Does the future of our city lie in a backwards dream impossible to reconcile with the ever growing megalopolis we are? Can we really say that a region with 12.9 million people can "remain" a bastion of single-family dwellings? Can such an already dense and ever growing city really expect our skyscapers to be palm trees rather than the grand buildings of a downtown core that draws much needed business to make such an urban center economically viable? Or will we forge into the future with a plan to put us on par with, or even better than, the current great urban centers of the world? Increasing density and traffic--both pedestrian and vehicular--CANNOT be denied. What will our response be? Reasoned or delusional? Will proposals to alleviate traffic arteries and ameliorate density concerns continue to be consistently shot down with no other reasonable alternative proposed by the NIMBYs? Is it time for the delusional NIMBYs to move to town that more meets their impossible dreams? I'll put a call into the Kansas board of tourism and chamber of commerce for them myself!
To be sure, the development of our city has been less than perfect. From the ripping up of the rails of the largest urban light-rail transit system in the world to our lack of easily accessible green space to the straight-jacketing of our river which originally gave sustenance to our pueblo, we missed out on being a being a city prepared for the density and gridlock we encounter today. We need bold, well-reasoned action now, to catch up to our future. Have a read at the excellent article below from The Los Angeles Times:
Critic's Notebook: There's a growing disconnect on a better-connected L.A.
By Christopher Hawthorne, Los Angeles Times Architecture Critic
24 October 2010
