New York city with an estimated population of 8.3 million people and a history tracing back to 1624 remains the country's largest city since 1790. Its status has formulated a standard for urban living in the US and around the world.
Los Angeles, on the other hand, with an estimated population of 4 million people, and founded in 1781, has a projected population growth of 6.3 million over the next twenty years. With such an anticipated growth, what will define Los Angeles as a world city? Is the idea to embrace its distinct character or replicate New York City?
It is time to talk about the future of Los Angeles. It is time to leave behind the notion that Los Angeles is anti-urban. There are empirical qualities of city life that hold true for the majority of human inhabitants; infrastructure (electricity supply, water availability), public transportation, culture and life style. The city of New York is unique, functioning like no other city in the world, but what about Los Angeles? Los Angeles is at a point in its development where a newer vision of urbanity is long overdue. Rather than aspiring to look and feel like other world cities, what can LA become?
http://projects.latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/
The interesting fact is if we look at the greater Los Angeles, population is at 10-14 million people depending on city limit lines. The point of this fact is that many people not living in LA, but within close vicinity, consider themselves part of LA. LA is already a world city and what defines it is this sense of people being spread out over large area rather than high density like that of NY or even Tokyo. Furthermore, the idea of house ownership with yards is more instill in LA than other cities where a condo or townhouse is more than enough. I think LA is already unique, but still lacking in efficiency and organization of large space, which can possibly be a model for the future.
ReplyDelete