 10, and give them all the same living conditions, then I see that as the best option to help with over crowdedness. I believe that the future of Los Angeles consists of many more high rises which will help all those that come to Los Angeles for the opportunity to pursue their dream to be able to while also having better living conditions than being crammed into a house the same size as their apartment with 3X more people.
ReplyDeleteAll I saw were a lot of hikers and some people who are just wondering around, I did not get a chance to speak to someone who lives close to the mountain, but the people that I did see, I felt as if they were somewhat irritated at our being there. It made me a little “ah.” But considering the fact that I live in Altadena, it wasn’t so different for me because there are people like that but also a lot of hikers because of a number of mountains and views. Moving on, I don’t personally feel I have experienced crowdedness in my life in the city. There have been places though, that is very crowded due to events that are happening in places, like music festivals or some event that is going on at the Rose Bowl. But on a regular day to day basis, I feel as if places are not that crowded. I don’t think it’s ok to post a limit to how many people can come into LA considering LA is such an open place. I just feel as if people should understand that if there is no space, don’t come. If I were to discourage people, I’d say “if you’re comfortable with gentrification then this is the place for you…if you are not, then it is not the place for you.” Moving on, I don’t feel as if it is a better option to start building houses up and up and up. A better alternative is what we have been doing.
ReplyDeleteOvercrowding is an issue in Los Angeles. Los Angeles is one of the main cities along with New York and Chicago that people flock to at young ages in search of the American Dream with a get-rich-quick mentality, but the reality of the situation is that most of these people will never be rich. Many of these people, the ones who don't become rich, stay in Los Angeles and have families, and with the insane real estate that Los Angeles has, end up living in smaller apartments in the city with their families. A solution to this issue would be to urbanize areas on the perimeter of Los Angeles county. Urbanizing areas around Los Angeles would provide alternate, cheaper housing than provided in many areas of Los Angeles county.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not think there should be a restriction on people living in Los Angeles. For one, the only group of people that this rule would impact in a negative manner would be lower class individuals (workers) from the inner city. Because Los Angeles is so popular to begin with, mainly because of the weather, beach and Hollywood, the appeal of moving to Los Angeles for those with money will remain the same if not increase with a premium put on its real estate. As more money would be poured into buying real estate in Los Angeles, property value would skyrocket, and many inner city workers who do not own their homes would be kicked out in favor for those with money. With no home and limited money, these former Los Angeles residents would be without their communities or homes, and Los Angeles would see massive gentrification.
White people and wealth will never stop coming to Los Angeles. It is unfortunate, but it is the truth. Unfortunately, the wealthy in Los Angeles have made it clear that the hills are an ideal place to live through social media and other such references. The hills have the views and the money. Therefore people will never stop wanting to live there. In terms of basic economics supply and demand has shown us over the years that these houses are not in surplus and this means that more and more nature will be consumed by the elite. Los Angeles's ecosystem is the victim in this situation. they never asked for what we have placed upon them, but that's exactly what we continue to do. The only way to prevent this catastrophe from occurring is by making LA less desirable. This solution also seems to be improbable. The problems stems form the fact that the mountains are seen as a material rather than a part of nature. More people care about the snap chat filter that goes with the mountains than the actual mountains. This saddens me and makes me weary of ever seeing change. Hopefully, I am wrong and in the near future LA will wake up and realize that without its ecosystem it would not be half as desirable than it is today.
ReplyDelete