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.
Yes, that's true for people with children and Japanese tourists. But what grown person who's not a virgin is going to Disneyland? Hollywood? Sure. Venice? Sure. Santa Monica? Of course. But I would imagine that most people in their 20s and 30s are not making a stop at the Magic Kingdom. The first stop I'm making is going to be the strip club.
LA is a 5 hour flight from the East Coast. I think the 45 minute drive from one place to another is more than tolerable in light of that fact.
Most adults sans enfants see Hollywood and SM. So they know the whole city is not full of ranch-style housing. And most Angelenos drive around places. We've been through this one too many times before. It's not a "misconception" when 80 percent of the city commutes to work in a car compared to a much lower share in a comparable-sized city like Chicago.
I don't doubt that it's changed. But it has not become an entirely new city in three years.
Thats the thing though, people will judge most of LA from a car window on the freeway, its only when they arrive at their destinations that people look at the surrounding area, so in short people visiting never do get to witness the most urban part of LA.
Pillman was the first true American "high flyer" to go national, while guys like Dynamite pioneered it, no american brought the cruiser style to more prominence than Pillman in those early WCW days. When that dried up, he and Austin helped revitalise tag team wrestling for the 1990's and then, and this is the one that angers me the most that he gets so little credit. Invented Attitude.
Yep... Pillman, NOT Austin was the father of Attitude. Pillman uttered the "bookerman" line and walked out of his match live on PPV, then caused Heenan to drop an F-Bomb on live TV. He threatened to **** in the ECW ring and THEN made a hate and expletive filled speech a full hour before Austin 3:16 at KOTR 96. Austin was emboldened to go out there and make his speech cos Pillman had done first, the gate was open and Austin charged through. Where was Austin without the infamous "gun incident" or "snapping" Pillman's leg in the chair?
The tragedy is not so much that Pillman died, he was a character and man who was born sick and made the most of the time he had, and while I wish he had been 100% fit come KOTR 96 the tragedy is that he is not given proper credit for the concepts he introduced to mainstream wrestling. Heyman didn't do it, Austin didn't... Pillman did and that is an indisputable fact. That he is not in the HOF yet is an insult.
Steve Austin >Brian Pillman
Austin was dense, walkable with good public transit...
People have different strokes, dude. There are people who are all about squeaky clean fun and would be aghast at the suggestion of going to a strip club. It's their choice, whatever. The point is that they exist.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
And yea, LA is 5 hours. What about people kvetching about driving an extra ten minutes to go to a much nicer restaurant and stuff like that? People are retarded. Super fact.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
It's a misconception in that the impression of LA not having a sizable urban core is untrue--it's tiny percentage-wise but in absolute amounts it's actually towards the lower bit of the tier with Philly, DC, and SF again this shifting depending on how you weight different bits of your criteria.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
Also, I think you said you were staying in some fairly not-urban places and family or friends were taking you around by car to here and there which would also change your perception.
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.
Oh, on that metric, yea. If it's just looking at how things are built regardless of how people are using it, then I can definitely see saying that LA is often built kinda stupid.
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.
Why are you so concerned with single men exclusively though? Also, yea, there are single men who do Disneyland just pretty rare and weird. Again, I don't get why the single men category is most important for the broader discussion though I understand that it might mean more to you personally.
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.
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.
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.
BS
Half the criticisms of L.A. around here are little more than cliche-ridden drivel.
"L.A. isn't dense! Only 8,000 ppsm!"
"L.A. is All SFHs and Applebee's! L O L"
"L.A.'s economy is all Hollywood! Gangs everywhere! You can't see ten feet in front of you because of the smog. 24 gridlock on the freeways!"
They describe surface parking lots in L.A. as if they're the size of Astrodome's (they want you to think King of Prussia when they say strip mall, I'm sure of it). They exaggerate the driving times and distances to the point of absurdity (2 hours to get to Venice from Hollywood? Really dumbass?). Don't tell me posters around here are giving honest, objective appraisals of L.A., because that's far from true in a lot of cases.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 11-27-2012 at 07:20 PM..
The point is that there are multiple destinations in Los Angeles so someone could say "I went to LA on vacation" and usually the response is, "Which part?". Typically when that is said about another city they are referring to the NE of San Francisco, Manhattan in NYC, the Loop in Chicago, etc. I can't think of "THE" place in Los Angeles. Depending on where you visit, that could be your opinion of the city.
One of the reasons people end up hating LA so much and assuming we spend a ton of time in traffic is when tourists attempt to see it all in one trip - Disneyland to Universal to Malibu to Pasadena to Magic Mountain to Hollywood to Santa Monica to LAX.
That's a good point. I would probably say Hollywood is the top, though.
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.
