Blade Runner is a joke in retrospect! (Los Angeles: neighborhoods, stats)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
In the sense of geopolitics, "developing country" is the term that has replaced "third world". Keep in mind some countries that were neutral during the Cold War and thus "third world" were quite wealthy, like Switzerland or Sweden, while some countries who were part of NATO and thus "first world" were poor, like Greece or Portugal. Most of the Warsaw Pact nations - the "second world"- were poor. The terms had to do with geopolitics not poverty.
Since you were talking infrastructure not geopolitics, I think "urban decay" is what you meant.
And really, despite LAs problem, the actual physical urban decay of Los Angeles is NOTHING compared to virtualy ALL northeast and midwest cities.
Period. Sections of those northeast and midwest cities truly look post-apocalyptic.
In fact on this board you have people starting threads titled: "do you really call Compton a ghetto?"
LA ghettos look like working class neighborhoods in the northeast and midwest.
I think because LA was a fairly new and fresh city in living memory, people talk about how much it has changed in a negative way more so than back east, where Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Baltimore, where the central city has been undergoing urban decay for much longer, that no one remembers when those cities were "fresh and new"
And really, despite LAs problem, the actual physical urban decay of Los Angeles is NOTHING compared to virtualy ALL northeast and midwest cities.
Period. Sections of those northeast and midwest cities truly look post-apocalyptic.
In fact on this board you have people starting threads titled: "do you really call Compton a ghetto?"
LA ghettos look like working class neighborhoods in the northeast and midwest.
I think because LA was a fairly new and fresh city in living memory, people talk about how much it has changed in a negative way more so than back east, where Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Baltimore, where the central city has been undergoing urban decay for much longer, that no one remembers when those cities were "fresh and new"
But honestly, everybody who's been living here more than ten years has had at least one experience where they miss an interchange or something, need to get off the freeway in an unfamiliar area, and seriously wonder if they didn't accidentally cross the border into Tijuana. It may not be as bad as one of those "post-apocalyptic" areas of Detroit where there are more broken panes of window glass than ones still in tact, but quite a few areas in L.A. do not look like they ought to be part of a "world class city" as Tony Villar describes it.
And when one looks at photos of what those areas looked like years ago, it doesn't seem as though the city is changing for the better.
Overall, they were not bad in predicting what would happen about 37 years later. Sure the technology is not there but the urban decay, overpopulation, decline of the city and overwhelming influx of non-American culture was spot on. The magnitude of these predictions was off, but still not bad for such a huge temporal prediction! LA is definitely not the antithesis of Blade Runner - that is for sure!
.
No no no. The vision of blade runner is that it has a crowded bustling downtown, an active nightlife, skyscraper pyramids everywhere, an active chinatown with actual chinese people, and lots of rain with endless smog. The influx of immigrants already happened when the movie was made.
Basically it's vision of LA is NYC in the 80s. It completely missed the boat for those more astute observers of LA's built environment. In a way, the vision of BR's LA is what people WANT LA to become. Everything in Blade Runner is what LA's detractors complain about as LACKING in LA, which is still dominated by sprawling 2 story buildings, streets devoid of pedestrian activity, and lack of building density despite density in population.
Blade Runner is constantly held up as a predictor of LA's landscape by movie lovers, but completely dismissed by urbanologists and architecture fans.
I do not believe crime is on the decline. In fact, it's on the rise on the Westside, and people I talk to from other areas are seeing it rise as well, particularly in the valley. I believe the real crime stats are being hidden, just like Tony Villar's tattoos.
Do you really believe that? Crime statistics are impossible to cover-up. You cannot just hide a dead body. The LA Times would see a disconnect between their coverage of murders and crimes and the LAPD statistics. In fact, the public has access to this type of information too.
And really, despite LAs problem, the actual physical urban decay of Los Angeles is NOTHING compared to virtualy ALL northeast and midwest cities.
Period. Sections of those northeast and midwest cities truly look post-apocalyptic.
In fact on this board you have people starting threads titled: "do you really call Compton a ghetto?"
LA ghettos look like working class neighborhoods in the northeast and midwest.
I think because LA was a fairly new and fresh city in living memory, people talk about how much it has changed in a negative way more so than back east, where Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Baltimore, where the central city has been undergoing urban decay for much longer, that no one remembers when those cities were "fresh and new"
Have you ever actually been to Downtown LA? All in all, it still is the closest thing I've seen in this country to Blade Runner aside from New York's Chinatown.
The melting pot of all the cultures, the grand architecture of Broadway and some of the surrounding area, the outlying industrial landscape of the toy district, Chinatown, Skid Row, Whittier Blvd- all in all the VERY VISIBLE "actual physical" urban decay that resides down there. It doesn't hurt that Blade Runner was SHOT along Broadway.
Honestly, I get the sense that many people on here never walk in this city, and simply drive from one nicer area to another.
Have you ever actually been to Downtown LA? All in all, it still is the closest thing I've seen in this country to Blade Runner aside from New York's Chinatown.
The melting pot of all the cultures, the grand architecture of Broadway and some of the surrounding area, the outlying industrial landscape of the toy district, Chinatown, Skid Row, Whittier Blvd- all in all the VERY VISIBLE "actual physical" urban decay that resides down there. It doesn't hurt that Blade Runner was SHOT along Broadway.
Honestly, I get the sense that many people on here never walk in this city, and simply drive from one nicer area to another.
Can you describe how urban decay has worsened in downtown Los Angeles as compared to 10 years ago?
Can you describe how urban decay has worsened in downtown Los Angeles as compared to 10 years ago?
I never said it has worsened. I simply said it's still there. And very visible in sections. Personally, and I've said this before, I love the feeling of Broadway as it is, but it seems to me that many deny the obvious- the years of decay that's plainly visible throughout Broadway and much of downtown.
A lot of people talk about how it's changing. Yes, I'm sure it is. But Broadway specifically still holds with it much of the feeling of Blade Runner. Beyond that, over by the toy district and Chinatown, it continues.
The one thing that actually makes it more like the world of Blade Runner now is the rising population, but aside from that the urban decay is tempered by areas of gentrification and "revitalization".
And no one can deny Skid Row's influence on downtown. If you walk around it, it's right in your face, whether you choose to ignore it or not.
Have you ever actually been to Downtown LA? All in all, it still is the closest thing I've seen in this country to Blade Runner aside from New York's Chinatown.
The melting pot of all the cultures, the grand architecture of Broadway and some of the surrounding area, the outlying industrial landscape of the toy district, Chinatown, Skid Row, Whittier Blvd- all in all the VERY VISIBLE "actual physical" urban decay that resides down there. It doesn't hurt that Blade Runner was SHOT along Broadway.
Honestly, I get the sense that many people on here never walk in this city, and simply drive from one nicer area to another.
Oh I agree. In fact I drove along Broadway about a week ago. I actually have walked all over LA, as I am part of a group that explores neighborhood.
I am not in any way suggesting that all of LA is beautiful. I know plenty of it is rundown. But I still stand by, that its not on the level of midwest and northeast cities. Keep in mind I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing. In midwest or northeast cities there seems to be a very clear distinction between good and bad neighborhoods. In LA you have more areas that are mixed and in between.
I guess what I was referring to was the fact that is was dark and rainy a lot of the time, with skyscrapers everywhere. When I think of New York I think of it more at night, and maybe raining.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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 1.5 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.
