As I was working on a project about Los Angeles and their water it dawned on me that Los Angeles is a completely artificial environment. I have been pushing the point of sustainability in Los Angeles and my professor was moved to send me to a different topic. I view L.A.’s 123 gallon per capita per day water use as extremely positive. The only problem is that most of the water is imported. That made me think that L.A. had a value because it was using the water for more people with less consumption per person. Therefore giving them a priority on the water. It is confusing, this is my point.
Regeneration and sustainability are aspects that can be incorporated into many designs, functions, regulations, etc… I do not know which side of the fence seems to make more sense. It seems like the fact that with issues coming up in surrounding regions, such as the dust storms from the dry Owens Lake bed, there should be some accountability. It seems like there is no easy answers to the thinking behind sustainability in L.A. because it in itself is entirely artificial; propped up by other area’s water. Along with that it is a role model mega region compared to other large urban civilizations. There is much gray area.