Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LA? Sterile? Not by any sense of the definition you've laid out, or by most other definitions, either. It more often gets critcized as being dirty and gritty. I can't imagine that anyone who has spent any amount of time in LA could possibly even consider calling it sterile, regardless of whether or not they like the city.
I can't think of any cities I would consider sterile, although I haven't spent time in all of the cities listed on this poll. There are, however, suburbs of some of these cities that I would describe as sterile.
Yeh I know I was just trying to stir it up a little.LOL.Not sterile so much ,but I do here "plastic"(for whatever that means to some)
LA is by no means the poster child for sprawl. People who think otherwise just don’t understand this city. First, LA once had the most extensive urban rail system in the nation. The reason? To connect all these far flung, independent cities such as Santa Monica, Venice, Pasadena, Culver City, Long Beach, etc. Los Angeles did not begin at one central point and then sprawl out in all directions. That’s a myth. LA began at multiple points and eventually the spaces in between filled up. Downtown LA was just one of several downtown districts and that’s still true today. That’s the reason why, if you’ve ever spent significant time in LA, there are a lot of walkable, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods here. The difference is these pedestrian-friendly areas tend to be separated from one another because many of them used to be [and still are] independent cities all together.
For example, I don’t view Pasadena, Santa Monica, and Long Beach as “suburbs”. They are entire cities in their own right, with their own downtown district and residential neighborhoods.
LA is by no means the poster child for sprawl. People who think otherwise just don?t understand this city. First, LA once had the most extensive urban rail system in the nation. The reason? To connect all these far flung, independent cities such as Santa Monica, Venice, Pasadena, Culver City, Long Beach, etc. Los Angeles did not begin at one central point and then sprawl out in all directions. That?s a myth. LA began at multiple points and eventually the spaces in between filled up. Downtown LA was just one of several downtown districts and that?s still true today. That?s the reason why, if you?ve ever spent significant time in LA, there are a lot of walkable, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods here. The difference is these pedestrian-friendly areas tend to be separated from one another because many of them used to be [and still are] independent cities all together.
For example, I don?t view Pasadena, Santa Monica, and Long Beach as ?suburbs?. They are entire cities in their own right, with their own downtown district and residential neighborhoods.
Los Angeles does have a lot of dense and urban areas, but it's still a sprawling, autocentric area with no "real" core as some like to say.
LA is the poster child for sprawl in the sense that it was really the first major metro to introduce the "suburban city". And since the 20th century Sunbelt cities like Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, and San antonio have followed that pattern of growth.
Los Angeles does have a lot of dense and urban areas, but it's still a sprawling, autocentric area with no "real" core as some like to say.
LA is the poster child for sprawl in the sense that it was really the first major metro to introduce the "suburban city". And since the 20th century Sunbelt cities like Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, and San antonio have followed that pattern of growth.
I concur.However Atlanta has changed the most drastically out of them all.Atlanta density is growing everyday,more so than any major city in the U.S.
Atlanta Metro News*| ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/services/content/opinion/stories/2008/11/05/leinbergered.html - broken link)
Anyone who has been to Atlanta over a period from even just year to year can see the changes clearly.
I guess someone would have a different opinion,but thie is my interpertation.I mean sterile is basically a clean slate.A very small imprint.So that could be in History and culture.For instance what is a city like San Diego or Portland known for?What are their histories,culture or major contributions to its region or better the Nation?It can also mean what cities just don't look "lived" in.I personally don't like L.A.I just thought I'd say that for "hollywoodinqurer',who thinks the world revolves around L.A.Every city has one.
And yes,there is sprawl in Atlanta.But the amount of growth and "infill density" in Atlanta over the past 10 years has not been witnessed by any other city in the North America.People never realize that a city like Atlanta changes constantly.....And yes..(HOLLYWOOD)I do prefer Atlanta by a LONG shot over L.A. any day.
Honestly, who cares? People who have no lives? I seriously doubt history and culture help pay for the average citizen's electric bills every month. Not every city is going to have that history or museum that I'm (wrongly?) assuming everyone is interested in and spends every other weekend at AND if every city was modeled the same, wouldn't we have a new definition for 'cookie-cutter'?
I wish people would start considering the fact that human beings actually make a city what it is. Sure, it's nice to see different architecture, etc..., but without human beings, who would know it was a city? I prefer that cities are DIFFERENT. There's nothing wrong with that.
LA is by no means the poster child for sprawl. People who think otherwise just don’t understand this city. First, LA once had the most extensive urban rail system in the nation. The reason? To connect all these far flung, independent cities such as Santa Monica, Venice, Pasadena, Culver City, Long Beach, etc. Los Angeles did not begin at one central point and then sprawl out in all directions. That’s a myth. LA began at multiple points and eventually the spaces in between filled up. Downtown LA was just one of several downtown districts and that’s still true today. That’s the reason why, if you’ve ever spent significant time in LA, there are a lot of walkable, pedestrian friendly neighborhoods here. The difference is these pedestrian-friendly areas tend to be separated from one another because many of them used to be [and still are] independent cities all together.
For example, I don’t view Pasadena, Santa Monica, and Long Beach as “suburbsâ€. They are entire cities in their own right, with their own downtown district and residential neighborhoods.
Honestly, who cares? People who have no lives? I seriously doubt history and culture help pay for the average citizen's electric bills every month. Not every city is going to have that history or museum that I'm (wrongly?) assuming everyone is interested in and spends every other weekend at AND if every city was modeled the same, wouldn't we have a new definition for 'cookie-cutter'?
I wish people would start considering the fact that human beings actually make a city what it is. Sure, it's nice to see different architecture, etc..., but without human beings, who would know it was a city? I prefer that cities are DIFFERENT. There's nothing wrong with that.
No its not about if its wrong or right.Its just what people think about places on a general level.What does matter is the vitality of that city for the long run.Cities have to have something that makes it standout for longevity.History and culture has nothing to do with museums,as it has more to do with influence.The most successful cities of a region or a country,are ones that can exert its influence further just its immediate area.It is nice that there is something for everyone.
Thanks no offense but I should have added Phoenix to that list too.
Los Angeles does have a lot of dense and urban areas, but it's still a sprawling, autocentric area with no "real" core as some like to say.
Because Los Angeles isn't really one city, it's many smaller cities put together. That's what I was trying to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMcCoySays
LA is the poster child for sprawl in the sense that it was really the first major metro to introduce the "suburban city". And since the 20th century Sunbelt cities like Houston, Atlanta, Dallas, Phoenix, and San antonio have followed that pattern of growth.
Los Angeles invented the suburban city? Last time I checked, Levittown was in Long Island and the Los Angeles freeway system was actually influenced by the New York parkway system. Besides, the term poster child refers to something that is, "the perfect representative of, a cause, a movement, or an idea." Poster child - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Los Angeles is by no means the perfect example of suburban sprawl. Visit LA and then visit Phoenix and then tell me which of the two cities better epitomizes suburban sprawl.
Because Los Angeles isn't really one city, it's many smaller cities put together. That's what I was trying to say.
Los Angeles invented the suburban city? Last time I checked, Levittown was in Long Island and the Los Angeles freeway system was actually influenced by the New York parkway system. Besides, the term poster child refers to something that is, "the perfect representative of, a cause, a movement, or an idea." Poster child - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Los Angeles is by no means the perfect example of suburban sprawl. Visit LA and then visit Phoenix and then tell me which of the two cities better epitomizes suburban sprawl.
Why not just compare the Boston area? Phoenix isn't as sprawled as people tend to believe.
I concur.However Atlanta has changed the most drastically out of them all.Atlanta density is growing everyday,more so than any major city in the U.S.
Atlanta Metro News | ajc.com (http://www.ajc.com/services/content/opinion/stories/2008/11/05/leinbergered.html - broken link)
Anyone who has been to Atlanta over a period from even just year to year can see the changes clearly.
Atlanta metro NEEDED to densify - no surprise there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afonega1
No its not about if its wrong or right.Its just what people think about places on a general level.What does matter is the vitality of that city for the long run.Cities have to have something that makes it standout for longevity.History and culture has nothing to do with museums,as it has more to do with influence.The most successful cities of a region or a country,are ones that can exert its influence further just its immediate area.It is nice that there is something for everyone.
Thanks no offense but I should have added Phoenix to that list too.
Listen. I love big cities. Not every city can be the most successful in its region or country. Most in this situation usually means one. Just because a city doesn't have density levels like NYC, San Francisco, or LA (yes LA is dense), doesn't mean these places do not have any influence. There have been cities that have gone through good influence as well as bad and reinvented themselves again - look at NYC and Atlanta for example. In addition, what is wrong with cities that are MAKING history? I always felt there was something exciting about being a part of a city as it goes through growing pains and creates its own history. Isn't that what Atlanta is doing (along with many other older and newer Sunbelt cities)? Atlanta certainly isn't spewing out a ton of history, but it has created its own type of history in the past 20 years that has had just as much of an influence on the city as other time periods and there's always tomorrow (for any city).
Thanks
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
