Between 1985 and 1995, Los Angeles' retail bank branches were robbed some 17,106 times. In 1992, which was the the city's worst year for robberies, the number was 2,641. This roughly translated into about one bank robbery every 45 minutes of each banking day. All of this, according to this CrimeReads piece by Peter Houlahan, gave Los Angeles the dubious title of "The Bank Robbery Capital of the World" during this time period.
So what caused this? Well according to Peter it was facilitated by two phenomenons. One is indigenous to Los Angeles and the other was a result of the party scene that started to emerge in the city in the late 1970s during the disco era. Peter argues that this spike in robberies was the result of (1) the city's sprawling car-oriented urban landscape and (2) its widespread use of cocaine at this time.
The former allowed robbers to quickly flee the scene (many banks were located near highway on-ramps) and the latter is what seemed to motivate people to actually do it. They needed a way to fund their addictions. By the early 1990s, it was estimated that up to 85% of all bank robbers in Los Angeles were suffering from some sort of drug addiction, and the surveillance photos seemed to reinforce this. Repeat offenders were noted as looking progressively worse.
But what's perhaps most interesting to this blog audience is point number one. To what extend did the built form of the city actually facilitate this kind of behavior? Surely Los Angeles wasn't the only place that started enjoying disco music, and some other things. And so did bank robberies, in a way, get coupled to the city's labyrinthian freeway network? Was this the cover that robbers needed to make them feel like they weren't going to get caught?
For Peter's full story, click here.
Photo by Dillon Shook on Unsplash
Between 1985 and 1995, Los Angeles' retail bank branches were robbed some 17,106 times. In 1992, which was the the city's worst year for robberies, the number was 2,641. This roughly translated into about one bank robbery every 45 minutes of each banking day. All of this, according to this CrimeReads piece by Peter Houlahan, gave Los Angeles the dubious title of "The Bank Robbery Capital of the World" during this time period.
So what caused this? Well according to Peter it was facilitated by two phenomenons. One is indigenous to Los Angeles and the other was a result of the party scene that started to emerge in the city in the late 1970s during the disco era. Peter argues that this spike in robberies was the result of (1) the city's sprawling car-oriented urban landscape and (2) its widespread use of cocaine at this time.
The former allowed robbers to quickly flee the scene (many banks were located near highway on-ramps) and the latter is what seemed to motivate people to actually do it. They needed a way to fund their addictions. By the early 1990s, it was estimated that up to 85% of all bank robbers in Los Angeles were suffering from some sort of drug addiction, and the surveillance photos seemed to reinforce this. Repeat offenders were noted as looking progressively worse.
But what's perhaps most interesting to this blog audience is point number one. To what extend did the built form of the city actually facilitate this kind of behavior? Surely Los Angeles wasn't the only place that started enjoying disco music, and some other things. And so did bank robberies, in a way, get coupled to the city's labyrinthian freeway network? Was this the cover that robbers needed to make them feel like they weren't going to get caught?
For Peter's full story, click here.
Photo by Dillon Shook on Unsplash
Yesterday I posted a video about the career of Elon Musk. And it reminded me of something that’s been on my mind as I think about transportation, cities, and the future.
Elon’s story for why he founded SolarCity, Tesla, and SpaceX is incredibly compelling. He chose problems and industries that he felt would move humanity forward. He felt that we needed sustainable forms of energy production (SolarCity), sustainable forms of transport (Tesla), and a way for humans to occupy other planets (SpaceX). That’s incredible ambition.
Today though, I just want to focus on the transportation piece.
Electric and driverless vehicles, I believe, are a step in the right direction. I honestly believe that at some point in the not too distant future we’re going to look back at that time when people used to drive their own cars and wonder how we ever allowed that to happen.
But fundamentally, I think there still remains a question of how best to plan our cities.
There’s lots of talk today about peak car and the death of the automobile. Certainly within planning and urbanist circles, there’s an almost universal belief that planning (most of) our cities around the car, as opposed to people, was a huge mistake. Multimodal solutions with a public transit backbone are now the way forward.
But will that always be the case as the notion of the “car” evolves?
Intuitively, driverless vehicles feels like a massive opportunity to leverage data and better optimize our private transport assets. We know that the utilization rate for most private cars is incredibly low and so there’s lots of room to improve how we use and share private vehicles and how we move people around cities.
But how big is that opportunity? Does a city filled with driverless electric vehicles and with networks like Uber mean that public transportation now becomes less important? And if so, how much less important?
I can’t help but feel like private and public transport are on a collision course right now. I suppose that isn’t anything new. But this time around I wonder if private transport won’t figure out a way to achieve similar efficiencies to large scale public transport.
Yesterday I posted a video about the career of Elon Musk. And it reminded me of something that’s been on my mind as I think about transportation, cities, and the future.
Elon’s story for why he founded SolarCity, Tesla, and SpaceX is incredibly compelling. He chose problems and industries that he felt would move humanity forward. He felt that we needed sustainable forms of energy production (SolarCity), sustainable forms of transport (Tesla), and a way for humans to occupy other planets (SpaceX). That’s incredible ambition.
Today though, I just want to focus on the transportation piece.
Electric and driverless vehicles, I believe, are a step in the right direction. I honestly believe that at some point in the not too distant future we’re going to look back at that time when people used to drive their own cars and wonder how we ever allowed that to happen.
But fundamentally, I think there still remains a question of how best to plan our cities.
There’s lots of talk today about peak car and the death of the automobile. Certainly within planning and urbanist circles, there’s an almost universal belief that planning (most of) our cities around the car, as opposed to people, was a huge mistake. Multimodal solutions with a public transit backbone are now the way forward.
But will that always be the case as the notion of the “car” evolves?
Intuitively, driverless vehicles feels like a massive opportunity to leverage data and better optimize our private transport assets. We know that the utilization rate for most private cars is incredibly low and so there’s lots of room to improve how we use and share private vehicles and how we move people around cities.
But how big is that opportunity? Does a city filled with driverless electric vehicles and with networks like Uber mean that public transportation now becomes less important? And if so, how much less important?
I can’t help but feel like private and public transport are on a collision course right now. I suppose that isn’t anything new. But this time around I wonder if private transport won’t figure out a way to achieve similar efficiencies to large scale public transport.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
