What's with the stupid conflict with The Valley & Hollywood? (Los Angeles: how much, high school)

[thepinksquid]

Originally Posted by Miss Pip

and that's exactly my point... who the heff cares? but it seems like everyone cares about where you're from and I don't get it.

I was more trying to say... who cares why people care where you're from?

If someone is making comments, or, let me get my lingo on -- giving you "beef" -- then why are they worth worrying about?

Ignorant people worry about ignorant things. Don't let something so petty get to you.

[Miss Pip]

Originally Posted by thepinksquid

Right. I sad I had to look up the meaning. Past tense.

Yes I know and i'm saying it's good we have google for googling things like that.

[Miss Pip]

Originally Posted by thepinksquid

I was more trying to say... who cares why people care where you're from?

If someone is making comments, or, let me get my lingo on -- giving you "beef" -- then why are they worth worrying about?

Ignorant people worry about ignorant things. Don't let something so petty get to you.

First I was trying to understand what caused this conflict. Then I started to wonder if it would ruin things when i'm networking for gigs but I really don't think it would.

When I move to new cities I like to know about things, history etc. It's not something i'm worried about. It's just curiousity.

[JerZ]

Am I seriously sheltered? Because I've never even heard of this.

[stuffavail]

'Why can't we all get along?'
We do get along.
It's called living in Southern California.

[thepinksquid]

Originally Posted by Miss Pip

Yes I know and i'm saying it's good we have google for googling things like that.

Ah okay. Gotcha.

[bophisto]

I have lived on the Westside my whole life, but I do not feel the Valley bashing is totally fair. Although when people think of L.A they don't think of the valley. Some people are perfectly happy living in the suburbs/Valley to be away from the "action"....Although I think it is kind of hypocritical of valley people that act as if the 'urban' parts of the Westside , Hollywood, Downtown, Mid City ,etc are terrible places, but then they spend their free time driving to these places.

The Valley in general just can't compete with the "L.A Metro Area" when it comes to restaurants, bars, clubs, museums. I have spent a lot of time in the valley, and it is still surprising that the options are relatively limited.

Some of this probably has to do with the fact that most of the residents do not want these types of places in their area. They moved to the valley to be away from all of that.

Also I think it is important to mention...it doesn't seem much cheaper to live in the valley if you are renting an apartment. There is the concept that the valley is "much cheaper" but I do not think that is really the case as far as apartment rentals. This probably has to do with supply. The supply of apartment rental housing is not as high in the valley because it is more suburban than parts of the Westside, Hollywood, etc .

"The Valley" does feel like it should be it's own city as the area does not have a whole lot in common with the rest of L.A The Valley is HUGE though. For example Sherman Oaks is miles and miles from Woodland Hills.

The Valley in general has a lot more SPACE that the rest of L.A Paying for parking is practically unheard of which can pretty nice. There aren't a bunch of "restricted" parking areas like most of L.A

The vibe is more down to earth and laid back...people are living and not as many movie star wanna be's as the Westside,etc.



I think people should enjoy or try to enjoy where they live, but not diss other areas , especially if they haven't spent time there or really know anything about those areas.

[matt345]

I'm an big fan of urban living, so naturally I prefer locations such as Silver Lake, Hollywood, or Venice to the Valley. One thing I've never understood though is the Westside. Other than Santa Monica, is the Westside really that much more urban than the Valley? In my experience, they're both incredibly suburban to me.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by bophisto

I have lived on the Westside my whole life, but I do not feel the Valley bashing is totally fair.

Nor do I, even though there is a real basis in reality for it.

Although when people think of L.A they don't think of the valley.

HELLO....Universal Studios...the Burbank Media District....much of the infrastructure of the entertainment industry as well as many of the casting directors, production companies, etc. are in the Valley....and then there's porn....all things associated with L.A.

Some people are perfectly happy living in the suburbs/Valley to be away from the "action"....Although I think it is kind of hypocritical of valley people that act as if the 'urban' parts of the Westside , Hollywood, Downtown, Mid City ,etc are terrible places, but then they spend their free time driving to these places.

The Valley has plenty of terrible places of its own....in fact a pretty large portion of the valley is ghetto/barrio....

The Valley in general just can't compete with the "L.A Metro Area" when it comes to restaurants, bars, clubs, museums. I have spent a lot of time in the valley, and it is still surprising that the options are relatively limited.

When it comes to museums the Valley has almost none, and not too many clubs either. Bars and restaurants in the Valley however are plentiful - and the Valley does have some excellent restaurants that could easily compare to what's on the other side of the hill. One underestimates the Valley's restaurants at one's own peril. As for bars, the Valley still has more unpretentious dives than the West Side, Hollywood, or Silver Lake. Your perceptions of lack of pretention may come from those remaining unpretentious dive bars.

Some of this probably has to do with the fact that most of the residents do not want these types of places in their area. They moved to the valley to be away from all of that.

At one time this was true, these days most people are in the Valley because they can't afford to be elsewhere or they get better value for their money. For example you'd pay less for an apartment off Ventura in Sherman Oaks than you'd pay across the hill in Westwood or Beverly Hills, or even Culver City nowadays...

Also I think it is important to mention...it doesn't seem much cheaper to live in the valley if you are renting an apartment. There is the concept that the valley is "much cheaper" but I do not think that is really the case as far as apartment rentals. This probably has to do with supply. The supply of apartment rental housing is not as high in the valley because it is more suburban than parts of the Westside, Hollywood, etc .

Disagree here. Most Valley residents I know live in apartments just like most people on the other side of the hill. And large parts of the West Side could be considered "suburban" - Culver City and nearby areas like Beverlywood, Mar Vista, Cheviot Hills, Rancho Park, or, on the other side of CC, Westchester and Ladera Heights. There are large parts of Santa Monica that are very suburban, and East Venice seems suburban. On the Valley side, Studio City feels scarcely more suburban than West Hollywood and Fairfax across the hill (some have referred to Studio City and Sherman Oaks as "de facto westside"). One cannot deny that unless one is in a really upscale part of the Valley that apartment and house rentals are going to be much cheaper than comparable places elsewhere on the other side of the hill. Even when we're talking about the less upscale areas - for example, North Hollywood's cheaper than Echo Park (more or less the equivalent on the other side of the hills), although I'm not sure if Van Nuys is cheaper than Koreatown (its rough equivalent on the other side of the hill as being a home for the multiethnic poor, albeit with fewer poor Asians, fewer poor hipsters, and less interesting architecture/history).

"The Valley" does feel like it should be it's own city as the area does not have a whole lot in common with the rest of L.A

Well, large parts of Queens are farther from Manhattan than Jersey City or Hoboken are, but Queens is still part of NYC. IMO if more of the Valley consisted of independent cities it would be in better shape. For example, Burbank has held up much better than North Hollywood and FAR better than Van Nuys because it is an independent city with its own cops and its own very good school system, unlike the majority of the Valley which has to contend with an overstretched LAPD and an awful beyond imagination LAUSD.

The Valley is HUGE though. For example Sherman Oaks is miles and miles from Woodland Hills.

Which is why it's easier for someone in Silver Lake or Hollywood to see their East Valley friends than it would be for someone in Woodland Hills or Canoga Park to see their East Valley friends.

The Valley in general has a lot more SPACE that the rest of L.A Paying for parking is practically unheard of which can pretty nice. There aren't a bunch of "restricted" parking areas like most of L.A

The area around Ventura Blvd. is an exception

The vibe is more down to earth and laid back...people are living and not as many movie star wanna be's as the Westside,etc.

Again, Studio City, Sherman Oaks, Toluca Lake, Encino, etc. are the exception. The pretention levels are at West Side or Los Feliz type levels. The main problem with the Valley is that so many of the old unpretentious working class and lower middle class areas have gone down the tubes. Van Nuys back when the GM plant was open was a functional working class community, now it's a crime and drug riddled mess. North Hollywood back when the factories were open and the high paying studio jobs existed was a sort of lower middle class utopia, now it's got some really bad hoods as well as some decent areas (the Red Line and the "NOHO" gentrification made it a little better than its neighbors to the west and north). Same goes for Reseda, Canoga Park and many other Valley neighborhoods. (People on CityData are fond of making Tijuana comparisons, but Detroit and Cleveland comparisons - or for that matter Oakland comparisons - are probably more apt ; when the factories closed down and the jobs left, the neighborhoods went to crap.) Granted this can't be separated from the general decline of working class L.A. - the old working class neighborhoods either got gentrified or ghettoized on the other side of the hill too - but the Valley got hit especially hard, with less gentrification and more ghettoization.

BTW this is not to say that everyone who lives in said Valley neighborhoods is a bad person, whether they're struggling immigrants, the remnants of the old Valley working class, or merely can't afford the other side of the hill but have to be in L.A.

[graciously]

Originally Posted by Miss Pip

Yeah I agree with you. Where I work in Woodland Hills is full of Israelis, African Americans/West Indians, Persians and South Americans. The person who said the Valley has no culture obviously doesn't know much about the Valley and is just following all the others that talk rubbish about it.

course they got some culture but its not like rest of the city other side of the hill and many other major cities if you compare and even the level of it also.