U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 02-14-2009, 07:37 PM
 
1,029 posts, read 2,167,442 times
Reputation: 509

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BRinSM View Post
LA has become a major player in the international scene and in fact is listed as an Alpha World City along with London, Paris, Tokyo, and NY. These types of cities are competitive places that people flock to. Of course this is not for everyone, and in many situations this has caused people to leave. For me, I chose to live in LA because its the closest big city to my family. If I would have been raised in the midwest, I'd probably be in Chicago. And if raised on the East Coast, I'd probably be in Boston, NY, or DC. I may not live in a big city my whole life, but I am certainly enjoying it now. And by the way, I can't wait to get home from work and take my bike out on the beach trail, sounds like fun to me.
I've lived in alpha cities all over the world and LA is different, especially on the west side where you apparently live. For one, I've never seen such a disproportionate number of car-rich, house-poor people - Land Rovers and BMWs parked in front of crappy apartment complexes. I'm not sure if it's the Hollywood thing, but I've also never met so many self-centered, self-indulgent, self-righteous, entitled people than on the west side of LA. If I got a dollar for every time I got cut off by a luxury import, I would be a millionaire. People just do not care about their fellow man. Yes, every city has them, but it permeates the culture here if anyone has any kind of money or position. In the Bay area, the west side type people are largely confined to the small Marina area. The only "normal" people I really see here in number are those who moved here years ago, back when you could buy a house for a reasonable price. They're all 50+ and I have little in common with them otherwise.

In NYC, you'll have people running all over the place, which outsiders can interpret as rude, but you'll see they are more considerate than not. If a mom is trying to get a stroller up the subway stairs, you'll see businessman in suits grab the front of the stroller and quickly help her up. It's a no nonsense attitude but still considerate. I just do not see many manifestations of this attitude in LA. Overall, it's just not a good place to live unless you absolutely need temperate weather or work for the entertainment industry.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-14-2009, 07:40 PM
 
1,712 posts, read 4,011,610 times
Reputation: 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato the Elder View Post
I've lived in alpha cities all over the world and LA is different, especially on the west side where you apparently live. For one, I've never seen such a disproportionate number of car-rich, house-poor people - Land Rovers and BMWs parked in front of crappy apartment complexes. I'm not sure if it's the Hollywood thing, but I've also never met so many self-centered, self-indulgent, self-righteous, entitled people than on the west side of LA. If I got a dollar for every time I got cut off by a luxury import, I would be a millionaire. People just do not care about their fellow man. Yes, every city has them, but it permeates the culture here if anyone has any kind of money or position.
Hm, this is a westside thing. It isn't applicable to the city as a whole. As you drive westward, however, it gradually becomes more and more noticeable.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2009, 07:45 PM
 
2,639 posts, read 2,661,548 times
Reputation: 3166
From an historical rather than personal, anecdotal perspective I'd say the immediate post-WWII years as well, especially for those escaping the racism of the South. Urban intellectuals these days deride LA suburbs, but that was not the thinking back then. These cookie-cutter enclaves were considered great equalizers by the thinkers of the day. And the promise was, by all (very touching) accounts, very real. A black family could have exactly what was possible for a while family, a house with a yard. They could walk the streets without having to step off the curb for a white man. Then industries such as the Firestone tire plant closed, and there went with it middle class hopes. But that was a heyday.

Personally, though, yeah, I know the memories CESpeed is talking about. Hot summer nights, arcing down the freeway with the windows open and Capitol Records off to the left, sneaking on to the beach to camp all night, Halloween the way it's supposed to be...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2009, 07:54 PM
 
1,029 posts, read 2,167,442 times
Reputation: 509
Quote:
Originally Posted by timelesschild View Post
Hm, this is a westside thing. It isn't applicable to the city as a whole. As you drive westward, however, it gradually becomes more and more noticeable.
Yeah, but if you don't live west of La Cienaga, where does a family live within LA and get a half-decent education for the kids without putting them in a harmful environment? I'm not talking about buying a house either, because houses are expensive in any alpha city. In San Francisco, you can live in the Avenues and your kid will still get a half decent education in a healthy setting. In NY, you can live in areas of Brooklyn not facing Manhattan. In Boston, you have places like Jamaica Plain; Chicago has a bunch of places where the average family can live. Yeah, the suburbs are often a better option for families, but at least the city is a viable option. Again, where do you live? The Valley? Yeah, there are portions that are still decent, but it's basically a part of LA in name only. LA just isn't a good place to live unless you're rich, single and willing to live day-to-day, or an immigrant looking for work under the table. Demographic shifts are showing this to be more and more true.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2009, 08:18 PM
hsw
 
2,067 posts, read 4,392,060 times
Reputation: 1366
Major cities are best suited for single yuppies or ultra-wealthy families...been that way for decades; not new news...even in major regions, most affluent families tend to prefer suburbs like NYC's Greenwich or SiliconValley's Woodside or Chic's Winnetka...or Irvine or Naperville or Saratoga or Scarsdale, etc if less affluent

Interestingly, LA has many rather smart financiers who choose to live (often rather quietly) on Westside (and most have offices in BH/CentCity/SM)....and many rather smart, wealthy financiers and engineers from SiliconValley, NYC and Chicago who seem to also favor the Westside for wkend houses...amusing that so many smart, wealthy guys who could live anywhere seem drawn to the hedonism of LA's Westside

Regions like Manhattan/BevHills/SiliconValley are prob ideal for highly educated, highly paid financiers or engineers or other entrepreneurs...and many middle-managers/back-office people would live a much better life in suburban Dallas or Houston....thankfully, most companies allocate jobs to such locations somewhat rationally, based upon COL vs income
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-14-2009, 08:38 PM
 
Location: Earth
12,011 posts, read 13,524,787 times
Reputation: 4126
Quote:
Originally Posted by CESpeed View Post
I grew up in L.A. during the 1970s and 1980s. And yes, that was L.A.'s heyday. My great grandmother and grandmother came here for vacation in the 1950's and decided to stay. When I was growing up, Tom Bradley was Mayor. He was so good that he was mayor for twenty years. I'm convinced that Mayor Bradley saw what riordan was doing to L.A. and died of a broken heart. I know that it breaks my heart to see the city I loved so much turn into what it has become.
I won't deny that Tom Bradley loved his adapted city and tried, within the limitations that the old charter placed on his power, to make it a better place, but there's no denying that Bradley's 5th term coincided with the WORST period in Los Angeles' history and that he should have retired in 1989. I don't think Riordan was bad by any means, BTW. He did put the LAPD under civilian control and got rid of the old city charter, both of which I consider to be accomplishments. The late '90s were actually a pleasant time in L.A. - once the aftermath of the riots and the quake had receded and L.A. was sharing in the general prosperity of the country and world, yet L.A. was still affordable as the real estate bubble hadn't hit yet.

As for the best period in L.A.'s history, roughly I'd say late 1940s-late 1970s. (I don't deny there were problems in that era, though - 1950s L.A. for a white heterosexual male would've been a blast, but for anyone else it wouldn't have been as fun. It would have definitely NOT been fun if you were black AND gay.) As for the heyday of people moving to L.A. its beginning definitely preceded WW2. It began with the movie industry coming west.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2009, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Portland, OR
73 posts, read 141,513 times
Reputation: 57
The oldsters in this thread are making me very nostalgic. L.A. used to be so wonderful. I grew up there from age 1 starting in the early 50's. The 40's and 50's.... THAT was the heyday. No smog, tons fewer people, beautiful weather, mountains, bucolic suburbs. Now I just get angry when I go there to visit family that is still there.

The 60's and 70's were not the heyday. That's when the smog set in and too many freeways were necessary. That's when I tried to leave the first time. I left 5 times in all (kept getting drawn back) but I've been gone for 5-1/2 years this most recent time. I hope I never have to go back even though I desperately miss the temperate climate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JiminCT View Post
I was looking at a reunion site that Steve Wynn hosted in Vegas for some of his friends from Utica, NY. Seems like there were a whole bunch that moved out to the Los Angeles area during the mid 60's to mid 70's. Got more thinking about it...most of my Dad's cousins from the NYC area moved out there during that time too. Was that the real heyday of Los Angeles? Or was it an earlier time? Would be interesting to get perspectives from both natives and folks that took the leap out there from back east.
This is so true: NYC people invaded L.A. in the 80's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CESpeed View Post
L.A. had a more positive vibe. It wasn't this cutthroat, dog-eat-dog, every man for himself place. We had fun. No one has fun in L.A. anymore. They have the illusion of fun. People are too busy trying not to get swallowed to have real fun. People have "relief" or "escapes". L.A. used to be a dynamic city. It isn't anymore. It's turning into New York, this isn't a good thing. In the Arkansas forum they complain all the time about people coming in from the outsidde and trying to turn it into whereever they came from, this is what's happened to L.A. Instead of coming here and enjoying the vibe of the dynamic city, it's being changed into what people thought L.A. was, a NY clone. It's a sad sin.

Last edited by hummingbird3; 02-18-2009 at 12:17 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2009, 12:43 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles-213.323.310.818/San Diego-619.858.760
707 posts, read 2,334,208 times
Reputation: 424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato the Elder View Post
Yeah, but if you don't live west of La Cienaga, where does a family live within LA and get a half-decent education for the kids without putting them in a harmful environment? I'm not talking about buying a house either, because houses are expensive in any alpha city. In San Francisco, you can live in the Avenues and your kid will still get a half decent education in a healthy setting. In NY, you can live in areas of Brooklyn not facing Manhattan. In Boston, you have places like Jamaica Plain; Chicago has a bunch of places where the average family can live. Yeah, the suburbs are often a better option for families, but at least the city is a viable option. Again, where do you live? The Valley? Yeah, there are portions that are still decent, but it's basically a part of LA in name only. LA just isn't a good place to live unless you're rich, single and willing to live day-to-day, or an immigrant looking for work under the table. Demographic shifts are showing this to be more and more true.
I still dont see where these Alpha cities you have lived in are? The only one's you've mentioned are N.Y.C, Chicago, and L.A. All these three are extremely different. L.A. is still growing at a fast rate and what brings many of these new people are the universities. UCLA, USC, CSULA, CSUN, LMU, FIDM, AI, Woodburry, and many others are bringing students from across the country and world. L.A. continues to see growth and today, many university grads decide to stay in L.A. after they graduate. I agree, L.A. city is far more liveable if you dont have a family or if you're wealthy but just look at the SFV with its population over one million. This is not where the average family lives in L.A.? L.A. is L.A. if by "name only" Also, L.A. has a lower crime rate than even S.F.(Beta City) and you make the claim that one can live in the avenues of S.F. and give his/her kid a healthy setting? well why not L.A.? You're never going to find an Alpha city where the average person and his/her family can live IN the CITY and claim that they have security, good schools and great quality of life; it just isnt available.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2009, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles-213.323.310.818/San Diego-619.858.760
707 posts, read 2,334,208 times
Reputation: 424
At one point, L.A. was the suburbial city but it has become a global city and those who dont like it are moving out while those aspiring a better future are coming in. Whether it be from differents parts of the country or world, but people are coming and L.A. is growing.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-18-2009, 01:53 PM
 
Location: CITY OF ANGELS AND CONSTANT DANGER
5,405 posts, read 7,978,588 times
Reputation: 2175
not true at all. i live in los angeles. i have kids. we are not rich and we are not in the entertainment industry.

the schools are better than in the 80's. i can take the train to work. the kids do well in school. the neighborhood isnt completely safe, but its safer than, yes, back in the 80's.

there are plenty of hard working humble people who make a living and a family in LA> its is not all gloom and doom.

as for the west side?
what do you expect. thats like hollywood. lots of obnoxious, jaded individuals who have moved to LA to make it. theyve tested "alpha" cities world wide and have carried their garbage into every city they have been.

the nastiest people i have met here in LA, are usually not from LA.
people keep coming here. ive seen the changes and i remember the days of Rough Tough and Dirty, its def better now. but i do agree that the heyday might have been the 50/60's. the quality of people moving here might have been more hard working.
now people just come to "MAKE IT".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cato the Elder View Post
Yeah, but if you don't live west of La Cienaga, where does a family live within LA and get a half-decent education for the kids without putting them in a harmful environment? I'm not talking about buying a house either, because houses are expensive in any alpha city. In San Francisco, you can live in the Avenues and your kid will still get a half decent education in a healthy setting. In NY, you can live in areas of Brooklyn not facing Manhattan. In Boston, you have places like Jamaica Plain; Chicago has a bunch of places where the average family can live. Yeah, the suburbs are often a better option for families, but at least the city is a viable option. Again, where do you live? The Valley? Yeah, there are portions that are still decent, but it's basically a part of LA in name only. LA just isn't a good place to live unless you're rich, single and willing to live day-to-day, or an immigrant looking for work under the table. Demographic shifts are showing this to be more and more true.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top