Los Angeles: The Fragmented Metropolis???? (San Diego, Irvine: condo, hotels, buy)

[Island_OnThe_Land]

The "Fragmented Metropolis" refers to the well known urban history of Los Angeles by Robert Fogelson published in 1967. The book covers the seminal period from 1850 to 1930.

The main idea of the book is that in social, political, and spatial terms Los Angeles developed as a fragmented metropolis. The themes of division and privatism drive his view of the city's historical development.

Essentially, Fogeslson argues that city's growth actually required intensive harnassing of public power, yet the city that emerged was devoid of any unifying idea of civic life.

I write this thread NOT to bash Los Angeles but to ask if this fragmentation still rules the say. Moreover, I wonder if the public works projects we are now undertaking or contemplating are enough to give us a common civic purpose? I am thinking of the greening of the LA River, the continuing evolution of our rail transit system, and the ongoing revitalization of downtown Los Angeles (among others).

No question that Los Angeles is a dynamic city with much to offer in the way of culture, arts, human creativity & diversity. At the same time, if you think about our city's history, you can't help but be a little disturbed about certain lost opportunities. A few examples include the Olmsted plan from the 1930's to create a vast regional park system and the failure to keep the red car system alive.

Again, I think the greening of the LA river and the MTA's expansion of rail hold great promise. Yet, the progress of these projects seems so timid and slow. Anyone have thoughts or ideas about this??? Anyone disagree??

[Mr. Mysterious]

Let me just google some of the complex words you just said, and I'll get back to you!

[matt345]

I'd say that yes, much of Los Angeles is still like this. I've only been living here a year and already I feel like I've experienced and gotten to know much more of LA than the average Angeleno. People here tend to stay in their little corner of the city most of the time. There are people I work with who have lived here for much longer than I have, yet have never heard of Thai Town or Little India. I met somebody from Montrose (who had grown up there) who had never heard of Silver Lake!

Then you have all those homeowner's associations who want to pretend that they live in a quiet midwestern suburb...in the middle of the LA Basin! You live in the second largest city in the US!

[bhcompy]

The LA basin is huge and it sucks, and I was born and raised here. People have too many problems to care about a few million other people in some civic unity crusade.

[Island_OnThe_Land]

Originally Posted by matt345

Then you have all those homeowner's associations who want to pretend that they live in a quiet midwestern suburb...in the middle of the LA Basin! You live in the second largest city in the US!

Yes, very well put.

Provincial attitdues are not unique to LA but they certainly find ample expression in local homeowner's associations. I am thinking here of the orginal plan to put the "subway to the sea" (as we now call it) down wilshire boulevard.

In the 1980's when the actual route was being decided, local Homeowner's associations in areas like Hancock Park were oppposed. As a result, the great "liberal" Congressman Henry Waxman made sure no subway could go under wilshire blvd (which is by far the most logical route to put in a subway).

Don't get me wrong, I consider myself pretty liberal. It's just frustrating to see community-minded improvements get set aside by such parochial interests. Waxman has FINALLY removed his opposition after 20 years!!!! Maybe we are making progress..........

[hsw]

Any large urban region is socio-economically and physically "fragmented"; don't think LA is any worse than NYC or SF or Chic in this regard

For ex., Manhattan tends to look dimly on outer boroughs; many bedroom suburbs in Westchester or Fairfield view Manhattan as location of day job; many millions both live and work in various suburbs in NJ/Westchester/Fairfield and rarely visit Manhattan....can draw similar parallels in any large region w/many jobs sprawled throughout a region in various corridors where businesses/employers prefer to locate

And often will see that, e.g., those who live and work on Westside have little to no reason to ever visit SFV, DLA, OC, South Bay, etc...much like many who live in NYC's CT suburbs almost never visit LI or NJ or outer boroughs...

[tijlover]

I blame much of the fragmentation to the "Not in my backyard syndrome".
Along with homeowner's associations and historical preservationists and pure selfishness of homeowners.

Those along the coast want it all to themselves, they don't want to share their coastline and beaches with any more people than necessary. Compare the built-up coastline of southern Florida with southern California. My first trip to Calif. I expected to see a built-up southern Florida-like coastline with lost of high-rise hotels to choose from. Malibu has 25 miles of coastline which could, with any number of 30-40 story high-rise apt.'s and condo's, support a population of hundreds of thousands of people. And that's not even considering the housing potential for the coastline south of there all the way to San Diego. If this had happened, over the years, the Inland Empire might still be profitable citrus groves and farming communities.

Yes, L.A. is subject to earthquakes, but that's no excuse for going high-rise, as earthquakes are possible from Alaska clear south to Chile. And look at the built-up areas in various stretches of that coastline.

And look at the height restrictions in Irvine. Why?

[majoun]

Originally Posted by hsw

And often will see that, e.g., those who live and work on Westside have little to no reason to ever visit SFV, DLA, OC, South Bay, etc...much like many who live in NYC's CT suburbs almost never visit LI or NJ or outer boroughs...

Those who GREW UP on the Westside and are still lucky enough to live there have PLENTY of reasons to visit Hollywood, Silver Lake, Los Feliz, downtown,Echo Park, Eagle Rock, or the Valley - as most of the people they grew up with who are still in L.A. have been priced out of the Westside (other than Palms or Mar Vista, perhaps - or those lucky enough to get into Venice or southern SM when those areas were still cheaper.)

How many Westside communities still have multigenerational families other than Culver City?

A close friend of mine grew up in Beverly Hills. NO ONE whom he grew up with still lives there, and there are probably more people who grew up in Beverly Hills living in Silver Lake, Echo Park, Eagle Rock, Mount Washington, etc. than in Beverly Hills itself.

[matt345]

Originally Posted by tijlover

If this had happened, over the years, the Inland Empire might still be profitable citrus groves and farming communities.

Yes, L.A. is subject to earthquakes, but that's no excuse for going high-rise, as earthquakes are possible from Alaska clear south to Chile. And look at the built-up areas in various stretches of that coastline.

And look at the height restrictions in Irvine. Why?

I think this is a very good point. A lot of Angelenos automatically oppose anything that has the word “highrise” written into it. They associate overdevelopment, traffic, and over-urbanization with any building more than 3 stories tall – yet they couldn’t have it more wrong. It’s not building anything tall, constantly spreading out with 1-2 story buildings, and privatizing land that causes traffic and overdevelopment. Like you said, look at what’s happened to the Inland Empire – it was subdivisions, suburban office parks, and freeways that destroyed all that open space, not highrise “Manhattanization” (a term I’ve only heard in LA btw).

[Bunjee]

I think the physical urban structure of LA is more metaphorical than any real basis for its fragmentation. I think it's moreso that the town has always been defined by imaginings of it, by outsiders--Midwesterners, Easterners, screenwriters, novelists--who had their illusions and disillusionment, and have painted the place so effectively that their portraits have become definitive, even for the natives. (Seriously, the number of residents who buy into the myths about Los Angeles... My sister and brother-in-law live in Santa effin' Monica but hate "El Lay"...) Remember, this is where film noir was born. An entire genre premised on the Average Joe caught in extraordinary circumstance. A genre created by moralists from the Midwest who fled to the coast.

Now, there is history here that's rife for fictionalizing and "treatment". There are gangs, but there've always been gangs. It's not the end of the world. There's poor urban planning that's being caught late. People cocoon in cars and backyards. But it's not the end of society. It's not "the end of civilization", it's just the damn Pacific Ocean!

Imagineering--that's the strangeness and paradox of LA, and I'm prone to getting too rhapsodic about it too but then I'm falling into the same sandpit. I am not a metaphor! I am a human being!