suburbs

[antialphabet]

Originally Posted by the city

Well, most of LA's suburbs are pretty run-down because of poor planning, big lower-class, and over-population. Problems you will face in all of the suburbs are traffic, smog, gangs at high schools, and high crime rates in some parts. But, of course you can avoid almost all of that besides traffic. and i dont really mind smog since it's in every conjested inland city in the usa.

The middle-class boom-burbs are okay. Pasadena, Glendale, Glendora are okay. Burbank is nice also. Downey, Norwalk, and Pomona can be iffy. West Covina and Covina have some good parts.

Inner city suburbs like compton, inglewood, hawthorne, gardena, watts, and that whole south central area i would stay away from.

then you have some pricey nice suburbs like san fernando, beverly hills, santa monica, and eagle rock.


I think Pasadena or Burbank is your best bet.

I don't know if I'd consider San Fernando nice, or Beverly Hills and Santa Monica to be suburbs.

[Thebirdgetsthelastword]

aa den ill just go to san diego or the bay area

[the one]

i dont think you know what you are talking about.

south central is not part of the suburbs. nor was it ever.

and San Fer city is not nice. its one of the least nice places in LA.

as for the layout of most los angeles proper adjacent cities(begining in downtown and moving outward), they are pretty much on the same grid as central LA. the main thouroghfares are brooklyn, whittier, olympic, washington, slauson, florence, manchester, etc etc. those are the east west streets. LA and the surrounding cities are laid out in a grid. the streets are numbered. if you live at 10300 central, then you live at 103rd and central. if you live at 1500 east florence, then you live 15 blocks east of main street.

pretty simple.

and most major streets like florence and slauson were zoned to be commercial strips. it makes it easy for the residents who live within the smaller streets to walk to the major blvd for restaurants, dry cleaning, supermarket, schools, etc.

i dont think the greater LA area was planned poorly. once you start moving out deep into the valleys, SF and SG, and further south to cerritos and other far flung suburbs, well then thats debateable. all those dead end streets, er i mean cul de sacs, and curvy streets and lanes just get too confusing.

but thats a completely different conversation.

besides the idea of suburbs is a bit limited when speaking about LA.

one thing is for sure WATTS IS NOT A SUBURB.

Originally Posted by the city

Well, most of LA's suburbs are pretty run-down because of poor planning, big lower-class, and over-population. Problems you will face in all of the suburbs are traffic, smog, gangs at high schools, and high crime rates in some parts. But, of course you can avoid almost all of that besides traffic. and i dont really mind smog since it's in every conjested inland city in the usa.

The middle-class boom-burbs are okay. Pasadena, Glendale, Glendora are okay. Burbank is nice also. Downey, Norwalk, and Pomona can be iffy. West Covina and Covina have some good parts.

Inner city suburbs like compton, inglewood, hawthorne, gardena, watts, and that whole south central area i would stay away from.

then you have some pricey nice suburbs like san fernando, beverly hills, santa monica, and eagle rock.


I think Pasadena or Burbank is your best bet.

[US-Traveller]

I think I might look into Downey or Chino Hills. The Inland Empire is where most middle-class people live, but it is a horrible commute.

[katenik]

Originally Posted by US-Traveller

I think I might look into Downey or Chino Hills. The Inland Empire is where most middle-class people live, but it is a horrible commute.

According to whom? The IE is full of trailer trash and inner-city transplants, many of whom took their ghetto/barrio culture out there with them. Don't let those sparkly new houses fool you; it's hardly a middle-class haven.