Live data from Hacker News

Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

lax-skyline.parcelscope.net

181–190 of 193 posts

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#181
post #165
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The massive downzoning of the 1980s... To put numbers to this for those who aren't aware, LA was zoned for roughly 10 million people in the 1960s and by the 1980s it was zoned for roughly 4 million. It's part of the reason the city has had population growth slow to a crawl. It was decided some 40 plus years ago that LA should stay under 4 million people, so it has even til today. But the number of people who want to…

That 10M is a theoretical back of the napkin number. The city would have had to make multiple major infrastructure improvements, including major public transportation improvements, as well as secure major new sources of water for that to occur. To even accommodate the current modern number of people, there had to be fairly aggressive public water conservation regulations and campaigns - which amazingly did keep the w…

That infrastructure was still built, just out in the Inland Empire, at a far far higher cost per capita than if LA had stuck to its "theoretical back of the napkin number." (That's how zoning works, it's theoretical back of the napkin numbers that block buildings.)

Densification of existing land use is exceedingly cheap. People use far less water, fewer miles of sewer, fewer vehicle miles, fewer miles of wire and pipe, all while having access to a far greater set of amenities. That's what downzoning took away from everyone.

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#182
post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"People would move more instead of being locked in to a low effective property tax." - this just means that older and retired people would get kicked out of stable living situations, driven by property tax assessments which are often driven by real estate market boom/bust cycles. And housing prices would be just as high as with prop 13. The bad part about prop 13, is that it never should have applied to anything othe…

Old people seem to be surviving just fine in areas where property tax is based on current market value? It sucks to move, but luckily they have an extremely valuable property to sell

Young people seem to be surviving just fine in areas where the market value is lower. Sucks to not live in the heart of the city but luckily they have their entire lives ahead of them to accumulate the wealth required.

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#184
Most of West Los Angeles was actually wetlands that were dredged to create areas suitable for development. This was a relatively little-known fact that I learned by attending the USC Library Archive Days, usually held in October. Most of what is now Culver City, all the way to the coast was essentially filled with water until it was dredged. We tend to think of LA as some sort of arid desert, yet, at least for the Westside, it was anything but dry land.

Also of note, LA actually had a fully functioning subway system up until the late 1920s/early 1930s, very similar to London and NYC, although not quite as large obviously. You can find photos of people standing on the crowded platforms during the Roaring 20s waiting to take the subway into and out of DTLA in the archives. There were also the Red Cars that ran until the late 1950s I believe. They took passengers as far as OC to the south, and out into the SFV to the northeast. So public transportation was abundant in LA even before the Redline and other various MTA rail projects, and long before motor cars became ubiquitous. Look up the history of the Miracle Mile and the tire shops and car lots to gain an understanding of LA's transition to the the automobile in the 1930s. It was a vibrant city long before cars and traffic took over. Charlie Chaplin even had an airfield in Hollywood in the 1920s around what is now Wilshire and Fairfax!

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#185
post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did not slash spending. At most the rate of increase slowed down for a year or so before continuing to rise at an even faster rate. https://dof.ca.gov/about-us/history/state-budgets/

That’s not a great measure. The state was still growing very fast. The better metric would be state expenditure as a fraction of state gdp

It's exactly the right measure to use if the claim is that they "slashed spending". They didn't. They continued increase may or may not have kept pace with other measures (GDP, population, whatever). But they didn't slash spending.

As it turns out, even your new goal posts fail the test of facts. In the years immediately following prop 13, the GDP grew at an APR 15% [2]. The per capita spending did slump briefly in the early 1980s (as shown in the graph on this article[3]) but that was more of a reversion-to-the-trend (which continued upwards thereafter.

While there may be some remaining tortured reading of the data under which you could claim they "slashed spending" it would be manifestly disingenuous to do so. At best the rate of increase slowed briefly.

[1] https://files.ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/276991-2/attachment/cSe45La...

[2] https://sbud.senate.ca.gov/sites/sbud.senate.ca.gov/files/Ca...

[3] https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/12/24/whats-behind-californ...

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Old people seem to be surviving just fine in areas where property tax is based on current market value? It sucks to move, but luckily they have an extremely valuable property to sell

Young people seem to be surviving just fine in areas where the market value is lower. Sucks to not live in the heart of the city but luckily they have their entire lives ahead of them to accumulate the wealth required.

yes, they just need to accumulate wealth until they're 47, just like previous generations. no need to rethink land use or property tax

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why develop local gas fields and solar when we can just invade nations with oil? Non sequitur. Better analogy: why dig new wells when you waste half of your oil anyway? Because that's what alfalfa is: wasted water. But it's slightly more profitable to the water rights holder, so that's what they grow. Could this fresh water be used in more productive ways? Doesn't matter to them. > The only way to win sustainably i…

You're focusing on a single micro level issue, namely water and farming in the arid west, and missing the big picture. Say we do a better job growing crops. That just kicks the can. LA grows and then we're right back here. Something needs to be done to provide for LA's growth and scale with it without teeing up future political fights. >Utter nonsense. You pretend to despise "centrally planned financial tomfoolery" s…

I am focusing on that LA water issue because that's what the discussion was initially about. I don't think fixing inefficient resource allocation is "kicking the can down the road". You should read up on just how much water is wasted every year in that region.

When you see a leaky pipe, you don't think to build a second one coming from a different faucet (with more expensive water) before fixing the first pipe. It really is that simple. But anyway, unto the larger picture.

> You're getting close. What causes the demand for these middlemen that the well capitalized financial interests (for profit schools and the like) seek to make buck creating?

> Say I get a borderline bullshit degree as a civil engineer from one of these degree mills. That qualifies me for an entry level job double checking beam calcs or drafting cookie cutter site plans. Where does demand for such services arise?

What? No, that's not the source of the bloat. Much more income is generated via capital gains than though salaries, today. Shareholders are the "middlemen" I was referring to, not the workers trying to put food on their table. Everything is inefficient because everything is designed to provide 4% growth yoy to shareholders, when this is completely impossible to achieve in a sustainable way!

Teachers in for-profit schools are severely underpaid, where do the ludicrous tuitions go? In buybacks and dividends, and other fluff like sport teams and stadiums to attract investors.

> Government contracts this stuff because as bad as the defense industry is government is worse.

I don't believe that, and I don't think you should either. For a single example, 18F was doing great work before DOGE cut them, so TurboTax could keep profiteering. Speaking of, with all the ruckus DOGE made, they just couldn't find much "waste, fraud and abuse" in public services, and just ended up slashing cheap programs on political grounds, to save face with their supporters.

> It's tempting to complain about regulation and red tape, but IMO those are a reflection of culture, norms and values. This is a values problem.

Look, ultimately, I'm a historical materialist, I believe material conditions are the source of our societal structure, and "values" as you say. Culture doesn't grow in a vacuum, these issues don't just spontaneously arise. They are consequences of how our societies were structured yesterday, and our societies let capital concentrate more and more in fewer and fewer hands, with zero checks and balances.

Our current world is one of all-powerful capital, that has grown to wield tremendous power, and has permeated every facet of our governance, media and way of thinking. It's not a coincidence that all those regulations and red tape end up benefitting private contractors, who charge more and more for less and less in return. The purpose of a system is what it does, and what our system does is transferring our public money into private hands.

It's why you end up with suicide nets on the Golden Gate billed at half the price of the damn bridge (adjusted to inflation), or single-use missiles at 15M a piece.

It's how we're unable to get a single politician willing to stand up to water rights holders in California, to correct an obviously inefficient allocation of natural resources. Everything is done to keep any threats to the interests of capital away. See how much vitriol someone like Mamdani receives from both sides, simply for not being 100% at the heels of capital.

Re: Watch Los Angeles get built, one building at a time (1880–2026)

#190
post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a dumb question. What is the eventual of efficient land use? Say we bulldoze a bunch of single family homes and get 10x as dense. Now we have 10x as many people per square kilometer. Is that an efficient use of land? Will there be someone saying at 10x population density that it's an inefficient use of space? If yes, what would they propose instead?

Yes, dense cities are more efficient in every way compared to sprawl. Can you articulate what is confusing about this?

They're asking if there's an end game. If the single family homes get rezoned to three storey blocks, does that just become 10-storey towers and then arcologies, each more efficient than the other.

Maybe the answer is that the current single family home is an arbitrary point on the scale too, and should just be evaluated on merits for current and future needs.

Post reply on HN