History of Los Angeles- Reading Response

Below are the instructions from the professor:

Our readings and presentations over the past couple of weeks have explored, among other things, the rapid growth of Los Angeles’s population and urban footprint between the American conquest in the middle of the nineteenth century and the early decades of the twentieth century. One aspect of that growth for which Los Angeles is well-known is its sprawl – LA did not grow up so much as it grew out.

In this first Reading Response assignment, I’d like you to draw from this week’s and/or last week’s reading to address this question: Why did Los Angeles’s growth in the decades around the turn of the century take the form it did? For instance, was sprawl a result of an absence of planning, or was the city’s increasing dominance over the space of Southern California the result of a coherent vision for its future among city leaders? Was it a result of technological innovations? Was it a result of the distinctive features of LA’s environment or economy? (You don’t have to specifically address all or even any of those follow-up questions; my intent is just to suggest ways you might think about the topic.)

Compose your answer in a brief paper of around 600-800 words. In such a small space you cannot say everything there is to say on this topic; instead, focus on a specific aspect of it. Your paper should contain the elements of an academic paper, including an introduction with a thesis statement (a clear answer to the question posed above), body paragraphs that present and analyze specific evidence from the readings, and a conclusion that reflects on the significance of your argument. Please include specific evidence from at least two sources from this week’s and/or last week’s assigned or recommended reading in your paper. Evidence can take the form either of quotes or specific information that you put in your own words; either way, please include citations. A simple author and page number in parentheses at the end of the relevant sentence, as in (McWilliams 97), will be fine. In the case of the LA Aqueduct website, do your best to cite in a way that would allow me to find the source.