
How should LA urbanize? Look to Seoul - jseliger
https://entrepot.blog/2020/05/08/how-should-la-urbanize-look-to-south-korea
======
clairity
i'm just gonna repeat my little mantra that all residential parcels should be
at least 4+1 (fourplex + granny unit) _by right_ and all commercial parcels
should be highly, highly encouraged to be mixed-use.

i love LA, but it would be even better if everyone didn't feel the need to use
a car to get everywhere. i've been to both seoul (too long ago to remember
much) and tokyo, and it's fantastic to get around by subway and foot
everywhere.

~~~
techsupporter
Very agree. Four floors and corner stores wherever residential can be built
and not just on arterials. We neatly avoid a huge swath of the gentrification
and massive upswings in property cost if we don't artificially restrict where
walkable, moderately-dense neighborhoods can be built.

------
keiferski
Should LA urbanize? I find the lack of density to be a benefit, not a problem.
The problem is rather the lack of public transport + lack of self-driving,
green vehicles + lack of widespread remote work. Making LA as dense as Seoul
or NYC would kill the unique vibe it has IMO.

There are many cities in the world which manage to have effective public
transport _and_ not be ultra-dense. Warsaw, in Poland, is a good example and
probably one more useful in a comparison to LA, as both cities are mostly
flat, sprawl for miles/kms and have large road systems that can’t easily be
removed and replaced. Berlin is another good example, although it’s more dense
than Warsaw.

~~~
xvedejas
LA's high housing price is one of the top social issues that people who live
there face, due to low supply. I think a little bit more urban character in
exchange for lower rents is a fair price to pay. I lived in the LA area for
five years and found that the more urban areas were the more lively and
interesting, but there were a lot of dead sprawling areas too. LA stands to
gain a lot from having more of the former and less of the latter. I suppose I
agree that becoming Seoul is not necessary; but the lack of density isn't
ideal.

~~~
keiferski
I agree that building more housing is good, however: better public transit,
self-driving cars, and remote work are a far more viable path for LA than
turning it into a super-dense city.

------
ccktlmazeltov
Stop building cities around cars. Create pedestrian only zones.

Another thought: I've always seen public transport as lagging behind the
people's needs in the west, as opposed to how it is in China, Korea, Taiwan,
HK, etc. (Japan is one extreme)

------
jbarham
I've lived in LA. I've also lived in Seoul. I miss living in LA. I do not miss
living in Seoul.

Seoul is a concrete jungle where the vast majority of people live in tiny
concrete apartments. (Literally concrete, I destroyed a lot of masonry drill
bits trying to hang pictures on the concrete walls of our apartment.) Sure the
subway network in Seoul is extensive but it's still not exactly a fast way to
travel.

Speaking from experience the fastest way to get around Seoul is on a scooter.
That's because scooters routinely jump red lights, go the wrong way down one-
way streets and take shortcuts on sidewalks with impunity. Lots of fun when
you're young with no kids, as I was at the time, but it doesn't scale and
would never be allowed in LA.

The easiest way to cut down on vehicle traffic is to stop forcing people
commuting to workplaces where they sit down at an internet connected computer
that they could just as easily do at home. As the current pandemic has forced
so many of us to do, which is one big upside.

~~~
lukeschlather
What do you mean when you say it "doesn't scale?"

* Seoul has twice the population density of LA.

* Seoul has less than half the number of road fatalities per 100,000 people.

The point about "not a fast way to travel" is interesting but it's also worth
recognizing that with double the population density there are twice as many
destinations to visit, so that can be deceptive when you look at trip length.
If there are 5 grocery stores within 5km vs. 5 grocery stores within 10km, it
doesn't matter at all if it takes twice as long to travel 5km in the former
case, it's equivalent. (And it's more likely you can do it on foot, which is
healthier in terms of lower pollution, more exercise, and fewer road
fatalities.)

------
monadic2
Both YIMBYs (who argue for affordable housing) and PHIMBYs (who argue for
public housing) make an excellent case for high-density housing. This is a
prerequisite for modern cities.

Also: cars ruin cities.

~~~
defterGoose
Watching the smog modulate day to day here in LA with the stay at home order
has been truly eye-opening. I think most people are oblivious, though.

------
jerzyt
The biggest stupidity in LA is that the train does not reach LAX, but ends a
couple miles short of it. This alone would greatly reduce LA traffic. What
city planners didn't see that?

~~~
clairity
it’s even dumber, given the hub-and-spoke model, that one of the first lines
wasn’t directly between downtown and LAX. lobbying by LAWA (the org that runs
LAX) to protect parking revenue and the taxi industry is apparently to blame.

~~~
jerzyt
Interesting, I always thought it was the taxi companies lobbies that stopped
that. Never thought about the parking lobbies, but it sure makes sense.

------
bestnameever
> Longer term, California must cut down on vehicle travel in order to reduce
> Greenhouse Gas Emissions and stave off climate change.

Is this statement really true if car manufacturers continue to migrate towards
electric vehicles?

~~~
benrbray
Yes, using less energy is better, dirty or not.

Reducing our dependency on cars also has many other benefits: fewer traffic
accidents; reduced parking requirements means more space for _people_ in
cities; less sound pollution, which is better for our bodies and for our
ecosystems in and around cities; lessen the cost of living by no longer
requiring a $15,000 machine as a prerequisite to having a job; increased
density means increased foot traffic to small businesses, encouraging healthy
competition; increased density can (has the potential to) mean a stronger,
more connected community, less segregated by wealth etc. etc. etc.

~~~
bestnameever
> Yes, using less energy is better, dirty or not.

But that is not the question. The question is whether California must cut down
on vehicle travel in order to reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and stave off
climate change?

------
vondur
How is this feasible? Redeveloping land in SoCal would be cost prohibitive.
Even in the area of Long Beach they were using as an illustration, the average
house price is at least $500,000. It's part of the reason the last major
freeway to be built, the 105 had to be scaled back from going to from LAX to
Riverside (Like 60-70 miles) to ending in Norwalk, (less than 20 miles). And
that was in the late 60's to early 70's when that was being planned.

------
Jommi
I think you can look at nearly any city and the layout makes more sense than
LA currently. It's a shitshow.

------
gok
> On the other hand, the average cost for a studio in a “normal” neighborhood
> in Seoul is only 537 dollars.

From the link, that's a 480 sqft studio with no parking, which is essentially
illegal to build in any "normal" LA neighborhood.

~~~
deathgrips
I'd rather rent that small apartment than be homeless.

------
stormdennis
There are many reasons why people in an American City would be wary of
traveling by mass transit, reasons that simply don't exist in Korea.

------
Animats
Not a problem. 20 more years and most cars in California will be electric.

------
chrstphrhrt
Replace car parks with social housing.

------
pcr910303
Hello, Seoul resident here — AMA!

It’s always surprising when you see our city’s name in HN...

Looks like the TLDR is that LA only has subways in downtown (I can’t
understand the reason... why would people use subways then?), they should fix
them. Looks like it strongly correlates with the car-centric culture of the
US...

~~~
bestnameever
> Looks like the TLDR is that LA only has subways in downtown

This is not really true. The rail system extends out to other areas but those
areas are typically served by a single line.

While the rail system benefits many people, I also wonder whether it has led
to more people moving here, increased rents, and ultimately more traffic as
people realize they need the expense of a car to fully get around.

~~~
BurningFrog
> _I also wonder whether it has led to more people moving here, increased
> rents, and ultimately more traffic_

This argument applies to _anything_ that improves a city.

~~~
bestnameever
By that logic, any movement to decrease rents will degrade a city.

~~~
summerlight
This inverse statement is not equivalent to the parent comment. The logically
equivalent contrapositive is "something to degrade a city will decrease
rents". Though, this might be an intentional confusion.

------
epa
TLDR: Have an extensive efficient subway system

------
viburnum
Wrong, the Netherlands.

