"Five Different Freeways, 20 Miles South"
For this week’s blog I have replied to Laiza Rodriguez’s blog post regarding her take on “the not-so-centralized LA.” Her article summarizes her opinion on where the city of L.A.’s center really is, with a “Concentric Zone Model” as a influence for the rest of the outwards growth. She supports her idea with the observation that cities in the center represent the poor and the further you distance yourself from the center, the more affluent the cities become. Also, she adds that the transportation networks across L.A. parallel those that are associated with the Chicago Model.
My opinion diverges from yours significantly, and I believe that this may be because of your heavy reliance on mass transit and my little knowledge of it. I disagree with your idea of L.A. portraying similar attributes to the Chicago School Model for two main reasons.
First, I do not believe that L.A. possesses a core that mimics that of the Concentric Zone Model. Although there is considerable economic difference amongst the surrounding neighborhoods, L.A. is unlike any city I have ventured before and remains to still have an unmarked center in contrast to other cities. L.A. is a city of diverse occupations, and while one city may be centrally significant for one occupation may be of no importance for another.
Second, L.A. does not support the mass transit networks necessary to transport labor and goods as easy as in the Chicago School Model. As you said, you spend roughly 7 hours of your day commuting by bus. I feel that the transportation networks would have to be much more efficient in order to even compare to those seen in the Chicago School Model. More efficient transportation might include faster direct routes, more bus stations, and an overall more reliant mass population on public transportation.
Despite our different outlooks, I admire your commitment to the public transportation system and overall well processed argument for it.
-Britt
No comments:
Post a Comment