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.
Because I'm assuming that most of the posters here are men. Anytime someone makes a statement about L.A. that doesn't jibe with an L.A. poster's opinion, the criticism is often jettisoned that they don't know L.A. or they haven't seen the real L.A. or they haven't been anywhere other than the beach and Disneyland (just see the attacks on dweebo's post upthread). That criticism seems kinda silly to me given that most of us have probably been to Los Angeles as single guys who were unlikely to spend much time in tourist traps.
Those criticisms are thrown to anyone who doesn't find any one city appealing. I've heard NY'ers, and Chicagoans hurl those plenty at folks who didn't jive with their cities. "Oh, but you were in Time Square though"
How did I know bajan would hijack this thread with his usual going against the grain when it comes to anything pro LA, dude this is not even LA vs Philly, you obsess over LA waaay too much.
Well obviously you don't pay much attention, he will try to discredit LA in one way or the other with any type of pro LA urbanity, it really just gets old and tiring, oh did I mention Donald Shoup
I never denied that. It's just a common assumption that most people on C-D are basing their opinions of L.A. on the Valley. On a site like this, where I presume most posters have hit puberty and have obtained a passport at some point in their lives, I'm guessing that many of us have seen LA beyond Disneyland and Hollywood. So the criticism that "you haven't seen the real L.A." is becoming a bit hackneyed.
My point was that someone flying to LA from the East Coast is not going to moan about driving an hour to get to SM. That's what you went out there to see. That would be like coming to NYC and complaining that you have to wait in a line to see the Statue of Liberty.
I don't think that's a misconception. I think that Los Angeles is fundamentally different from other cities because it is far more decentralized than cities like NYC, Boston, London, Paris, DC, SF or even Tokyo. We discussed this in another thread already. The centralization and job density is what separates LA from these cities on a macro level. And it's this centralization and job density that makes transit workable on a scale that's much more difficult to achieve in LA. At the micro level, the city is not as cohesive as those other cities, too.
No. I've never really stayed in an urban place in London or Paris either. That had absolutely no impact on my perception of the built environment and pedestrian life.
I don't know if it's just the valley (San Fernando, I'm assuming). I think it'd also include a lot of places on the west side, orange county, and the san gabriel valley. If you think it's hackneyed, I think it's because people have to constantly state it since most people who haven't seen LA as it has become don't really know it but will argue on and on against people who have seen it or actually live in these urban/walkable parts. And people do moan about all the time spent in the freeways which is why we have a lot of people who just write off LA as an urban/walkable place. We're agreed that LA is very decentralized, however, the point stands that it is a metro of about twenty million people so both the statement that LA is very decentralized and that LA has a sizable dense/walkable area in absolute amounts compared to cities with US metros that are half to a third its size can all be accurate. I'm not sure why your personal experiences have no bearing on your perceptions of a place. Seems kind of wild.
And though a lot of posters here are men, I think some of these men have families, children and/or significant others. Not all of us are childless single men unaccompanied by family. And really, the places you listed such as Hollywood and Santa Monica are places that are kind of tourist traps though they are also functioning neighborhoods.
Take another trip to LA if you can and try to get a hotel/hostel in the urban/walkable areas people have mentioned. Rent a bike and get a transit pass, also helps greatly if you have a smartphone. People are willingly to do that with the other cities we describe as urban, but aren't willing to do that with LA when they visit and I think if you went into that urban core of LA with that in mind, you'll experience a radically different city than what most tourists do.
In actuality, a lot of that stupidity woven into the urban fabric is a manifestation of civic racism. The intentional barrier that is the 110 freeway is one example.
Yea, that kind of thing does happen in LA and a lot of other cities, too. It sucks. One thing I really liked about Tokyo was that a lot of their transit/highway underpasses actually had stores or other things under them so despite ribboning up parts of the city, these underpass stores served as an effective gathering and transitioning place for both sides of the freeway and effectively kept the neighborhoods stitched together.
Other terrible things about LA are the road widening and subsequent razing of many wonderful buildings, the zoning of a hell of a lot of parking spaces in the latter half of the 20th century, the relative lack of park spaces in the basin itself (griffith park is beautiful but it's pretty far away from most of the dense neighborhoods that would appreciate a respite from the city), the endless sprawl of the valleys to the north and east and further out to the Inland Empire, the lack of retaining any of what was formerly the world's largest light rail system and the classist/racist infighting to prevent mass transit expansion earlier when it would have been cheaper and would have probably steered a lot more development back into the core earlier. These were pretty bad and happened in most major American cities, but perhaps not to the extent as LA has. What's good is that LA is moving at a pretty quick pace for an American city.
I'm not sure why your personal experiences have no bearing on your perceptions of a place. Seems kind of wild.
Huh? I think you misinterpreted what I said. Although I slept outside of the "core," we did go there (i.e., DTLA, Wilshire, Hollywood). My point was that where I stayed had no impact on my perception of places I saw in Central LA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
People are willingly to do that with the other cities we describe as urban, but aren't willing to do that with LA when they visit and I think if you went into that urban core of LA with that in mind, you'll experience a radically different city than what most tourists do.
And there's a reason for that. As sav858 stated upthread, much of LA's urban fabric is not human-scaled and thus does not lend itself to pedestrian exploration in a way a city like Paris (or even SF or Boston) does. It's much more spread out where not having a car can be a daunting proposition. That's why people aren't so willing to do that in LA. It's not about any mean-spirited bias people have towards LA.
By yall arguments New Orleans is more urban by fabric then, Chicago, Detroit, DC San Fransico, Most of New York and etc too. umm no
The French Quarter can beat any neighborhood in LA for dense urban consistency (no parking lot,set backs or gaps). The other cities have a more urban core than LA except for Detroit.
That area is near the edge of the French Quarter so it will have some homes like that but all of them have no set backs from the sidewalk. As you look from above this street you will find no surface parking lots with a bunch of gaps in between. It is consistent unlike LA.
Now look above Manhattan's Madison Ave. from above. Unlike LA you don't see a load of parking lots in between with a few stripmalls here and there. Nice try
Suburban style single family homes with driveways and stripmall sure this neighborhood is more urban than the French Quarter sure LA is full of them.
Quote:
As I said a small town can be compact that do not make it urban, Europe has many rurals compact small towns. Yall trying ignore the ideal of Urban itself, and just focus on narrow streets, no parcking lots and pretend a 2 point difference in walkabity is significant. We are not talking about a suburban edge city like environments both cores are walkable both cities cores are urban.
You still failed to produce to show a neighborhood in LA with as much consistency as the French Quarter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chiatldal
again
You said Ktown had a 94 walkable score and the French Quarter had 96 walkable, the fact that both are over 80 makes the walkablity argument irrelevant. Your basing whole argument over a 2 point difference when they are in same range walkablity. Those the fail part of yall arguments their both overwhelmingly walkable, then they're both are in same range of walkabity. But one thing that is a sharp difference LA has way more people living in actually Walkable areas.
You need to go back and reread what I said. The French Quarter is 94 and Koreatown is 90. Since you bring this up lets illustrate the differences in the urban farbic of both neighborhoods.
scaled @ 200ft
French Quarter
Koreatown
It's apparent that LA does not have a neighborhood comparable to the French Quarter that is more consistent with nearly 100% infill density. It has more parking lots and other suburban characteristics that's for sure.
Huh? I think you misinterpreted what I said. Although I slept outside of the "core," we did go there (i.e., DTLA, Wilshire, Hollywood). My point was that where I stayed had no impact on my perception of places I saw in Central LA.
And there's a reason for that. As sav858 stated upthread, much of LA's urban fabric is not human-scaled and thus does not lend itself to pedestrian exploration in a way a city like Paris (or even SF or Boston) does. It's much more spread out where not having a car can be a daunting proposition. That's why people aren't so willing to do that in LA. It's not about any mean-spirited bias people have towards LA.
It's not as daunting as people make it out to be--but it's true that it'd be a hell of a hassle to get to all the places people generally go to when they think of touring LA since a lot of the visitor attractions are really far away from each other and not always very accessible from one to the other. The difference is that people who live in LA aren't going to those attractions and those who live in the urban places, not just travel on the freeway from one site to another, are going to see the LA we've been talking about. I don't think you have a mean-spirited bias towards LA, but I do think you are misjudging the city.
How could anyone with a straight face use walkscore in defense of New Orleans?!
The FQ scores a 94 to DTLA's 92, but DTLA is at least 3x as large. That more than evens things out. DTLA is also significantly more populated.
1.9 million residents in L.A. live at walkacore of 70+. As a single city, only NYC surpasses that number (a city literally built for walking). At the metro level, L.A. is clear as day #2 using this metric.
Btw, there are people living at walkscores of 80+ than there are PEOPLE in New Orleans. Stick to aerial pictures, please.
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.
