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.
It's been around for a Lonnggg time, and it is quite accurate, imo. Even LA Times acknowledges it:
.
I think the quote you are referring to is, "72 suburbs in search of a city." Attributed to NYC transplant Dorothy Parker (though historians highly doubt she really said it). Parker's quote (or non-quote) dates to the 1920's when she left her native Manhattan to "pimp" herself to Hollywood as a screenwriter. In later years the quote was rounded up to 100 suburbs in search of a city.
As British architectural historian Reyner Banham pointed out way back in the early 1970's it’s futile to apply traditional standards of urban design to Los Angeles. Los Angeles is one of the most architecturally innovative parts of the United States yet it can also be a thoroughgoing schizophrenic mess.
Yes, the misconception has been around a long time;
No, it is not accurate, and;
No, a prosaic sentence culled from an 8 year old essay does not reflect the editorial position of the LA Times.
Yes, it has been around a long time. Misconception or not, anybody who is shocked and disbelief as if this is the first time "endless suburbs" is being used, is probably full of it.
Nobody said it reflects the editorial position of the LA Times, but at least they acknowledged this sentiment is widespread.
.
I think the quote you are referring to is, "72 suburbs in search of a city." Attributed to NYC transplant Dorothy Parker (though historians highly doubt she really said it). Parker's quote (or non-quote) dates to the 1920's when she left her native Manhattan to "pimp" herself to Hollywood as a screenwriter. In later years the quote was rounded up to 100 suburbs in search of a city.
As British architectural historian Reyner Banham pointed out way back in the early 1970's it’s futile to apply traditional standards of urban design to Los Angeles. Los Angeles is one of the most architecturally innovative parts of the United States yet it can also be a thoroughgoing schizophrenic mess.
I think if Dorothy Parker is alive today, she'd have said LA is, "72 suburbs imagined to be a city by its inhabitants."
I often refer to LA as a suburban jungle with metropolitan issues. But I never said it's not without its charm and uniqueness. LA is a nice place. Just don't understand why the needs to present it to be what it is not.
Btw, Dorothy Parker never said that quote. It was Aldous Huxley.
.
I think if Dorothy Parker is alive today, she'd have said LA is, "72 suburbs imagined to be a city by its inhabitants."
I often refer to LA as a suburban jungle with metropolitan issues. But I never said it's not without its charm and uniqueness. LA is a nice place. Just don't understand why the needs to present it to be what it is not.
You're demonstrably wrong. Look at a zoning map of the city of Los Angeles. A suburban jungle it is not.
I'll just quote myself from another thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MordinSolus
It's all BS. I just moved to a condo in an urban, walkable area that's nowhere near any suburbs. I would have to drive ~30 minutes to get to some expansive suburbs, but those would either be close to the beach or in the "ghetto." Drive a little longer and I could be in the valley where there are a lot of pockets of suburbia, but nothing in the vein of "suburban sprawl."
And to add to that, I moved out of the Hills, which is the closest thing to suburbia in Central LA, and that's nothing like suburbia.
The irony is that most of the "big suburb" talk comes from metropolitan areas with sleepier suburbs than LA could ever dream of having. Good-sized lots, excessively large yards (wasteful greenspace IMO), miles and miles of housing with no amenities in sight, etc. Very little of Los Angeles fits this mold. The suburbs of NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia sure do though.
I'm also amazed that people can come to Los Angeles, see this...
...and come away thinking the city is a giant suburb. It's just baffling to me. How bad are their perception skills? Do they see this as they pass through Hollywood?
This neighborhood is in Chicagoland btw. Good luck finding anything like that image in the LA basin.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 02-21-2015 at 02:17 PM..
The problem isn't the buildings largely, it's the landscape. There are many nice houses in LA and even nice old apartment buildings in Korea Town and around Wilshire between Normandie and downtown. Rossmore between Wilshire and Beverly also has some nice New York style buildings.
The landscape is the problem. Every place has some sort of natural beauty. LA is basically some sort of desert mixed with a swamp so its aesthetic is harsh and desolate. Coming from the east coast I find this less pleasant than greenery and streams and rivers. I think it's fair to say that even as LA would look like naturally, it's uglier than places that are green and smell like something other than dust.
The second problem is that the city is largely not left alone to look like what it would look like naturally, perhaps because it looks desolate. It's either been laid over with concrete (which I guess is good for cars) or been landscaped. The landscaping, however, is fake and incongruous with the natural landscape. It's also random. There are too many imported plants from all over the place and there is no cohesion. The leaves don't change at the same time. There are birds of paradise flowers next to jacarandas next to oaks. So it has this kind of contrived look to it compared to the east coast where the lawns and trees and flowers blend into the natural setting of grass and the same trees and flowers. The east coast also has large lawns and small streets. LA has large streets and tiny lawns. This is also kind of ugly.
There are some areas that are a bit different. There is a canyon-look in places near hills that is more natural than the green lawns in the basins. For example, La Canada, Mandeville Canyon, Palos Verdes or the Hollywood Hills are a bit better because the hills do have some trees and the trees in the houses kind of match the landscape of the hills. But still the lawns don't match the dusty shrub hill look and I don't find the dusty hill look or smell appealing.
The other area is the beach. The beach is nice because you can't really landscape or ruin a beach. I find most of the beach towns really ugly though because they are barren. I hate Santa Monica and Venice because they just have this grouchy vibe and they have these ugly manicured trees. Santa Monica is really overrated with tons of small ugly looking houses that seem sad and discontent from Ocean Park up to San Vicente. The only nice part of the beach that I found is if you go west on Washington in Marina del Rey and go left on Pacific by the beach. There is a small stream that they left alone and it's the only place that looks green and has natural water in it.
I think they ruined Los Angeles when they put the river in its concrete basin. I don't think it would be much of a flooding hazard and perhaps they could have just made a law that people would have to build fifty feet away from the river instead of putting it in concrete. New York City has the Hudson River, St Louis has the Mississippi River and these are real rivers, yet their respective cities managed to survive without putting the river in a concrete basin.
Anyway, if you don't live by the beach or in a canyon, you are going to be really distanced from any nature on a daily basis. If you have a car, perhaps you can drive up to Runyon Canyon (which closes ridiculously early at 5 PM) or up to the Baldwin Hills Scenic Overlook or Kenneth Hahn Park (which is actually a nice park minus the oil rigs) or up to the Hollywood Hills. But this is probably a weekend trip. If you have no car some of these places are more difficult to get to or inaccessible.
The difference between Los Angeles and most other cities are that you are living largely out of touch with nature. Even in an urban area of New Jersey far away from Central Park, the natural landscape is kind of overlaid in the lawns of the houses, or you will find an area with trees and a creek behind a supermarket. And even this small amount of nature can be peaceful or inspiring. In Los Angeles, you can walk by tens of thousands of homes that are landscaped and are completely incongruous with the natural landscape. You'll never find a river or creek because the Los Angeles River and its streams are in an ugly concrete basin that is fenced off. The most you will find is some dust and ugly shrubs by a freeway unless you go out of your way to drive up a hill or go to a beach. I don't like the hills either because they are dusty and have partially dead prickly shrubs and rattlesnakes. The rain is also weird in Los Angeles where it isn't the relaxing pleasant rain you get everywhere else. It's rare for it to rain and when it rains it's kind of a mean stressful rain that just berates the ground and the roofs of the houses and leaves mudslides in its wake.
The city is nice after the rain clears out the smog. The sunsets are also nice and unique. The relaxed look of a sunset in its unthreatening yellow and pink hues meshes with the ragged and desolate look of the mountains and hills in a unique way. It's also in a distant and fleeting way because the look of the sunset doesn't match the ugliness of the landscaped lawns and crowded dirty streets you'll see for the rest of the day.
The worst part of Los Angeles is the apartments. There is something substantial and real to apartments and buildings on the east coast and midwest. The apartments in Los Angeles have this awful flimsy look. I looked at tons of apartments in LA and most look like whoever built them could really care less. They look really cheap and tacky and poorly-built. There are apartments for 1300 dollars where they just stapled a board to the wall and called it a counter. Then there are the ugly wall-heaters and cheaply colored walls in these ugly pink and off-white, yellow hues that just seem like they are saturated with sleaze. Apartments on the east coast are cozy and the heater or air-conditioners provide relief from the weather outside. In Los Angeles, there is no weather outside so there is rarely a sense of relief or coziness. The worst thing is that whoever built the apartment didn't care that it looks bad and they don't mind overcharging for it either. In other places I think people take more pride in their work and would be embarrassed to put an apartment like the ones in LA on the market.
There are a few problems with architecture in Los Angeles. One problem is the absence of lawns that match the size of the houses. Another problem is that some of the houses try too hard to look fancy and they don't match any other houses on the block. Another problem is there are tons of tacky and sleazy apartment buildings. Even when they aren't tacky, there are too many different styles of houses and often they just appear random kind of like the trees. The modernist style buildings, even expensive modernist houses don't really look simplistic and sleek but bland and ugly. I think people used to put more effort into making buildings look nice 100 years ago and most of Los Angeles was built after that period. Also, stucco is used I think because of earthquakes so you don't get many nice brick apartments or masonry. When you do, you probably wouldn't want to live in them.
Anyway, there are a few nice neighborhoods which are somewhat architecturally integrated. One is Silver Lake, where there are enough brightly painted houses and Spanish style houses to form a somewhat unique and integrated look. There is also an area near downtown that has a lot of old Victorian buildings. The nicest part of Los Angeles, however, is when you go down Wilshire from Sepulveda to Beverly Hills and Wilshire is lined with these fairly tall and picturesque condominiums that match the palm trees. I find Downtown LA to look a bit deserted and uninspired and empty and to have this planned futuristic look that is bland mixed in with some really ugly run down looking apartment buildings in a desolate setting. Santa Monica is ugly and contrived looking as well.
I think to fix the city they would have to figure out how to work with its natural shrub and dirt look without completely landscaping it and ignoring it. This might save the city a lot of water too. They would also have to restore the river and turn the golf courses on Melrose and Pico into public parks. Imagine if Central Park in New York was a private golf course. I think if you can afford to play golf in a country club you can afford to drive to the outskirts of the city and the land inside a city should be set aside for public use.
The most annoying thing about LA is that it is a complacent (and a bit paranoid) city. Almost nothing is built. I was there from 1999 to 2015 and I think they built three skyscrapers (one in Glendale, one in Century City and a hotel in Downtown LA). People always talk about restoring the river but nothing ever happens. I think people need to look at what the city looked like one hundred years ago and try to make the city and the lawns look they should naturally even though this might be a fire hazard. It would be nice if they could actually do something for once.
Another disturbing look is that the new hipster condos that are being built up in west hollywood/hollywood are set so close to the street. Apparently, there are zero restrictions that require a buffer area between the new building and the street. This makes the area look very congested and overcrowded.
Another disturbing look is that the new hipster condos that are being built up in west hollywood/hollywood are set so close to the street. Apparently, there are zero restrictions that require a buffer area between the new building and the street. This makes the area look very congested and overcrowded.
The irony is that most of the "big suburb" talk comes from metropolitan areas with sleepier suburbs than LA could ever dream of having. Good-sized lots, excessively large yards (wasteful greenspace IMO), miles and miles of housing with no amenities in sight, etc. Very little of Los Angeles fits this mold. The suburbs of NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia sure do though.
I'm also amazed that people can come to Los Angeles, see this...
...and come away thinking the city is a giant suburb. It's just baffling to me. How bad are their perception skills? Do they see this as they pass through Hollywood?
This neighborhood is in Chicagoland btw. Good luck finding anything like that image in the LA basin.
Many people appreciate GREENSPACE, espec this young hipster crowd who insists on "walking everywhere." I attended neighborhood hearings back in the 1990s when citizens were proposing the building of airshafts for the proposed underground metro line. Proponents said at the time that it might ruin the fragile ecosystem and destroy the habitat. It was also said that Los Angeles has only about 2% public park greenspace, which is extremely low for a metropolitan city.
The irony is that most of the "big suburb" talk comes from metropolitan areas with sleepier suburbs than LA could ever dream of having. Good-sized lots, excessively large yards (wasteful greenspace IMO), miles and miles of housing with no amenities in sight, etc. Very little of Los Angeles fits this mold. The suburbs of NYC, DC, Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia sure do though.
I'm also amazed that people can come to Los Angeles, see this...
...and come away thinking the city is a giant suburb. It's just baffling to me. How bad are their perception skills? Do they see this as they pass through Hollywood?
This neighborhood is in Chicagoland btw. Good luck finding anything like that image in the LA basin.
Exactly! LA is a concrete jungle. The most paved city in America. It's not one big suburb.
Even when people say the valley is supposedly the burbs, I think, really? Its urban as heck. Burbs to be means large homes, ample land, acres, big yards, spaced out to where you need a car. No ifs ands or buts.
Many people appreciate GREENSPACE, espec this young hipster crowd who insists on "walking everywhere." I attended neighborhood hearings back in the 1990s when citizens were proposing the building of airshafts for the proposed underground metro line. Proponents said at the time that it might ruin the fragile ecosystem and destroy the habitat. It was also said that Los Angeles has only about 2% public park greenspace, which is extremely low for a metropolitan city.
I never said all greenspace is bad ? I'm referring to excessive lot sizes/greenspace in single-family homes like those typically found in the suburbs out East. Nobody but the homeowner benefits from that, and it leads to inefficient land use.
Here's an example of what I mean.
Chicagoland: 2647 sq miles, 9.16 million
Los Angeles-San Bernardino: 2432 sq miles, 15.1 million
Chicagoland actually covers a larger terrain than Los Angeles, but with 6 million fewer residents. That's because it is mostly made of irresponsibly sprawling suburbs, the kind nobody notices because they're too busy taking walking tours of The Loop. Los Angeles isn't even that crowded by world standards (Paris fits 11 million people in 1100 sq miles, for example), but it is the picture of efficiency by US standards.
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.
? I'm referring to excessive lot sizes/greenspace in single-family homes like those typically found in the suburbs out East. Nobody but the homeowner benefits from that, and it leads to inefficient land use. 
