Is L.A. the closest thing to a perfect metro? (Los Angeles: colleges, quality of life)

[MantaRay]

Originally Posted by 415_s2k

I generally ride as a hobby and for fitness, and put on average 20-40 miles per day on it. My rides start in BH, and usually take me down Sunset, down Hilgard/UCLA, then down Santa Monica Blvd, out to the beach, back up Wilshire, SM, or Olympic, then back up to Sunset, through the Strip, out to Silverlake, to DTLA, up 3rd through Koreatown, then back through to BH. I don't generally run into any problems.

DTLA is actually quite welcoming to cyclists; there have been quite a few cycling-oriented events down there, the fixie/roadbike scene is big from Koreatown/Hollywood/Silverlake/Los Feliz through DTLA and to East LA, and they even put in pretty considerable bike lanes a few months back:

That's good to know. Apparently much has changed in that regard since I last visited. But I really hope it isn't like San Diego which has LOTS of on-road bike lanes but where you tend to hear way too many stories about cars plowing into bicyclists and injuring or killing them- and it's due to poor motorist behavior and motorist disregard for cyclists. If those downtown bike lanes in LA were just put in a few months back, then I'll have to keep my ear open for either instances of cars plowing into cyclists or lack of such instances.

[MantaRay]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

You don't like sprawl with no character, but you find Rancho Cucamonga in the Inland Empire your favorite part of LA. OK.

Actually I said Santa Monica and Rancho Cucamonga. In the case of Rancho Cucamonga, as they developed, they planned their "town center" which is known as Victoria Gardens, in the way town centers should be planned. And the surrounding neigbhorhoods have good street and bike path connections (most notably Pacific Electric) and neighborhood parks, a central park, etc. Rancho Cucamonga does not look like a big expanse of strip mall with '70s style housing thrown in there haphazardly. And the town has character to spare. Rancho Cucamonga, in its design, reminds me a lot of my favorite neighborhood/development in the US- Denver's Stapleton. LOADS of character. Not sprawl with no character.

A visit to Rancho Cucamonga and one can tell that planning went into the place, that it wasn't just thrown together, that it didn't just grow haphazardly. LA generally has a feeling of having grown haphazardly without a whole lot of sensible planning having been put into it and not much architectural or aesthetic character having been designed into it, save certain parts, Santa Monica being one.

[iNviNciBL3]

Originally Posted by sunnyandcloudydays

What are the summers like in L.A.

I'm no expert but i hear the lows are in the low 60s and the highs are in the high 70s lower 80s. but a couple degrees cooler by the coast. No humidity or desert heat though.

[dweebo2220]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

But we are talking about metro areas.

People don't realize that suburbs of dense, walkable transit oriented cities have suburbs that lean more towards woodsy and exurban.

So much, that the overall urbanized area density of greater LA is more than any other metro area.

In highly centralized, core-centered, carless-living urban cores, people are usually completely unaware of the VERY suburban lifestyle that people live in the suburbs of Boston, Philly, Chicago, D.C., even the outer reaches of the NYC tri-state area.

In LA, you have areas like Hermosa beach at 13,000 pp/sm and it is like 25 miles from downtown. Its more multicentered, than spread out.

right. LA is "spread out," but it is no way spread thin

[GioLM]

LA is a wasteland of a metro imo. I have lived in LA several times, and I am not hating on it, I appreciate what LA does have to offer, and I am not here to list all the negatives that are so commonly dealt to LA, we have heard them all. However, I will say, that LA is FAR from a perfect metro, urban development is not it's strength.

[Caesarstl]

Originally Posted by MB8abovetherim

I'm sick of hearing people boost public transport like it's so amazing. The most effecient systems STILL don't beat having a car. Maybe in places like Manhattan where the "Reich" has made it a pain in the ass to find parking that is cheap and available this concept has legs. But that's not everywhere! There's an episode of Top Gear where the three hosts came up with a race: They all would go from London to Monte Carlo. One of the host would drive the entire way and the other two would take the TGV. The guy in the car won. He in a car (Granted it was an Aston Martin) beat the most efficient PT system ON EARTH!

On PT, one will always have to wait, never get off exactly where they need to be and lack the freedom to take the most direct route. Somebody in a car can.

Anyway, sorry to rant. I think LA is Americas perfect metro when you consider all the elements it brings to the table. Yeah NY and other east coast metros have a lot of urban characteristics that LA doesn't have a lot of. But guess what? in NY when I get tired of looking at identical tennaments I can just look the other way and....um wait. Oh, nevermind...

As for Top Gear, I'd love to see this and the caveats it came with. Just London to Paris is 2.5 hours on the Eurostar vs. like 7 by car (car will also be really expensive...) So this has to be a scheduling thing with changeover in Paris (the RER D line does directly connect Gare du Nord and Gare de Lyon though, the two train stations necessary for this idea), stops on the TGV, etc.

Originally Posted by 2Easy

There's also a Top Gear where they race from IIRC Fulham to City Airport by bike, public transit, speed boat, and car and the car finishes last.

Public transit gives people choices, that's all. No one need be forced to give up their car, but having a choice is important.

+1

[SalParadise]

Los Angeles is near perfect in geography (ocean, mountains, etc) and climate. It is nowhere near perfect in terms of layout, public transit, and walkability.

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by SalParadise

Los Angeles is near perfect in geography (ocean, mountains, etc) and climate. It is nowhere near perfect in terms of layout, public transit, and walkability.

I agree. And thanks, it's always good to see someone speaking honestly and objectively about their own region.

[MassVt]

I think that Chicago is probably closer to being America's "perfect " metro, in contrast to NYC and LA...

[ATUMRE75]

Originally Posted by MassVt

I think that Chicago is probably closer to being America's "perfect " metro, in contrast to NYC and LA...

I agree 100%. If Chicago didn't have such terrible winter weather it would be.