So how does the whole city within a city thing work? (Los Angeles: home, school district)

[Chicano3000X]

Originally Posted by munchitup

It does seem like they are better of by themselves.

Ya, but I consider them L.A. LA is pretty much like the Alpha Dog city. Wouldn't be what it is now without one another.

[drshang]

Originally Posted by munchitup

I don't disagree that those satellite cities seem to be the city-center, especially on the Westside but overall the center of Los Angeles is a huge area that includes everything from DTLA to Hollywood to Beverly Hills to Santa Monica to MDR. So in a way Los Angeles is its own region's center and in other ways it is not.

I agree, the assertion I have a problem with is DLAN assertion that BH/SM/CC are part of "LA" but the other satellite cities that border city of LA neighbohoods are somehow not "really LA."

[nightlysparrow]

People I've met who actually grew up in Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Bel Air, Holmby Hills, etc. often say they're from "the Westside" to not sound snobby.

I've met people from Santa Barbara who refer to anything south of them as "L.A." LOL

[pwright1]

Bel Air, Brentwood, Holmby Hills are part of Los Angeles

[munchitup]

Originally Posted by drshang

I agree, the assertion I have a problem with is DLAN assertion that BH/SM/CC are part of "LA" but the other satellite cities that border city of LA neighbohoods are somehow not "really LA."

Oh. I don't think that is what the poster intended, at least that is not what I gleaned from it. I agree that Beverly Hills isn't more "LA" than Pasadena is. It is just more interwoven in the city's fabric.

[nightlysparrow]

Originally Posted by pwright1

Bel Air, Brentwood, Holmby Hills are part of Los Angeles

Uh yeah...know that.

[taydigga]

Originally Posted by PDF

You have Los Angeles. But then there are so many actual cities within the city of LA. I think this is different from towns. I'm talking about the cities within LA that have their own police department, transit system, etc. and own everything and are an actual city of their own. Culver City, Pasadena, Santa Monica, to name a few.

Do people of these areas identify themselves as living in LA, or do they act like it's somewhere else entirely? Or do they just say "Oh I live in Culver City", acting as if it's another neighborhood.

I have never encountered anything like this in any other big city I've been to. So I was just wondering how it works. By the way, I love the areas I mentioned. So I have nothing wrong with them, I'm just curious here.

Within LA, they say "Culver City" and "Pasadena" when being specific about where they live, grow up and etc., but they consider themselves a part of the entity that is LA. Like when someone says LA is this or that, they don't say, "Oh, well I live in Santa Monica..." Also, to out of towners they tell people they live in LA. I mean Culver city is literally separated from LA by a street (Venice) Boulevard. It's all the same no matter how people paint it to me. Not saying these areas don't have their own history or swag but they are not separate from the entity of LA.

[taydigga]

Originally Posted by drshang

I am sorry but there is no way in hell SM, Beverly Hills, represents the typical lifestyle or really has anything close to resembling anything about a typical neighborhood in the city of LA. Do you really think growing up in Los Angeles is similar to growing up in Santa Monica? Seriously?

I think you should actually GO to neighborhoods in the city of LA before professing any kind of statements like this above. Look at a map of Los Angeles. Just the city. Look at the neighborhoods. Go to those neighborhoods and compare to Santa Monica. Just do it. I don't think there's any way this is correct.

If anything the Palisades and Brentwood are simply suburbs of Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, not the other way around. And none of those areas are really similar to "Los Angeles." You say they are the center of "Los Angeles" but really it's the opposite. The center of "Los Angeles" by most of your definition isn't really "Los Angeles" but rather the sattelite cities that you claim are similar to "LA."

Reality is, this part that you call "LA" is one of dozens of subcultures located within the city and its surrounding satellite areas, which are all really part of "LA."

A bit of an overreaction... He didn't mean literally the same thing he just meant they aren't far enough and their isn't enough of a difference to call these areas totally different cities. Btw, there are small chunks of SM that are hood as heck. I agree they aren't the center of LA but I think you read way more into it than he intended. He was being more figurative, you're being more literal. Also, Hancock Park is an area in LA as well as Cheviot Hills have similar types of income and etc, to SM, brentwood and etc., Fall back homie, get the figurative feel of what he was saying, not the literal.

[taydigga]

Originally Posted by nightlysparrow

People I've met who actually grew up in Beverly Hills, Brentwood, Bel Air, Holmby Hills, etc. often say they're from "the Westside" to not sound snobby.

I've met people from Santa Barbara who refer to anything south of them as "L.A." LOL

Truth be told, Northridge, which is further away from LA than Burbank is literally "Northern Los Angeles" go look it up. It's not an actual city and use to be called NOrthern LA. Burbank, Pasadena and etc., although cities of their own, are still very much a part of the LA entity. If I was from Pasadena and I was with a bunch of people from proper LA and someone came and said "hey who among you is from LA" I'd consider myself a part of that. It's still LA, you're still going to run into the same crap you run into as far as the craziness, the beauty and the lust of life in Pasadena that you will in the thick of LA, just to different degrees and from diff angles. Inglewood too, is still LA. Sure, it's a city of it's own but it's still LA. Now, Long Beach I can see how they might say, No, I'm from Long Beach but there's a clear definitive difference separating it and I still would venture to say it's a part of LA's empire. The OC isn't LA though.

[disgruntled la native]

Originally Posted by drshang

I am sorry but there is no way in hell SM, Beverly Hills, represents the typical lifestyle or really has anything close to resembling anything about a typical neighborhood in the city of LA. Do you really think growing up in Los Angeles is similar to growing up in Santa Monica? Seriously?

I think you should actually GO to neighborhoods in the city of LA before professing any kind of statements like this above. Look at a map of Los Angeles. Just the city. Look at the neighborhoods. Go to those neighborhoods and compare to Santa Monica. Just do it. I don't think there's any way this is correct.

If anything the Palisades and Brentwood are simply suburbs of Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, not the other way around. And none of those areas are really similar to "Los Angeles." You say they are the center of "Los Angeles" but really it's the opposite. The center of "Los Angeles" by most of your definition isn't really "Los Angeles" but rather the sattelite cities that you claim are similar to "LA."

Reality is, this part that you call "LA" is one of dozens of subcultures located within the city and its surrounding satellite areas, which are all really part of "LA."

What an overreaction. The four cities I listed are the most interwoven with LA's culture and lifestyle. They are more like neighborhoods of LA rather than separate cities. Pasadena and Torrance are very close to parts of LA, but they have their own culture and own feel.

For example, Pasadena is much more Republican than LA.

Glendale is much more suburban than most of LA.

People who live in Santa Monica, Culver City, Beverly Hills, and West Hollywood are always going to city of LA, for no other reason than its often as short as a block away.

People in the, for example, Beach Cities and SGV often are not. They are their own identity.