ABOUT L.A.

During my recent visit to the US, I stayed at LA specifically at Buena Park city for 3 days and because of that, I got a good “look” at the city. LA (at least from where I was staying then) didn’t look anything like the LA I had in my mind. The LA I had in my mind was supposed to be a bustling metropolis filled with high – rise and nice neighborhoods filled with rows of elegant houses. Well, there is nothing like that. The LA that I saw was in decay, decrepit even. The houses are old and some looked quite dilapidated. The roads aren’t that well lit and look dark and seemingly “unsafe”. Not much cars are passing by and it would seem to suggest the city is sparsely populated. It is very unlike the cities I’ve visited before like Shanghai, Hong Kong, Beijing, and Taipei to name a few where one can see vibrancy as evidenced by the frenzied construction activities. In LA, such signs of “life” are generally few. Everywhere one turned, the signs of urban decay are ominously on display. Because of this, LA surprisingly reminded me of one place, Manila. And equally surprising is that I’m not the only one who came to such a conclusion. My aunt who lived in Taiwan and who has visited Manila several times made the same observation too. And this is what is so unbelievable about LA, for I didn’t really expect to see a “third world urban center: in a first world country and yet, there it was. Prior to this, I always thought that the depiction of a crime infested decaying American city in American films like the Detroit City in Robocop are an over exaggeration. It turns out that the depiction is nearer to the truth than what I would came to believe. Later on, I learned from Eric, the tour guide that LA is just a sample of what most American cities looked like. Puzzling because America is a highly urbanized country with a great majority of it’s people living in urban centers rather than in rural areas. With that population concentration profile, cities like LA should looked livelier and crowded like the Asian cities I’ve visited and yet I’d seen nothing liked it. So where all the people go? Well, as Eric told us, most people especially the wealthier ones lived in the suburbs far away from the city center. Now that is something. Why would people choose to “leave” the city and live in the suburbs? Why Americans didn’t “behave” like their Asian counterparts and lived in the city as prosperity grew? In Asia, as the economy prosper, real estate prices skyrocketed in urban centers and the wealthier class stayed in the city while the middle class city folks went to the suburbs because the property prices are cheaper in the outer areas, which is actually the opposite of the American situation. So the next question is, is there something in the American culture that makes people “abhor” or “wanting to escape” city life? Perhaps. I mean American society must be quite competitive such that the pressure of city living must be so intense as to become a significant contributing factor that drives people out of the city and into a “quieter” atmosphere. Or is it? Are there any other factors that promote this phenomenon of suburban flight? My best guess is this has to do with the city management. I mean the observed phenomenon was the result of historical development and how government responded to such a development. Back in the early 20th century, as rapid industrialization sets in, people flock to the cities in search of better opportunities and as a result, cities grow not only in population but in physical size as well. Not only that, nearby towns are also affected by such an exodus of migrants. It’s population swelled and it became an urban center as well. With the improving transportation and infrastructure, these outlaying towns soon became ostensibly connected to the city and were eventually absorbed by the expanding city. As population continues to grow, these incorporated towns became component or satellite cities. In the end, this expansion of major cities led to the birth of many new satellite cities within a limited geographic expanse like flowers blossoming in field of spring and thus, a metropolis is form comprising a city proper or a city center and several satellite cities. Incidentally, Beijing and Shanghai are such prime examples of a growing metropolis. Beijing in particular has grown five times it’s ancient size. With explosive population growth and increasing density over a limited geographic area, municipal services began to experience severe pressure to cope with the rapidly increasing demand. Clean water became scarce, horrendous traffic jams, packed living quarters, and pollutions are among the host of problems being pressed upon local governments. As a result, people began to move out of the city to the suburbs where population density is low and environs better than the city center. However, escaping the city is by no means cheap and entails a rather significant capital outlay for not only people are required to purchase a property but they also had to invest in a mode of transportation like cars. Hence, only the wealthier inhabitants get to “leave”. After that, commercial establishment follow suit since businesses go where the money is. With the exodus of the moneyed class and the commercial establishments, fixed investments soon falls as the source of funding (from the moneyed class) dried up since the proletariat who were left behind can’t mount the same capital expenditures to “renew” the decaying city. And as a result, we got cities like LA, wherein a major city is surrounded by a ring of decaying inner cities and bounded by a bustling and lively peripheral cities or suburbs. So what’s the big deal about it? Well, some historians like Jared Diamond postulated that civilizations are inevitably linked to the environment where it is located and that the degradation, depletion, and ultimate destruction of the environment is inexorably linked to the decline, decay, and eventual distinction of civilizations. As man discovered the rudiments of agriculture, they became entrenched to a particular geographic region. Soon, settlements are founded and cities began to rise. Forests are cleared to give way to farmlands and houses. As the city grows, population began to swell augmented by immigrants from neighboring villages. With agriculture came wealth and with size attracts commerce and trade. Before long, prosperity sets in. With money comes weapons and with huge populations comes soldiers and with the two ingredients, a mighty empire is thus born. Assyria, Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Ancient Rome, China, the Incas, and the Mayas are the few sterling examples. No sooner in their rise, cities began to overcrowd. Agriculture has reached it’s limits and the Mathusian scenario became a reality. There are more mouths to feed and only a handful to feed them. Famine spread and wealth disappear. People became idle because there is no land to till. With joblessness came unemployment and with unemployment came poverty and with poverty came riots and with riots came political instability. And with instability began the unraveling of empires and the demise of civilizations. Mohenjo – Daro, the Incas, the Mayas, and Angkor Wat, civilizations long extinct litter the pages of history. How the mighty has fallen? In this sense, human beings are no different from the one – cell bacteria. A bacteria culture inoculated on a petri dish containing a substrate made up of nutrients would immediately devour the “food” and grow exponentially until such time that the food dwindles and is all but consumed. The bacteria then began to slowly decline then dies and contract in size as they suffocate in their own secreted metabolic waste. The only difference between Man and bacteria is that Man can leave their destroyed environs and seek out newer environs to degrade (and thus the comparison with the virus by Agent Smith in the Matrix movie) while the bacteria has no choice but wither inside the petri – dish. It remains to be seen whether the petri – dish that is LA would eventually go the way of Angkor Wat or would Man discover a way to sustain what is thus far unsustainable.