LA's sensitivity

[edsg25]

anyway i put this, i'll be accused of trolling, but what-the-hey...

the only time I ever respond negatively on LA on this board (in which case I can be a sarcastic SOB) is when i see the bashing of other cities (particularly Chgo). otherwise, I think LA is a great place (honest, Silverlake!)

yet I also find your city incredibly sensitive. If you accept this (and I know many of you don't), you have to wonder: W-H-Y ????

I have a theory and hopefully I'll even find a person or two who might respond to it in a thoughtful way:

LA entered the post-WWII years in a roll of ascendancy unmatched by any other US city. LA was the city of a new age: the glory of California and the glamour of Hollywood, the freedom of the automobile, the relaxed, laid back life style, the new jet connections to the east, the palms, the oceans, the lack of urban strife.

So what happened? Massive growth to take part in the incredible life-style, social problems, expanding but unmovable freeways, endless sprawl due to pressure on land, immigration that changed the face of the city (for the better, mind you, but different from what many expected), overload on governmental services, the bloom off the rose of Hollywood.

In other words, be careful what you wish for...

LA is so close to its glory years, far closer than any other city. LA realistically thought it was heading to a level of ascendancy in the US. But crowding, the tremendous growht in US population, the impracticality of reliance on cars in metro areas, altered both the California and the LA dream.

The very freedom that LA offered was not going to last...by putting it out there for others, it was going to disappear.

Today's LA doesn't hold the same place in the American psyche that it did in the 1950's. Yet LA iteself has done an admirable job of converting to a more traditional urban model. Rapid transit has been constructed, density has been encouraged in areas away from downtown (Wilshire corridor, for example), art and culture have been encouraged (i.e. Disney music hall, Getty museum).

The result: you are a major player. you are important. you are global. but you are not where you thought you were heading in the early 1950's. you are not the model for what cities will be (since the car will not be the model anywhere).

all cities (NY, Chgo among them) go through periods of rise and decline. Goodness knows, both NY and Chgo were in major trouble in the 1970's and this era is hardly one of LA being in decline. But it still too close to the LA-that-might-have-been.

I hope I have appeared balanced to most Angelenos posting here. If I have, please respond on the following:

HOW MUCH OF L.A.'S SENSITIVTY STEMS FROM THE NOT-TOO-DISTANT-PAST EXPECTATION THAT L.A. WOULD BE THE CITY OF THE 21ST CENTURY, THE LEADER OF THE PACK (INSTEAD OF ONE OF A NUMBER OF SUCH CITIES)?

How much of LA's sensitivity is related to the disappeared (and unsustainable) magic of the 50's and 60's?

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

i dont think LA is sensitive. personally, the only reason i respond to the BS on some of these boards is that i am sick and tired of the sterotypes and the negatively people have towards my city based soley on the east coast media portrayals. I agree about you assessment. the city is now headed in the right direction with massice redevelopment in Downtown, the abundant cultural anemities and the growth of a rail system. more and more people are moving downtown and to pasadena, long beach and hollywood, all areas with rail and city like atmospheres. You will notice that most of the development in LA is now based in those cities (As well as Century city and North Hollywood, also connected to rail network). I am very happy to see this city getting away from the car only mentality and i cant wait to move Downtown in a couple fo years, when i can afford it. You have to remember, LA is relatively young and had an explosion in population growth and is currently seeing one as well. City and County leaders are banding together to Stop sprawl projects (another shut down 2 days agao, massive Nehall Project) and more and more development is encouraged in Rail oriented areas. 6.9 million people are forcasted to move to the LA area by 2020, and those people are being funneled into the cities i mentioned above. Most new projects are sold out before they open which is great news for the chances of the downtown and hollywood renesances continuing. More info is available on the other threads about all the development in LA and you can see for your self that indeed everything is centered in those areas.

[edsg25]

LASF, I've always found your responses here frank and not defensive at all.

Let me ask you this:

we both are in agreement that LA has made strides in areas such as rapid transit and encouraging zones of denseness (downtown, Wilshire Corridor, etc.). No question that LA recognizes the future and the needs that must be met.

but LA was laid out on sprawl. You have a huge, huge area, soldily built up where land allows, and major gaps where mountains intrude. your region is not based on any type of spoke system coming from the core. Commuter rail is limited. Rapid transit can only do so much because LA would require far too many lines that do not go through downtown to devise a successful system (you are just too decentralized to use the models of NY or Chgo rapid transit where service to the core is paramount).

No city was laid out by cars to the degree that yours was.

Given the lay of the land, the result of all those years of endless growth, I ask you this:

IS IT POSSIBLY FOR L.A. TO RETOOL TO TIE ALL THESE COMMUNITIES (CITY, L.A. COUNTY, SOUTHLAND) INTO A WORKABLE METRO AREA?

and, more importantly, how would you do it?

[savvysearch]

Of course LA can't follow the model it had in the 50s. The region is growing way too rapidly to sustain that model. And another population explosion is expected in Southern California. Although that model is still alive in most of undeveloped America. And will probably be successful there, but not in overly dense areas like LA. LA is no longer white middle class majority suburban 4 member family anymore. It's racially polyglot, dense and becoming more urban than it would have liked, which is not to say is a bad thing, but makes the area unpredictable with this new immigration.

The car culture is never going to go away, especially if envirnomentally friendly cars become a viable option which may be likely in the next couple of decades. It's too confortable, too luxurious and no matter what public transport advocates say, its still infinitely more convienent and faster than public transport. The real trend is that most people will live closer to work and more people will began taking surface streets than relying on freeways. Public transport should eventually become easily accessible if it keeps going the way it is now, but I don't believe there will every be an exodus of people trading in their cars for a rail pass.

LA is split into three categories. Those in suburbs like the San Fernando Valley and in east LA that are still trying hard to preserve the surburban model, those in Santa Monica and Downtown that want the urban model. And those cities like Pasedena that have found a way to resolve both models.

Pasadena seems to be getting some attention lately from economists. IMO, it would be better for the future of LA to follow the Pasadena model. This will be the only viable model for the future. The cities in LA that compromise are more likely to successfully adapt to the 21 century. With Pasadena, the quality of life is good because they've found a way to compromise the ease of suburban life yet have these "town centers" for commerce and business and high density living.

A purely surburban model can't exist anymore, but at the same time I think people will run off to Riverside county before voluntarily deciding to live in high density buildings. Pasadena is the model that I think newer cities in southern California want to follow.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Edge, i dont think the whole metro can be made urnad, or as urban as our east coast counterparts. However, if i was planning out the city's future, i would continue the trend of focusiong the growth and development in Downtown, Wilshire, Hollywood, Long Beach, Pasadena, Century City, santa Monica and NOHO. What do all these areas have in common?? they are all link by rail to each other (or will be in the near future). There is no chance of the whole metro being super urban, but if growth is concentrated in those areas, then they ahve a chance of being very special and helping the city deal with Congestion, Livability, Air Polllution and sprawl problems.

[edsg25]

Edge, i dont think the whole metro can be made urnad, or as urban as our east coast counterparts. However, if i was planning out the city's future, i would continue the trend of focusiong the growth and development in Downtown, Wilshire, Hollywood, Long Beach, Pasadena, Century City, santa Monica and NOHO. What do all these areas have in common?? they are all link by rail to each other (or will be in the near future). There is no chance of the whole metro being super urban, but if growth is concentrated in those areas, then they ahve a chance of being very special and helping the city deal with Congestion, Livability, Air Polllution and sprawl problems.

Those points you mentioned are pretty spread out, from downtown to the ocean as well as up the Hollywood Hills and into the Valley.

Would LA benefit from CLEARLY identifiying and giving appropriate status to the various centers described, and then attempting to attach each to each other by rapid transit....and then extending the system to areas beyond so that the peripheries would have equal acces to downtown, Century City, Westwood, Pasadena, etc?

And considering the size of metro LA, is this possible?

One last question: isn't any rapid transit expansion across the Hollywood Hills (like the Red Line's was) exceedingly prohibitive financially? And does the height of the range make for an almost impossible effective link between the valley and the heart of LA?

Do you also think that Valley succession is dead forever? How about the harbor? there, too?

[SILVERLAKE]

LA forumers do not engage this incindiary. He hates LA. And what the hell does he know about what LA was supposed to be and what it is now anyway

[edsg25]

LA forumers do not engage this incindiary. He hates LA. And what the hell does he know about what LA was supposed to be and what it is now anyway

Do you folks think Chicago's old Second City syndrome is anything like the current Silverlake Syndrome in Los Angeles?

[vicecityguy]

edsg, honestly... why do you pose these questions here? Do you really care what LA formers think of your opinons? So what if LA is sensitive or not, how does this affect you? Do you allow LA formers to justify your viewpoints and opinons? It almost seems like you post here to engage rather than to contribute, its almost like an obsession for you... W-H-Y?

[Daortiz]

Personally I don't think that LA has ever gone boost, LA represents a decentralized growth pattern that has its benefits and its detractions, not all of the LA basin is rushing to go to work into downtown or to have fun there either.

People get this through your heads, downtown LA is only one of the many poles of development in our metro area, this region, or LA as some people call it :D is made up of multiple cbd's growing throught the LA,Orange and San bernardino Counties, all the regions real state will never be focused tightly in a little area like the Chicago loop or lower Manhattan. those who judge LA by its downtown only don't know what the heck they're dealing with, the LA region is a different animal.

Downtown LA will probably never have the relevancy the downtowns of NY or Chicago have in their areas, but that's just the way life is lived here and I like it, people came to LA for many generations to scape the centralized and crowded conditions in the east, of course LA has now to deal with a new reality, there is no more land available, unless you want to drive 3 hours to get to work, so the area is responding accordingly
LA will still be the new kid on the block for a long time cause no other City, nor NY or Chicago had risen so furiously fast to a state of prominance as LA did in a few short years.

Of course there is urban problems as like any other metropolis.
The great success of Los Angeles as a city is beyond reproach and undeniable, only those who felt threatened or belittled by LA's great success are the ones who have issues against this city since no city is perfect, perhaps LA was the only city in the US that came very close to it, but them all those darn easterners and midwesterners and then the rest of the world rushed in and spoiled our mojo!! :D

[Daortiz]

HOW MUCH OF L.A.'S SENSITIVTY STEMS FROM THE NOT-TOO-DISTANT-PAST EXPECTATION THAT L.A. WOULD BE THE CITY OF THE 21ST CENTURY, THE LEADER OF THE PACK (INSTEAD OF ONE OF A NUMBER OF SUCH CITIES)?

How much of LA's sensitivity is related to the disappeared (and unsustainable) magic of the 50's and 60's?

By the way in case you ignored it

LA IS one of the leaders of the pack, albeit not the only one
some peole like it other's don't but that's just the way it is :D

[Yankee BOY]

Doesn't LA have the worlds 2nd largest port or in long beach or something? I dont think LA is sensitive, they dont really care much they are just laid back like the California style of living which I love and truly miss. My heart is in California and I hope to return one day after graduating NYU baby! woot! :cheers:

[czm3]

I am sorry but LA's sensitivity lies in the fact that they will never be able to compete with NYC.

People in New York laugh this off, but folks in LA take it very seriously.

Lets face it, LA is a failure as a city, and it has nothing to do with east coast elitism.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

^ the Port of Los Angeles-Long Beach Copmplex is the third busiest in the world, by far the busiest in the US.

[Daortiz]

I am sorry but LA's sensitivity lies in the fact that they will never be able to compete with NYC.

People in New York laugh this off, but folks in LA take it very seriously.

Lets face it, LA is a failure as a city, and it has nothing to do with east coast elitism.


Ha ha ha

Calling the second largest concentration of wealth int the U.S. (or maybe even the first) a failure makes you look like, let's just say, not very smart..
If that's your idea of failure your loosing a couple of screws buddy....... :)

[yeah215]

before i get started, i wanted to define a couple of terms. I think that it is important for this discussion to all be on the same page. LA metro area includes LA county, Orange County, Riverside County and Ventura County. (Generally, clearly some studies or demographic reports include more or less of these.) LA County is the simply the county of Los Angeles and it includes all of LA city, the imbedded cities (BH, Culber City, Crenshaw, etc.). It also includes palmdale, lancaster and the some of of the other citys that boarder on los angeles such as glendale, burbank, long beach, pasadena. Thanks the jist of it. Lastly is LA city. THe city acutually includes a tremendous amount (SF Valley--from warner center all the way to sylmar, the west side---century city, westwood, so forth, and then downtown, hollywood, hancock park, down to the airport, also further south to san pedro and beach.

Now I want to respond to a couple of comments. First, LA will never have a viable transportation system because it is too spread out and such. I don't think LA metro ever (that being in the next 60 years) will have a full mass transit system. That is absoultely correct the area is just too big. The same way that NY metro will not have full public transit system. The metro areas are huge and contain too muc low density development too far away form the center.

LA county may have pockets of transit. And I think that we are seeing the development of that now. The quesiton is going to be, how to tie all of these things together.

LA city very well could have a viable tranist system. THe question is really if we decide to do it. The area is large, granted, but the land use distributions are not as sprawling as a lot would like to think. The real capital of Sprawl is not LA by the way, its Atlanta. Most of LA was built out by 1970. Big box didn't really get going for another 20 years. I think it is important to distiguish between sprawl and single family homes. There is a difference and we can clearly disucss it.

Next comment is about downtown LA and Wilshire.

Sure, downtown LA is generally thought to be the area around the LA river bounded by chinatown to the north and south park to the south. The arts district is in the east and wilshire center (or Korea town--two names for the same place) in the west. However, interms of economics and actual ussage, the "real" downtown in LA pretty much lined up down Wilshire. It has one node where wilshire begins in the finacial district, one in wilshire center, one in mid wilshire, another down at the miracle mile, one more in Beverly Hills, Century City, another in Westwood, one in Brentwood, and then into Santa Monica. Looking at it that way, LA doesn't necessarily have a loop like in Chicago, but a long straight line for a downtown. This plays back into the transit question. Sure, LA could have a viable transit system. The origional proposal was to extend the Red line from Union station to the beach down Wilshire. that covers all of "downtown". This has been a slow process becasue of the huge costs in construciton. Every day it gets more expensive but there are positive signs. The LA city council voted to encourange the MTA and all to extend the red line futher down wilshire to fairfax.

As for density, there are several locations in LA with pretty high density. I wouldn't describe them as Santa Monica and Downtown. That is kinda rediculous. There are places in the valley with high density (ie. NoHo, parts of Sherman Oaks, Warner Center). The Valley's equivilent to wilshire is Ventura blvd. Ideally, and at one time proposed, the red line would also continue all the way to Calabasas.

I think that in general the Metro Rail system has done well. Currently over 100,000 ride the redline every day and 60,000 ride the blue line giving this light rail line the highest ridership of any light rail in the nation.

Lastly, a comment about the SF Valley. Most of the SF at this point can be considered the "older suburbs". Much of the really sprawling type development associated with LA is outside of the LA city bounds. The vast majority of the homes in the valley were consturcted in the 1950s. They are being redone and rebuilt. The valley is something like 98% built out. There arent' those large tracts of 2000 homes that constitute sprawl. Most of that type of development is going on outside of LA city, say Riverside County or other parts of LA county. The Valley and LA city as a whole is really densifing everywhere. There are tons of large scale multi-family projects going on. Just a couple of days ago a new project was approved for Brentwood, another traditional single family home neighborhood. I think the entire city is absorbing the growth with density. I don't think its an downtown, Hollywood, NoHO thing. Those areas are juts so obvious right now becasue of the amount of redevelopment there. These are all considered blighted zones where the CRA (community redevelopment agency) is stepping in and promoting the type of growth we are seeing.

Just some food for thought. Let me know if you have any questions.

[Daortiz]

before i get started, i wanted to define a couple of terms. I think that it is important for this discussion to all be on the same page.

yeah215 I can see that you know the LA area really well, therefore I endorse everything you have said.
What I see emerging in the future as far as mass transit in the greater LA metro region is a system not unlike the spooke system (Ihope it is spelled correctly) used by the airline industry, obviously the city of LA will not finance rail and subway construction all over the metro region and across city and county boundaries, but it could be the jumping point to move into several mass transit systems presumably located in the Inland empire/ San fernando valley / Orange country etc. if each one of the regions that make up the metro region starts moving into the mass transnportation business just as the City of LA has taken the lead, the whole region could have multiple mass transit systems linked among them with downtown LA as one major hub along with other major and lesser hubs in the surrounding cities and counties, this sounds pretty viable to me, of course it would take a lot of planning and a lot of money but is doable :okay:

[benji45]

You realize why he started this thread right? He thinks were sensitive so he started this thread because he wanted to prove his "point". If he thought we were a sensitive bunch, then who gives a shit. LA has a reason to be sensitive, this is the most Bashed city in the United States, maybe second to Detroit, though. LA is hated for its endless sprawl and pollution, people even hate Hollywood because its too "Fake". Its not fake! There is no place like it! The desert. Thats another hated part of LA. The way there is no water. Thats the way the city is and there is nothing we can do about it. The beaches are bashed too. Called "Too crowded and the water is too icy!" Now, its the people of LA! Were too sensitive! Well, edsg25, if Chicago was in this position, which it certainly is not, what would you do? How would you react?

[salvius]

^ I think the reason for this is that a certain demographic visits these boards. In real life, I don't think LA residents are either supremely sensetive or insecure. Generally, they seem to like where they're living, so that's what matters.

The competition on these boards, I would say is overexaggerated. Just remember the TO vs Vancouver threads ;) Such competition (or derision) does not exist in real life or is present to a much lesser scale.

[benji45]

Los Angelesians are not that sensitive, but when it comes to being bashed the way LA is, then we stand up for it, and I guess its called being Sensitive to the whole subject.

[salvius]

^ I haven't yet seen a city on these forums whose members don't defend it when attacked. If that's what being sensetive is, then all forumers from any city are 'sensitive.'

[benji45]

That must be what sensitive is then, because LA forumers are only sensitive in that way.

[edsg25]

edsg, honestly... why do you pose these questions here? Do you really care what LA formers think of your opinons? So what if LA is sensitive or not, how does this affect you? Do you allow LA formers to justify your viewpoints and opinons? It almost seems like you post here to engage rather than to contribute, its almost like an obsession for you... W-H-Y?

to start with:

1. I thought it was a free country

2. I actually like LA and think it is a great city and a fascinating place.

3. I know you have the inate ability to ignore a post that you don't like by avoiding the old click of the mouse

4. I find urban issues interesting and I find it more than admirable how LA is dealing with the issues of urbanization

5. I'm comfortable with you going on the Chicago board and saying anything you want about Chicago. Rip it to shreds if you like. It's irrelevant to me.

6. I never looked at a board as being a private club house.

[edsg25]

By the way in case you ignored it

LA IS one of the leaders of the pack, albeit not the only one
some peole like it other's don't but that's just the way it is :D

but i didn't ignore it. i said it was. i think LA is a global city far more than SL or Vicecity think Chgo is one. And that's fine, too.

Guess what guys? I wouldn't be saying anything negative about LA if it weren't for the likes of SL and his ridiculous huckerism (which does not, BTW, excuse my own immaturity on the subject).

I have friends and family in LA and have been all over the city and region before Silverlake was even hatched.

But if you folks want to think I'm bashing LA, that's up to you.

All I know is that I've had some really interesting conversations here with sophisticated Angelenos like LASF, guys who know that LA is a great city and are secure enough with that fact and with themselves that they can discuss these issues and not feel the least bit defensive.

Look, LA is sprawled. LA was built for the car. LA has a pretty formidable set of mountains dividing city from valley. LA got into the race late in developing its downtown....and LA is doing a terrific job in dealing with decentralization and in creating new realities. Where in the hell do you get the idea this is trolling, insulting, or anything more than trying to get a handle on how folks see the region's future.

Your city is great. Mine is not greater. Why are you guys so defensive?

[edsg25]

Now, its the people of LA! Were too sensitive! Well, edsg25, if Chicago was in this position, which it certainly is not, what would you do? How would you react?

benji, i've read far worse things here that others have said about LA than anything I said.

but the issue is far greater than you, me, Chicago, or LA.

Get this straight, folks: say anything you want about Chicago. It's o.k. It's permissible. If I walk outside my door today, I will be blasted by subzero temps that could freeze my ass off. You walk outside and it's balmy. You've got a range of mountains in back of your city that are magnificent; I've got flatland. We've got Six Flags and you have DL/DCA/Knotts.

I recognize all the above. And none of it bothers me. Chicago's my city and I love it. And my love for the place is totally unaffected by what you may post about it.

I'll ask again: all I said was that LA is so close to the era when it seemed like the model for the future that that adds to the place's insecurity. where the f does that become trolling? Why are you so sensitive?

SERIOUSLY, L.A., YOU ARE (A-R-E) A GREAT PLACE. WHY ARE YOU SO SENSITIVE?

[edsg25]

one last one here and i'll try to shut up.

you guys complained i started a thread here titled "LA sensitivity", accused me of bashing LA in the process (if you read the originalpost, you will see that is something i did not do) and accused me of being one of those hate-LA-love-my-hometown-guys.

if you merely went to the Chicago board, you would see I posted at about the same time: Chicago: How sensitive are we? In other words, basically the same.

some of you guys have some really strange views on trolling.

[SILVERLAKE]

one last one here and i'll try to shut up.

you guys complained i started a thread here titled "LA sensitivity", accused me of bashing LA in the process (if you read the originalpost, you will see that is something i did not do) and accused me of being one of those hate-LA-love-my-hometown-guys.

if you merely went to the Chicago board, you would see I posted at about the same time: Chicago: How sensitive are we? In other words, basically the same.

some of you guys have some really strange views on trolling.

:weirdo:

[edsg25]

Weirdo says "gotta love silverlake"

So SL, tell me, which one of us is most biased about our cities.

• I say "Chicago and LA are both global cities; they're status is pretty much the same" (and I do believe every word of this)

• You say "LA is on a totally different plain than Chicago, high above it; the two aren't even peers"

and I go on saying LA is a great, global city even if you continue to think Chicago is some overgrown Omaha.

So, SL, which one of us shows more respect for the other guy's city, weirdo (me) or mr. sanity (you)?

[SILVERLAKE]

anyway i put this, i'll be accused of trolling, but what-the-hey...

the only time I ever respond negatively on LA on this board (in which case I can be a sarcastic SOB) is when i see the bashing of other cities (particularly Chgo). otherwise, I think LA is a great place (honest, Silverlake!)

yet I also find your city incredibly sensitive. If you accept this (and I know many of you don't), you have to wonder: W-H-Y ????

I have a theory and hopefully I'll even find a person or two who might respond to it in a thoughtful way:

LA entered the post-WWII years in a roll of ascendancy unmatched by any other US city. LA was the city of a new age: the glory of California and the glamour of Hollywood, the freedom of the automobile, the relaxed, laid back life style, the new jet connections to the east, the palms, the oceans, the lack of urban strife.

So what happened? Massive growth to take part in the incredible life-style, social problems, expanding but unmovable freeways, endless sprawl due to pressure on land, immigration that changed the face of the city (for the better, mind you, but different from what many expected), overload on governmental services, the bloom off the rose of Hollywood.

In other words, be careful what you wish for...

LA is so close to its glory years, far closer than any other city. LA realistically thought it was heading to a level of ascendancy in the US. But crowding, the tremendous growht in US population, the impracticality of reliance on cars in metro areas, altered both the California and the LA dream.

The very freedom that LA offered was not going to last...by putting it out there for others, it was going to disappear.

Today's LA doesn't hold the same place in the American psyche that it did in the 1950's. Yet LA iteself has done an admirable job of converting to a more traditional urban model. Rapid transit has been constructed, density has been encouraged in areas away from downtown (Wilshire corridor, for example), art and culture have been encouraged (i.e. Disney music hall, Getty museum).

The result: you are a major player. you are important. you are global. but you are not where you thought you were heading in the early 1950's. you are not the model for what cities will be (since the car will not be the model anywhere).

all cities (NY, Chgo among them) go through periods of rise and decline. Goodness knows, both NY and Chgo were in major trouble in the 1970's and this era is hardly one of LA being in decline. But it still too close to the LA-that-might-have-been.

I hope I have appeared balanced to most Angelenos posting here. If I have, please respond on the following:

HOW MUCH OF L.A.'S SENSITIVTY STEMS FROM THE NOT-TOO-DISTANT-PAST EXPECTATION THAT L.A. WOULD BE THE CITY OF THE 21ST CENTURY, THE LEADER OF THE PACK (INSTEAD OF ONE OF A NUMBER OF SUCH CITIES)?

How much of LA's sensitivity is related to the disappeared (and unsustainable) magic of the 50's and 60's?


Listen,

No one gives a shit about what LA was supposed to be in the 50s. So just quit trying to pick fights.

LA is way greater than it ever was in the 50s and is on its way to becoming the most significant metro in the US. The population of the city will be around 4.2 million in 2010. This city is blowing up. Get on the LA bus or get run over by the LA bus. Your choice.

[edsg25]

Listen,

No one gives a shit about what LA was supposed to be in the 50s. So just quit trying to pick fights.

LA is way greater than it ever was in the 50s and is on its way to becoming the most significant metro in the US. The population of the city will be around 4.2 million in 2010. This city is blowing up. Get on the LA bus or get run over by the LA bus. Your choice.

Is Sandra Bullock driving?

[squeemu]

I have found that many people from LA, or any other city for that matter, are WAY too defensive of their cities. It's really not that big of a deal, people. Enjoy your city, enjoy other cities, and understand that not everyone will think your city is great. I personally love LA. I also love New York, and many other cities. If someone from New York doesn't like LA, what does it matter to me?

[benji45]

No you just got here, Squeemu. If you were here a while back, you'd see what we're getting at. Los Angeles is the City that is looked down upon by New York, Chicago, even San Francisco. Los Angeles is an "Overgrown Phoenix". People dont like LA. They think its fake, how is it fake if no other city in the United States is anywhere like Hollywood? They hate it because its not as dense as New York or Chicago, they hate the Traffic, well any city of 16 million has Traffic and Pollution. LA is the most bashed city in the United States. People dont like LA because on this forum, its Every city has to be dense or else its cosidered ugly. But, I guess maybe they're jealous because California in general is probably the most Popular State in the US.

[Canned Kitty]

Listen,

No one gives a shit about what LA was supposed to be in the 50s. So just quit trying to pick fights.

LA is way greater than it ever was in the 50s and is on its way to becoming the most significant metro in the US. The population of the city will be around 4.2 million in 2010. This city is blowing up. Get on the LA bus or get run over by the LA bus. Your choice.

Please shut up.

[chicagogeorge]

No you just got here, Squeemu. If you were here a while back, you'd see what we're getting at. Los Angeles is the City that is looked down upon by New York, Chicago, even San Francisco. Los Angeles is an "Overgrown Phoenix". People dont like LA. They think its fake, how is it fake if no other city in the United States is anywhere like Hollywood? They hate it because its not as dense as New York or Chicago, they hate the Traffic, well any city of 16 million has Traffic and Pollution. LA is the most bashed city in the United States. People dont like LA because on this forum, its Every city has to be dense or else its cosidered ugly. But, I guess maybe they're jealous because California in general is probably the most Popular State in the US.

^
I never said I didn't like L.A. I've been there, it does have a lot to offer! It is one of America's "Big Three" of cities. California is a wonderful state, a shit load more beautiful than Illinois, Indiana,or Wiscinsin in my opinion. Saying this though the metro L.A. area pretty much sucks at least compared to Chicago when you factor in your day to day nuisances ( this is what my cousin says who in L.A.for a while and now lives in SF).

[savvysearch]

edsg25, you have to realize that there are too many posters that are specifically from an unnamed city that post in the LA forum for missionary trolling purposes. I'm not saying that you are. I don't think your posts are trolling, but that is just the reality of it.

[SILVERLAKE]

Please shut up.


NO.

I'm wonder how many times you will get banned before they finally keep you off of here.

[VansTripp]

lol. Silverlake, Your post is so funny though.

New Orange Line busway will opening in around August 2005, New Gold light rail extension will opening in 2009, there is no news for red line/green line extension and Expo Line will opening in less than 2012. New Rapid bus will add more new route and make bigger route. More new public transportation will spread out of suburb of Los Angeles. New cycle route will make longer than before.

"Los Angeles is one top of beautiful and best art"

[edsg25]

edsg25, you have to realize that there are too many posters that are specifically from an unnamed city that post in the LA forum for missionary trolling purposes. I'm not saying that you are. I don't think your posts are trolling, but that is just the reality of it.

do they carry guns in violin cases on Valentines Day.

Thanks, savvy. Truthfully, if it hadn't been for SL, you never would have heard a negative word out of me on LA.

Actually I do agree with you guys. LA does get bashed too much.

And, I must admit, with the SL business, I went a bit overboard before. That won't happen again, no matter what he says.

The points I tried to bring up, as you note, were by no means trolling. I really do believe the following: of all America's truly great cities (a small list that I will not ennumerate), LA is the closest to its real days of glory.

I really do see those days being right after WWII. Chicago and New York rose years before. America was an optismistic place at the end of the war, on top of the world, and LA, more so than any other place in the nation, represented the American dream.

Of course, a lot of that national optimism has faded. A growing US and a growing LA would, of course, conspire to remove some of the very freedom and laid back life style that LA represented. It was bound to happen.

And a jaded society does not see the magic in Hollywood (or any aspects of our lives) today.

So I guess I don't see any city out there trying to emulate the LA of fantasy of an earlier time. Hell, LA itself has worked to reinvent itself and to reflect the increased population and diversity within its city limits.

I think a lot of you on the LA board don't really get what I'm saying: I think what you had so recently was a unique and exciting era when the California Dream really was a dream and all was possible. What you had at that time, nobody can touch.

It isn' that you are different from the rest of us now; it's that we have a reality today that makes that kind of former magic a lot harder to pull out....and it is not so far into to LA's past that some can bemoan how things changed.

[vicecityguy]

one last one here and i'll try to shut up.


promises promises :bash:

[Daortiz]

The think about LA is that so many people are here because they like it, including many people from chicago.
I find that for the most part angelenos are not at the very least concerned about Chicago, maybe a little bit more about New York, I think LA is one of the less insecured cities in the US as far as pride, we think we are better than averybody else :D

So we couldn't care less what chicagoans or other peoples have to say about LA, we live where we want to live and that's all that matters

I lOve LA..... :D

[edsg25]

promises promises :bash:

nice song

[edsg25]

The think about LA is that so many people are here because they like it, including many people from chicago.
I find that for the most part angelenos are not at the very least concerned about Chicago, maybe a little bit more about New York, I think LA is one of the less insecured cities in the US as far as pride, we think we are better than averybody else :D

So we couldn't care less what chicagoans or other peoples have to say about LA, we live where we want to live and that's all that matters

I lOve LA..... :D

now that's what i call a sensible answer. that's exactly how you should feel. it is far more important what you think about the place that you live than what others think. and it's great to not give a damn if anyone dumps on your city, as long as you like it.

as for the dumping, I have a feeling that those of you on the LA forum have it ALL WRONG. I believe that you think that LA is being shown disrespect, that others don't take LA seriously, that people make comments about LA that wouldn't be made about other cities.

I get the feeling that virtually NONE of what you are reading that is negative have anything to do with LA. I really believe that LA's is not the issue on this board. If you want to know the main reason why LA gets dissed here, you can have it in one word: SILVERLAKE.

That's probably it, folks. And it isn't even for arguments he gets into with others (although those are there, too); others, including Chicagoans, do the same thing. No, it stems from his glorification of LA and how nothing else measures up that causes the type of responses you get here.

I'm not saying that in anyway you should try to shut him up. SL has as much right to post what he wants as the next guy. But he is probably the source of what you are seeing here.

I don't want to be presumptive. Maybe other non-Angelenos can respond on this issue, as well. Do you think that a lot of the anti-LA responses here are a result of Silverlake's posts?

[SILVERLAKE]

do they carry guns in violin cases on Valentines Day.

Thanks, savvy. Truthfully, if it hadn't been for SL, you never would have heard a negative word out of me on LA.

Actually I do agree with you guys. LA does get bashed too much.

And, I must admit, with the SL business, I went a bit overboard before. That won't happen again, no matter what he says.

The points I tried to bring up, as you note, were by no means trolling. I really do believe the following: of all America's truly great cities (a small list that I will not ennumerate), LA is the closest to its real days of glory.

I really do see those days being right after WWII. Chicago and New York rose years before. America was an optismistic place at the end of the war, on top of the world, and LA, more so than any other place in the nation, represented the American dream.

Of course, a lot of that national optimism has faded. A growing US and a growing LA would, of course, conspire to remove some of the very freedom and laid back life style that LA represented. It was bound to happen.

And a jaded society does not see the magic in Hollywood (or any aspects of our lives) today.

So I guess I don't see any city out there trying to emulate the LA of fantasy of an earlier time. Hell, LA itself has worked to reinvent itself and to reflect the increased population and diversity within its city limits.

I think a lot of you on the LA board don't really get what I'm saying: I think what you had so recently was a unique and exciting era when the California Dream really was a dream and all was possible. What you had at that time, nobody can touch.

It isn' that you are different from the rest of us now; it's that we have a reality today that makes that kind of former magic a lot harder to pull out....and it is not so far into to LA's past that some can bemoan how things changed.


You just don't get it that LA is just finally coming into its own. Gehry is the FLW of now ( just as LA is where Chicago was 100 years ago, just starting to blow up!). This is the city of the next century! What are you talking about about a loss of magic. what magic was there ever? What is the california dream and how is it not possible? Like there is one single monolithic "california dream" that every single person is searching form, don't be silly. You romantacize things too much.

[edsg25]

Silverlake, if you leave your LA world, you would see the rest of the country is pretty well over the California dreaming (despite the governator's desire to revive it). And if the rest of us (US) (U.S.) still has any element left of the California Dream, it's probably more directed to SF & the Bay Area than it is to LA.

It wasn't nostalgia I was talking about. It was the reality of today....and that means a helluva lot of hassle in all the big cities...NY, Chi, LA. I think I give LA more credit than you do. I feel LA has come to terms with the fact that concentration, centralization, and density will be its future and is looking towards older US and global cities to readjust to a metro area where the car has the ability to turn streets and freeways into parking lots.

Is LA trendy and cutting edge? Is it a major metropolis? Is it a player? Sure. No question about it. But it shares these qualities with a bunch of other cities, as well.

[EastSider]

edsg, honestly... why do you pose these questions here? Do you really care what LA formers think of your opinons? So what if LA is sensitive or not, how does this affect you? Do you allow LA formers to justify your viewpoints and opinons? It almost seems like you post here to engage rather than to contribute, its almost like an obsession for you... W-H-Y?

Don't shoot the curious guy who has a passion for American cities and how they tick.

[vicecityguy]

bang bang!

[SILVERLAKE]

Don't shoot the curious guy who has a passion for American cities and how they tick.


He is not curious. He just wants to come here and push our buttons and yank our chains.

Saying stuff like, "LA hit its peak in the post WW II". LA is peaking right now! It was just laying low building up steam back then.

[Jules]

He is not curious. He just wants to come here and push our buttons and yank our chains.

Saying stuff like, "LA hit its peak in the post WW II". LA is peaking right now! It was just laying low building up steam back then.

Yup. :)

And from it's peak it's only going to decline.

[vicecityguy]

Yup. :)

And from it's peak it's only going to decline.

Now now, that negative attitude won't get you anywhere!

[SILVERLAKE]

Yup. :)

And from it's peak it's only going to decline.


Just you wait. You will be sick of hearing about LA ten-20 years from now.

[james2390]

SILVERLAKE, I nominated you for forumer of the year. I think your rock!

LA is great and yeah yeah yeah. I do agree that many of the forumers are a bit sensitive. Well, in reality I only know one sensitive LA forumer.