Read

Los Angeles and the Density Paradox

Large suburban cities like Los Angeles are caught in a bind: too dense for cars to function efficiently, but not dense enough for transit to succeed. Transitioning from one model to the other is easier said than done.

By mileage, LA is investing in the expansion of its transit rail network more than any other North American city. But getting the shape of our urban density to change in favor of fully utilizing the potential of that network is a lifetime project. It is happening in fits and starts, but it has barely begun.

What blocks this progress the most? An idea that urban density is not just bad, but a loss of freedom.

A central driver of NIMBY opposition is the fear of losing personal mobility. For many, particularly car-dependent residents, increased density implies congestion, inconvenience, and a loss of autonomy. Transit-oriented development is often presented as the rational remedy: higher densities near transit nodes sustain ridership and reduce automobile dependence. Yet these positions are rooted in incompatible spatial logics and cultural attachments to mobility, and attempts to reconcile them frequently produce counterproductive outcomes. This tension is the density paradox: the very conditions required to make transit successful are those most likely to provoke resistance from existing residents. Overcoming this paradox is essential if urban communities are to progress collectively.

And deep in that “fear of losing personal mobility” is a sense of entitlement that further entrenches NIMBY tendencies.

In societies where mobility is synonymous with the private car, the sense of personal space expands to include the car’s own spatial footprint: driving lanes, parking spaces, buffer spaces. This inflated spatial expectation profoundly shapes how density is perceived and judged, embedding transportation habits within broader cultural notions of comfort, autonomy, and territoriality.

Watch

Music By John Williams

This documentary took me by surprise. I did not expect to find it so emotional or uplifting, but the music of John Williams has been one of the central characters in many of my favorite childhood movies—and even events, like Olympics themes. Worth a watch.

Read

Streets for All on Charter Reform

Since being formed in 1979 under City administrative code, LADOT has become increasingly responsible for planning all manner of transportation in Los Angeles without the ability to construct streets - an authority currently given to Public Works in the City Charter. Giving LADOT this authority would align LA with most large cities in the nation; where the department that manages streets safety and traffic flow also has the ability to effectively build and maintain streets and sidewalks.

Currently, upgrades to a single intersection in Los Angeles could involve 6+ agencies—street lighting, drainage, signal lights, paint, trees, etc. are all handled by separate agencies with separate budgets, authorities, and goals. The Bureau of Street Services is meant to coordinate with LADOT and all the other agencies, but the reality is much of the work ends up piecemeal, spread out over months if not years, with no central authority to make decisions or take responsibility.

This is not how it works in other North American cities and it’s a core reason why our streets are so unsafe for all modes of transportation, including automobiles.

As the city undertakes a long overdue and historic reform of its Charter, unifying BSS and LADOT and properly empowering them would be one of the most immediate and lasting quality of life improvements for Angelenos.

Seattle, NYC, and San Francisco see half the traffic deaths per capita as Los Angeles and invests between twice and three times what LA does per capita on streets.

And sure, it’s often not about the amount of money, but how it’s used, but we fail in both categories, increasingly spending more and more of our city budget to settle lawsuits about our unsafe streets.