Wow this is inspiring. I would love to see a very similar visualization for Stockholm, Sweden. I think there is a beauty in seeing a summarized history of expansion, and in reality I can't help but think this is a very fast population boom. One I am sure most metro areas would struggle with. Makes a lot of criticism of LA planning in hindsight feel very unfair.
Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)
41–50 of 187 posts
Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)
#42[flagged]
If you want to encourage folks to continue their efforts and really "build something", I think you'd want to ask your questions in a way that shows genuine interest and support, rather than ridiculing and questioning the level of effort involved. I agree, I'd love to learn where the dada was sourced! I'm also curious why it appears to come in waves, as opposed to each building going up independently (as I would have…
The waves are partly real and partly me.
LA genuinely built in bursts. The 1920s and the postwar decade each account for over 230,000 buildings still standing, and the 1930s and 1970s onward are much thinner, so even a perfect per-year animation would surge and pause.
But really it's for performance -- I group buildings into 5-year bins and fade each bin in over its span, rather than popping each building at its exact year.
A per-year filter on a million polygons re-tessellates every visible tile, which was too slow to animate, whereas fading pre-built layers is reasonably fast.
Glad you found your house!
Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)
#43It's amazing how little has changed in recent years in LA. The massive downzoning of the 1980s had its effect: prevent efficient land use, and channel money into the hands of landlords and homeowners from all newcomers. LA is a ridiculously unaffordable place to live, not because it's nice, but because of an artificial shortage of built space, due to a monopoly on the permission to build.
To be fair NYC has taken the opposite approach and rents are extremely high there as well
Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)
#44Having moved to LA this february, the sprawl is really something I had no true appreciation for until I moved here for real, and tried to run errands across town. It's a gigantic, beautiful, complicated place.
The density at least means you don't have to really run across town for much and can stay within a certain radius for most all your needs and wants. I mean look at the density of costcos alone. Many other metros might have 1 or 2 for the entire area. Then again a lot of other metros you basically can drive end to end in 25 miles.
I'm confused. LA doesn't strike me as dense. How dense can you get with huge areas of single family homes?
Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)
#45They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot.
Paradise? LA was a big giant horrible underdeveloped wasteland in Spanish/Mexican times which, at the time in 1849, had 1,600 residents. Most of them had a largely pastoral life and life was brutal there. LA under US rule is the prime example of what industrialized people can do to a place that lacked nearly everything of what it is at this moment: a world-class city. Objectively, if it had stayed under Mexican rule,…
Was it that a big, giant, horrible wasteland because it was undeveloped? That is, was there something bad about it other than being undeveloped? Personally, I love living in the city AND land in its natural state.
Also, GP was quoting a song lyric.
Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)
#46This is more like the construction date of buildings that have survived. Some early neighborhoods (like palms) have been completely replaced building by building so they really appear as dark here when they weren't. It had a downtown in the 1890s but all those buildings are gone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palms,_Los_Angeles#/media/File... it's basically this data: https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/ through thi…
Exactly this -- This is more like the construction date of buildings that have survived. Everything demolished, burned, or replaced is invisible.
Probably should put that front and center.
Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)
#47It's amazing how little has changed in recent years in LA. The massive downzoning of the 1980s had its effect: prevent efficient land use, and channel money into the hands of landlords and homeowners from all newcomers. LA is a ridiculously unaffordable place to live, not because it's nice, but because of an artificial shortage of built space, due to a monopoly on the permission to build.
To be fair NYC has taken the opposite approach and rents are extremely high there as well
Nah, watch this if you have time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpK5HiCKfgU
At least watch this money shot: https://youtu.be/kpK5HiCKfgU?si=YNQBxsn15NxGdQQ0&t=272 (wait for the video to reveal the construction years)
As Max Fisher puts it: American cities have been frozen in amber.
Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)
#48Bit misleading since it only shows properties still standing, seemingly. So the older periods look extremely empty.
Yes, great point. What was torn down, burned, destroyed, etc. along the way isn't here. This is the surviving city, not the city as it was.
Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)
#49[flagged]
[deleted]
Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paradise? LA was a big giant horrible underdeveloped wasteland in Spanish/Mexican times which, at the time in 1849, had 1,600 residents. Most of them had a largely pastoral life and life was brutal there. LA under US rule is the prime example of what industrialized people can do to a place that lacked nearly everything of what it is at this moment: a world-class city. Objectively, if it had stayed under Mexican rule,…
Was it that a big, giant, horrible wasteland because it was undeveloped? That is, was there something bad about it other than being undeveloped? Personally, I love living in the city AND land in its natural state. Also, GP was quoting a song lyric.
I think the best intro to LA is Cadillac Desert by Marc Reisner (it's really about the entire West and its relationship to water, but I think the first few chapters explain LA better than many other books.)