GOD SAVE AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[SILVERLAKE]

WE ARE THE FUTURE! YOUR MOTHER FUCKING FUTURE!!!!!!!!!

Following L.A.'s script
From its earliest boom-town days, Los Angeles has always sold itself as the city of the future. Thanks to its changeable nature and international status, it's still a model for how contemporary urban
By David L. Ulin, Times Staff Writer
December 3, 2006



Totally citified
click to enlarge

The hangout, redefined
click to enlarge

- What L.A. gave the world
A decade or so ago, I went with my father to a Friday night concert in a Cape Cod town. It was August, and the village green — an expanse of grass stretching off Main Street — was packed with vacationers and locals, all eating hot dogs and drinking sodas, reveling in the coolness of the evening air. In the midst of this, four men stood beneath a gazebo, playing old-time standards: "Let Me Call You Sweetheart," "In the Good Old Summertime." After a few songs, I turned to my father and said, with something akin to revelation, "It's like a living turn-of-the-century museum."

My father took great exception to this notion, especially when I went on to suggest that, if such towns represented the past — a last glimpse of the way we once lived in this country — then Southern California was emblematic of the future, with its inevitable growth and sprawl. "God forbid," I think he said, which is probably how a lot of Americans feel. But the idea of Los Angeles as harbinger of the future is hardly outrageous, and has little to do with the region's traditional booster ethos, the hype that tells us we live in a city outside history, in which the old rules no longer apply. Rather, Southern California's purchase on the future has everything to do with history — with geographic history, with demographic history, with the history of technology, with our sense of this place as a final landscape, the last territory on the American continent, where we must finally face ourselves because there is nowhere else to run.

This futuristic sensibility is a big part of how Los Angeles has always sold itself, from the first real estate boom of the 1880s to the rise of the movie business and beyond. As far back as 1904, when a syndicate of leading citizens (including Henry Huntington, E.H. Harriman and Harrison Gray Otis) got the rights to buy up huge swaths of the San Fernando Valley, L.A. was a city with its eye on the future, a city on the make.

Yes, this was an inside deal, one that ultimately yielded more than $100 million in profits because of the syndicate's secret knowledge of a plan to irrigate the arid Valley with water from the Owens River. Still, in its aftermath, Los Angeles became the template for an entirely new kind of city, horizontal, sprawling, defined less by steel and masonry than by speed and light. Nature, for the first time, was no longer an obstacle, but a challenge to be overcome. Need water? Import it. Need to connect the most far-flung districts of the megalopolis? Build a network of roads, of freeways, and in the process redefine the relationship between the city and its geography.

ADVERTISEMENT
It's no understatement to suggest that the future identity of L.A. can be traced to the Valley land deal, which set in motion a whole host of developments that continue to unfold to this day. In that sense, it was the syndicate's ability to conceptualize the future, and the role of Los Angeles within it, that set the stage for much that was to come.

Such a future, to be sure, has not always been bright or sunny; it often comes at quite a cost. In the case of the Valley, the price was the Owens Valley, and the lingering implications of a water war that, in one form or another, has gone on for 100 years. But before we judge the past too harshly, it's important to remember that history is complicated, and that events, once set in motion, play out in a variety of ways.

Whatever we think about its origins, Los Angeles is now a laboratory for both our nightmares and our dreams. The city's sprawl, its apparent shapelessness, has for better or worse become a model for how contemporary urban landscapes work, with its de-emphasis of the center in favor of a constellation of satellite communities.

Meanwhile, L.A.'s ethnic and cultural diversity has made it a new kind of international city, belying the mythos of the melting pot in favor of something far more elusive and profound. That's a key development, because it suggests the way the rest of the country — indeed, the world — is going, as borders become increasingly fluid and we elide into an economy of global scale.

More to the point, Southern California's diversity adds up to a wealth of experience, of identities, that makes L.A. a city without a defining narrative. Detractors like to highlight this as emblematic of our essential rootlessness, but as usual, they miss the point. Instead, it's a three-dimensional expression of the notion that in Los Angeles, like everywhere, we are all just making it up as we go along.

Like it or not, of course, the detractors have no choice but to deal with us, as L.A.'s aesthetic spreads. You can see it in every mall, every planned community, in the blurring of so-called high and mass culture, in the ascendancy of noir. Most tellingly, Los Angeles has begun to influence the way even the most traditional cities are reconfiguring themselves — just take a look at Times Square. In his 1998 book "Team Rodent: How Disney Devours the World," Carl Hiaasen lamented Times Square's reinvention as "home to MTV, Condé Nast, Morgan Stanley, the world's biggest Marriott hotel, the Ford Center for the Performing Arts, and soon a Madame Tussaud's wax museum…. The dissolute, sticky-shoed ambience of Forty-second Street has been subjugated by the gleamingly wholesome presence of the Disney Store." Yet if Hiaasen was on the right track, he missed the larger picture; it's not Disney that's the template, but the Grove.

Ever since the opening of Universal CityWalk in 1993, Los Angeles has been on the cutting edge of what social theorist Norman M. Klein calls "scripted spaces" — sites that eclipse the line between public and private, designed to resemble organic urban settings when they are, in fact, elaborately planned. The re-development of Santa Monica's Third Street Promenade is emblematic of this concept, as is Beverly Hills' Two Rodeo and, indeed, the Grove. The new Times Square is just a larger, gaudier scripted landscape, reconstructed almost entirely in the style of L.A. What does it say when New York, which as much as any city thrives in opposition to Los Angeles, adopts a quintessential Southern California strategy to revitalize one of its most iconic sites? It can only mean that the future starts with us.

In 1991, shortly after I moved to Southern California, I interviewed Carolyn See at her Topanga Canyon home. During the conversation, she said some things about Los Angeles that helped to clarify the way I thought. First, she told me that L.A. was its own place, fundamentally different from other cities, where "you don't go down to the cafe and drink a lot of coffee…. You get in the car, drive for an hour, have a long leisurely lunch in a beautiful yard." Then, she cited Paris in the 1920s, envisioning Los Angeles in the 2020s as a city that might have a similar sort of influence and reach.

Fifteen years later, See's assessment remains not just possible but prescient, although I might give it a slightly different turn.

Yes, L.A. is a city of global impact. And yes, we are a testing ground for the future: our own, and that of cities everywhere. I don't think, however, that Los Angeles will ever be like Paris. Instead, it is Paris (as well as New York, Chicago, London, you name it) that will — that have already — become increasingly like L.A.

[LA-dude]

WE ARE THE FUTURE! YOUR MOTHER FUCKING FUTURE!!!!!!!!!



Do you make posts trying to aggravate people from other cities.....it seems like you try to incite arguments:ohno:

[Joey313]

Very interesting

[Octoman]

WE ARE THE FUTURE! YOUR MOTHER FUCKING FUTURE!!!!!!!!!



WTF???

It seems odd that the writer needs to draw a tenuous example of how LA has influenced another major city to justify itself. I mean, LA is a pretty cool place and it has its own way of doing things. I dont think for a second other cities are going to remodel themselves on LA, why do they need to? I think it is more likely that LA will move to a more dense, public transport orientated model (unfortunately).

[JRinSoCal]

WTF???

It seems odd that the writer needs to draw a tenuous example of how LA has influenced another major city to justify itself. I mean, LA is a pretty cool place and it has its own way of doing things. I dont think for a second other cities are going to remodel themselves on LA, why do they need to? I think it is more likely that LA will move to a more dense, public transport orientated model (unfortunately).

Why unfortunately? Is that not a good thing?

[Octoman]

I mentioned once in another post that the I like the fact that Los Angeles offers a different model for city living. The problems faced today with a city organised around personal transportation could quite easily be solved over the next few decades by advances in fuels and car automation technologies. Under those circumstances, I think the Los Angeles model would be THE model for cities. There are plenty of cities to choose from based around the dense urban core serviced by public transportation. Its nice to know that a first class world city offers an workable alternative way of doing things.

[ArchiTennis]

I mentioned once in another post that the I like the fact that Los Angeles offers a different model for city living. The problems faced today with a city organised around personal transportation could quite easily be solved over the next few decades by advances in fuels and car automation technologies. Under those circumstances, I think the Los Angeles model would be THE model for cities. There are plenty of cities to choose from based around the dense urban core serviced by public transportation. Its nice to know that a first class world city offers an workable alternative way of doing things.

L.A. will have both. The automobile infrastructure is already built, and it will not be coming down anytime soon. I'm sure L.A. has one of (if not, the) largest freeway system in the world. That fact that L.A. will soon have a very large subway system will only add to it's uniqueness.

[jmancuso]

silverlake, please update your location...no swear words are allowed there.

[vid]

If LA is the future of Urbanity, the future of urbanity is fucked. Sure, LA may have a huge subway...

...and I'm sure the three guys that use it are 'hella' proud. :)

[Elsongs]

If LA is the future of Urbanity, the future of urbanity is fucked. Sure, LA may have a huge subway...

...and I'm sure the three guys that use it are 'hella' proud. :)

Last time I rode it the thing was fucking packed. People ride it to Staples Center for Lakers, Clippers and Kings games (parking is ridiculous there).

[klamedia]

If LA is the future of Urbanity, the future of urbanity is fucked. Sure, LA may have a huge subway...

...and I'm sure the three guys that use it are 'hella' proud. :)

idiots.......idiots.......idiots.......:bash: THE one measly Red Line heavy rail subway is truly a workhorse of the system. Just by comparison this ONE line tallies up about half of the boardings on ALL of the SF BART heavy rail network.

[klamedia]

For a city that is considered by many to be dominated by the car our transit agency comes in at about #3 in the nation in terms of usage.

NYC-8804.8
then a huge drop
Chicago-1918.1
should be much more for a city that is known for its transit system
LA-1803.5
Chi beats us by a nose because people really do patronize its METRA system, so by comparison I blame Metrolink.

Rail, trolley, busses, commuter rail all makeup a system, so I'm rightfully including every mode of transit here to come up with complete transit totals. We'll see after the Expo and E. Gold come on board how we're doing. Also more and more people are getting into riding the rapid busses, many more are planned to come online in the next 3 years.

Once again I'm open to discussion on this. The #'s are not saying that no one rides the bus(or train) here, yet the perception persists that everyone has a car here and drives everywhere.

[chicagogeorge]

For a city that is considered by many to be dominated by the car our transit agency comes in at about #3 in the nation in terms of usage.

NYC-8804.8
then a huge drop
Chicago-1918.1
should be much more for a city that is known for its transit system
^^
True, we should have greater numbers. Ridership is up substantially in the last several years, and hopefully with federal funding, the CTA can implement some much needed expansion projects (as L.A. is doing). Metra is also planning some major expansions, including extending it's services to Milwaukee.
However, when you look at the % of the total population, and not just raw numbers that uses mass transit in each metropolitan area, then you get a better idea of how mass transit oriented a city truly is. If you take the nearly 2 million daily mass transit riders in Chicago, compared to it's metropolitan area population, then about 20% of the whole population use mass transit. Metropolitan New York mass transit users compared to their overall population is 40%. Los Angeles 10% of the metropolitan area population use mass transit. I wish we had New York style figures.

[klamedia]

The MTA is primarily an LA county based operation so I'm taking the #'s for LA county only I will even subtract out Metrolink(commuter rail) for this system connects other counties and goes into other areas MSA's and we would also have to include their #'s as well and that gets complicated. So w/o Metrolink we are at about 1761.6 boardings per day. LA county or the metro area is say 12.9mil. 1761.6/12.9= and I get around 14%. And I won't even start to tally the interagency systems like Culver City or Santa Monica or Foothill which all have decent #'s and are included within the LA metro area #'s.

I choose to subtract out commuter rail because it flirts and many times intercourses with other MSA's. So if we subract out Chicago's Metra I'm getting 1605.4 daily boardings. 1605.4/9.5= I'm getting around 17%.

I'm sure I'm going to hear more back from you "George" and welcome your feedback.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas

[Elsongs]

idiots.......idiots.......idiots.......:bash: THE one measly Red Line heavy rail subway is truly a workhorse of the system. Just by comparison this ONE line tallies up about half of the boardings on ALL of the SF BART heavy rail network.

Our Metro Rail system today is larger in terms of both miles and ridership than the entire BART system was in early 1990 (right before our Metro Rail system began).

[Elsongs]

^^
If you take the nearly 2 million daily mass transit riders in Chicago, compared to it's metropolitan area population, then about 20% of the whole population use mass transit. Metropolitan New York mass transit users compared to their overall population is 40%. Los Angeles 10% of the metropolitan area population use mass transit.

You're overlooking one important fact: Mass transit ridership in Chicago is more or less at a plateau, with no real gain or loss, while in Los Angeles it is growing.

[pottebaum]

what a great "mother f*ckin"! thread!

[chicagogeorge]

The MTA is primarily an LA county based operation so I'm taking the #'s for LA county only I will even subtract out Metrolink(commuter rail) for this system connects other counties and goes into other areas MSA's and we would also have to include their #'s as well and that gets complicated. So w/o Metrolink we are at about 1761.6 boardings per day. LA county or the metro area is say 12.9mil. 1761.6/12.9= and I get around 14%. And I won't even start to tally the interagency systems like Culver City or Santa Monica or Foothill which all have decent #'s and are included within the LA metro area #'s.

I choose to subtract out commuter rail because it flirts and many times intercourses with other MSA's. So if we subract out Chicago's Metra I'm getting 1605.4 daily boardings. 1605.4/9.5= I'm getting around 17%.

I'm sure I'm going to hear more back from you "George" and welcome your feedback.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_metropolitan_areas

I see what you mean. We really can't compare Chicago's Metra with Metrolink. Metrolink is a much smaller system, only servicing 40,000 daily riders. However, if we do subtract Metra, then we leave out 300,000 daily riders, which is quite substantial.

Furthermore, Metra is interlinked with the CTA under the umbrella organization known as the RTA (regional transit authotiy). There are numerous Metra/"L" transfer stations, and it's just a matter of time before both are completely one metropolitan mass transit system. I give it 15 years tops. Otherwise, mass transit in Chicagoland will not work.

[chicagogeorge]

You're overlooking one important fact: Mass transit ridership in Chicago is more or less at a plateau, with no real gain or loss, while in Los Angeles it is growing.


Yes L.A's system is young and has alot of potential to expand. It may even surpass the CTA's daily ridership numbers.

It is also true that overall, the CTA ridership has remained fairly stable over the last 40 years. In 2005 CTA recorded the highest ridership in 13 years.

There are some major projects and system expansions in the works that could dramitically increase ridership. One being the Cirlcle Line. If built (hopefully by 2020), it will add an additional 7 miles of track. Half of it new subway, and almost entirely link the "L" with Metra. Predicted ridership increase is said to be 40,000 daily.

A nice photo of the "L"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/Chicago-Loop-SEcorner.jpg/800px-Chicago-Loop-SEcorner.jpg


As for Metra, they have been very agressive in trying to attract riders from Chicago's subrubs where traffic is no better than L.A.'s subrubs. The suburban commuter rail ridership grew by 53% bertween 1983 and 2002 in Chicago's collar counties, and 21% in suburban Cook county.

http://keepchicagolandmoving.com/200501funding.pdf

[godblessbotox]

oh god that is hideous. are there any plans to improve the aesthetics of that?

[chicagogeorge]

oh god that is hideous. are there any plans to improve the aesthetics of that?


^^

I sure hope not. It's those elevated tracks that gave our CBD the nickname "The Loop". Simply put, Chicago wouldn't be Chicago without the "L". IMHO, they give the city a gritty urban look, as the "L" weaves it's way through the concrete jungle.



The only other place that I have seen elevated track similar to ours was in the outer boroughs of NYC, but they tore down most of their "L" early last century for the subway.


http://static.flickr.com/50/140456549_86319e69c9_o.jpg

Astoria Queens, very close to where my relatives live...


http://static.flickr.com/103/285483844_fcaab62959_b.jpg

Long Island City......

[LA-dude]

what a great "mother f*ckin"! thread!

lol :lol:

[vid]

WOW you guys can't take a joke. No sense of self humiliation at all.

How's the weather up on your pedestal of self righteousness, assholes?

[chicagogeorge]

WOW you guys can't take a joke. No sense of self humiliation at all.

How's the weather up on your pedestal of self righteousness, assholes?

I assume you are reffering to goblessbotox when he said the "L" was hideous, I didn't take offense to it. Alot of people don't like the looks of it.

Now why don't you play somewhere else, and stop calling people assholes.

[nygirl]

^^ The L is hideous?

[klamedia]

Rode the CTA extensively when I was there this summer. Rode almost every line to the end with the exception of I believe the Yellow (Skokie) line. I love the elevated lines in Chicago as well as in NYC. But it was clear to me that the system must grow. "George" how does one get from say Skokie to O'Hare w/o Metra? Being a radial system it seems impractical to force customers to have to ride all the way downtown transfer to the Blue and ride back out to O'Hare. Is their plans for perhaps an outer ring line that connects all of the "loose ends" of the system.
It's clear that Chicago still has a strong center but in today's metro the pull of the suburbs and the outlying areas is undeniable. I would like to see some lines built whereinwhich one would not have to go downtown at all.

[jmancuso]

the L has so much character

[pottebaum]

It's clear that Chicago still has a strong center but in today's metro the pull of the suburbs and the outlying areas is undeniable. I would like to see some lines built whereinwhich one would not have to go downtown at all.

Well, I believe downtown Chicago accounts for around 55-60% of the metro's office space, and the percentage has stayed pretty consistent..but I see what you're saying. Involving the suburbs is important.

Metra is planning the Star line, which would connect the branches of the suburban system, which would make suburb-to-suburb rail commuting more practical, and the CTA has planned the Cirlce Line, which would make it possible to transfer lines without going through downtown, and would completely link the Metra system to the CTA. It's been approved, but it still needs funding.

http://www.chicago-l.org/plans/images/CircleLine/PhasingPlan.jpg

^The rail portion of phase one was already there; they just finished restoring it this year, and it now carries trains on the pink line.

[chicagogeorge]

how does one get from say Skokie to O'Hare w/o Metra? Being a radial system it seems impractical to force customers to have to ride all the way downtown transfer to the Blue and ride back out to O'Hare.

From Skokie to go to O'Hare (w/o Metra), you need to take 2 Pace buses (suburban bus system) to the Blue line.

[SILVERLAKE]

It makes me mad when people say LA has a small public transportation system and using that to imply we are not a real city. :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: :mad2: KLAMEDIA proved we are almost just as much of as Chicago and really no city is after NYC!!!

This is just like how people say we aren't a city because we don't have a lot of skyscrapers.

The truth is our population is going up and up and up. As of 2000 we have over 3 million residents in 200 sq miles and probably another 500,000 will be here by 2010!!!!!!! We keep getting denser and denser, and if the govt is going to spend money anywere for new subways. THEY should mother fucking spend it here!!!!!!!!! :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

[croyboy]

^^ 4 million as of 2006 within 469 square miles... with no room to grow but up

[jmancuso]

“Los Angeles is just New York lying down.” Quentin Crisp

[MattMKL]

The LA hate will always be there because at it's root its much deeper than a dislike for our skyline or our traffic jams. LA is probably the most culturally unique and different city out of the large cities in the US. While not trying to undervalue the unique cultures of cities like Philly, NYC, or Chicago, in general they have a similar vibe to them, at least in the sense that they're 10 times more like each other than any of them are to LA.

When you step into LA it really is like stepping into a different world. I've heard visitors repeat those exact words at least 10 times now. And because of that, there will always be hate for LA, hate for what they aren't comfortable with and used to. We should just take it in stride, rather than being sensitive about ignorant comments.

I've been listening to LA haters for 5 years now out here in the lesser of the two coasts, and it doesn't bother me one bit. Whenever I see LA I see a city full of potential, and despite all detractors I know just how amazing and vibrant of a city it is. No amount of hate could make me change my opinion, and because of that the hate doesn't bother me.

I mean, I'm one of the few people I know out here that thinks NYC is a grimy, disgusting shithole. You couldn't pay me to live there. That's just my own personal opinion and I'm sure many feel the same way about LA. I almost enjoy the fact that LA is such an underdog as a city, because that just means the people who choose to live there really love the city and the culture, and that's the type of people I want living in LA.

[svs]

“Los Angeles is just New York lying down.” Quentin Crisp

This is much truer than most people believe. I love New York. I love Chicago. And I love LA. These are the three great cities of the US and they belong to all of us.

[Westsidelife]

The LA hate will always be there because at it's root its much deeper than a dislike for our skyline or our traffic jams. LA is probably the most culturally unique and different city out of the large cities in the US. While not trying to undervalue the unique cultures of cities like Philly, NYC, or Chicago, in general they have a similar vibe to them, at least in the sense that they're 10 times more like each other than any of them are to LA.

When you step into LA it really is like stepping into a different world. I've heard visitors repeat those exact words at least 10 times now. And because of that, there will always be hate for LA, hate for what they aren't comfortable with and used to. We should just take it in stride, rather than being sensitive about ignorant comments.

I've been listening to LA haters for 5 years now out here in the lesser of the two coasts, and it doesn't bother me one bit. Whenever I see LA I see a city full of potential, and despite all detractors I know just how amazing and vibrant of a city it is. No amount of hate could make me change my opinion, and because of that the hate doesn't bother me.

I mean, I'm one of the few people I know out here that thinks NYC is a grimy, disgusting shithole. You couldn't pay me to live there. That's just my own personal opinion and I'm sure many feel the same way about LA. I almost enjoy the fact that LA is such an underdog as a city, because that just means the people who choose to live there really love the city and the culture, and that's the type of people I want living in LA.

Well said MattMKL! What I love about this great city is that it deviates from the norm and there is truly nothing else like it. We are the only alpha world city that is car-dependent. We are a mix between a centralized and a sprawling city. The cultural aspect of this city is one of the things I love most about LA. Many people think LA to have no culture. It sickens me to hear someone say such because it is so grossly out of line. We are a major hub of film, tv, music, art, science, fashion, theater, pop-culture, etc. We have one the most diverse geographic landscapes (if not the most diverse) of any city in the US. We break all the rules as to what constitutes a city. I love playing the underdog myself because it just gives me more motivation to potentially exceed and outshine. LA, despite its condition, is already one of the world's most powerful, influential, and fascinating cities. Nothing is going to change that. Just think how much more we will be once the current efforts being made to transform this city become a reality!

[Elsongs]

I've been listening to LA haters for 5 years now out here in the lesser of the two coasts, and it doesn't bother me one bit. Whenever I see LA I see a city full of potential, and despite all detractors I know just how amazing and vibrant of a city it is. No amount of hate could make me change my opinion, and because of that the hate doesn't bother me.

I mean, I'm one of the few people I know out here that thinks NYC is a grimy, disgusting shithole. You couldn't pay me to live there. That's just my own personal opinion and I'm sure many feel the same way about LA. I almost enjoy the fact that LA is such an underdog as a city, because that just means the people who choose to live there really love the city and the culture, and that's the type of people I want living in LA.

That's fine for you but I think any city is entitled to have civic pride, and from my opinion, any civic pride here is *immediately* drowned and muted by not only the East Coasters on the East Coast, but by the East Coast transplants who (choose to) live here! The silly thing is that they want to reap all the benefits of Los Angeles (because they somehow feel more entitled to it than anyone else) while at the same time deploring it, and not caring about improving it one bit...No matter how long they live here, they will never consider it home, and won't really care about it. It's all take, take, take for them and never "give."

It's like the orange tree analogy I always tell people...Los Angeles is like an orange tree, people come here from all over the country and all over the world for its delicious fruit, but one day people started hating the fruit, and the tree started to deteriorate...Why? Because no one bothered to take care of it.

[Westsidelife]

^I see what you mean. Even cities such as Dallas and Houston, who have much pride themselves can get away with it. But everytime someone says something good about LA, someone has to chime in. It's annoying. Even though LA is constantly enduring the hatred of others, that doesn't stop this city from growing.

[Westsidelife]

^^ 4 million as of 2006 within 469 square miles... with no room to grow but up

About 4,100,000.

[godblessbotox]

hey im an east coast/mid west transplant and i love my orange tree!!

[Westsidelife]

^What part of the East Coast?

[MattMKL]

That's fine for you but I think any city is entitled to have civic pride, and from my opinion, any civic pride here is *immediately* drowned and muted by not only the East Coasters on the East Coast, but by the East Coast transplants who (choose to) live here! The silly thing is that they want to reap all the benefits of Los Angeles (because they somehow feel more entitled to it than anyone else) while at the same time deploring it, and not caring about improving it one bit...No matter how long they live here, they will never consider it home, and won't really care about it. It's all take, take, take for them and never "give."

It's like the orange tree analogy I always tell people...Los Angeles is like an orange tree, people come here from all over the country and all over the world for its delicious fruit, but one day people started hating the fruit, and the tree started to deteriorate...Why? Because no one bothered to take care of it.

I guess I'm just a bit more of a relativist. I don't really care what people's opinions are so long as they don't force them on me.

I'll admit most of what I said is based on anecdotal evidence. All I know is that most of my friends who like LA live in LA, and the ones that have negative things to say about LA tend to stay out in Orange County. Seems like self selection to me, at least.

I guess from my standpoint, if transplants are living and working in LA, they're contributing to LA's culture every bit as much as a native. They're entitled to their own opinion, including pointing out the things in LA that need improvement.

By extension, I see the transplant situation much like the situation of immigrants in general. We came to America to enjoy its benefits, but does that mean we aren't allowed to criticize it's shortcomings? I just don't agree with the "love it or leave" philosophy. I'm in many ways a west coast transplant to the east coast... and I criticize this place's shortcomings every damn day. Nonetheless I'm here to get an education and when I'm done I do plan on returning home. I guess that would make me a "taker" in some ways, but I don't see it like that.

Every city has something unique to offer, even if you don't like the city itself. In Boston, it's the education. People come to LA because it offers them something unique that they can't get wherever they're from. They may criticize it at times, and while their remarks usually aren't constructive, their opinion are probably still based on an actual shortcoming (such as the air quality, traffic, lack of a comprehensive subway system). I think we should let the ignorant comments bounce off while still taking to heart the issues they bring up. Los Angeles is a great city, but the only way you can improve yourself is by recognizing your own shortcomings. I just feel like we Californians are so abused, so ridiculed, so unfairly judged by the rest of the nation that we've become overly sensitive about criticism.

Civic pride is important, of course. Every great city is filled with it. Nonetheless, being blindly proud is just as silly as being a blind hater. If all natives had turned a blind eye to the shortcomings in their native countries, they would still be there ignoring all the things that needed to be improved rather than seeking a better life elsewhere. I guess I've always seen transplants like immigrants, going to other places to seek something they couldn't get at home, and I would never tell an immigrant to just shut up and stop complaining just becuase they're not natives.

That's just my straightforward 2 cents. Hope I haven't offended you, as I'm only trying to be honest.

[jmancuso]

how in the hell could anyone hate on LA? i never been to california but from what i have seen and heard about LA, it is a fantastic place. if an opportunity came up where i could land a decent job there, i would jump at the chance.

[Fern~Fern*]

^What part of the East Coast?


D~Town.....

[godblessbotox]

^What part of the East Coast?

yes... d~town... aka detroit.

not a city boy. suburbia wonderland

[Westsidelife]

I've never heard of people from Detroit badmouthing LA.

[klamedia]

If you think LA is spat upon.......oy, poor Detroit.

[klamedia]

If you think LA is spat upon.......oy, poor Detroit.

[Westsidelife]

but i like mountains and sunshine more!

^And beaches, deserts, palm trees, and near-perfect weather.

[godblessbotox]

actually i was surprised the first time i came to la how much it reminded me of detroit. both are layed out for the auto, have relatively small downtowns for there size, and have satellite cities with almost as many highrises as downtown.

but i like mountains and sunshine more!

[Fern~Fern*]

[QUOTE=godblessbotox;10838659]actually i was surprised the first time i came to la how much it reminded me of detroit.


^ OMG that is such a cheap shot to the nuts..... You've got to be kidding!

[godblessbotox]

ha ha ha! i mean that in the nicest way possible.

im not talking about urban decay... just the general layout of things


...wait, how did westsidelife quote me befor i said it?

[Fern~Fern*]

^^ You could take the boy out of Detroit, but you can't take Detroit out of the boy..... Boy I tell Ya!!!!

[Elsongs]

I've never heard of people from Detroit badmouthing LA.

Because to Detroit, our mass transit system looks like NYC. :)

But seriously, you might have not been watching the last time the Pistons played the Lakers during the NBA Finals. :)

[Elsongs]

yes... d~town... aka detroit.

not a city boy. suburbia wonderland

Detroit is not on the East Coast...Unless you're talking about the east coast of Lake Erie.

[Elsongs]

By extension, I see the transplant situation much like the situation of immigrants in general.

Except there's one major difference: Immigrants don't whine.

[godblessbotox]

pittsburgh pa is closer to the east coast... i dont consider that one midwest

[jmancuso]

pittsburgh pa is closer to the east coast... i dont consider that one midwest

it's neither really; it's the center of appalachia.

[godblessbotox]

...bah. its the closest to the east coast that i have lived for long periods of time

[redspork02]

Mega-projects could reshape L.A. growth
By Cara Mia DiMassa, Times Staff Writer
December 13, 2006


Los Angeles is having a city-building moment.

Two massive projects — the L.A. Live entertainment complex next to Staples Center and the Grand Avenue development on Bunker Hill — are underway. A third giant project, a major expansion of Universal City, was unveiled last week. All adhere to a much-ballyhooed planning strategy embraced by Los Angeles power brokers.

The projects, at a combined cost of about $7.5 billion, follow what has become the big planning trend in Los Angeles and elsewhere: mixing dense housing, retail and office space in village configurations near mass transit. The idea is to foster "smart growth" — in which residents leave their cars behind, walk to shops, and take buses and rail to work.

For Los Angeles, "this is the beginning. This will be the place where a model gets created," said Gail Goldberg, the city's planning director. "This is very different from past development in L.A. We have in the past seen sort of a limitless amount of land. And I think that there were opportunities for sprawl that don't exist anymore."

Goldberg and other planners suggest that the current projects demonstrate that Los Angeles has learned from the drawbacks of past mega-developments.

In the 1960s and '70s, for example, city planners created a second downtown in Century City — but they did so far from any freeways or mass transit, a legacy that Westside commuters deal with daily.

But critics are more skeptical, saying that "smart growth" is only a euphemism for more sprawl.

They worry that the sheer size of the projects — Grand Avenue's six skyscrapers, Universal City's 2,900 homes, and L.A. Live's huge shopping and entertainment venues — will overwhelm any small improvements made by increasing the number of people who use mass transit.

That point was underscored in the environmental impact report for the Grand Avenue project, which found that the development could significantly worsen traffic in downtown — despite the fact that it would be built along the Red Line subway.

"The landowner is always going to want to put as much as possible onto their properties, and push off onto the public sector the costs for doing it," said Rick Cole, city manager of Ventura and a longtime L.A. urban thinker, speaking of large-scale projects in general. "The public ends up having to foot the bill."

Los Angeles has long favored mega-developments, from the Century City and Warner Center office developments in the 1970s to Playa Vista, a mixed-use housing, retail and office community started in the 1990s on the Westside.

But as some of those developments age, their shortcomings have become apparent. In Century City, there is now a push to build residential towers alongside the office space, in the hopes of improving the balance.

Though the three projects have some central tenets in common, they approach the idea of city-building in very different ways.

L.A. Live, the "sports-entertainment" hub, focuses on being a destination for Angelenos and tourists alike. The project, which already is rising near Staples Center, includes plans for a convention center and hotel, a 7,100-seat theater, broadcast facilities, 14-screen movie theater, and nearly a dozen restaurants and clubs. Luxury condominiums are also part of the mix, with completion of the first phase expected next fall.

Grand Avenue is being touted as the much-needed heart for the city's center. The three-phase project ultimately would include eight condo and office towers, shopping arcades, a 16-acre park and a boutique hotel. The first phase, which would be anchored by two towers designed by Frank Gehry, has received several key official approvals and is expected to start construction next year.

The Universal plan would create an instant neighborhood on the site of the studio's current back lot, with homes and apartment units and a north-south street to serve residents. In addition, the studio's master plan calls for restaurants, stores and a hotel nearby on NBC-Universal property. The plan goes before officials next year.

Despite their differences, all are attempts to create "hubs" that combine denser housing than Los Angeles is used to with shopping and offices near major rail lines.

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has hailed this type of development, saying that it provides needed housing in the urban core while giving residents an opportunity to use mass transit instead of cars.

Smaller, transit-oriented, mixed-use projects have popped up in recent years, particularly around the Red and Gold lines. The Times visited one transit village development in Hollywood after it was built in 2004 and found that although residents liked living near a rail line, all the parking spaces in the complex were taken and many residents still used their cars.

Land-use experts say the sheer size of L.A. Live, Grand Avenue and Universal City mean that those projects ultimately will test whether smart growth can work in Los Angeles.

UCLA planning professor Richard Weinstein said single projects alone would not fundamentally alter Angelenos' shopping and commuting habits. But he said worsening traffic has begun to affect where people decide to live.

The recent boom in upscale condos and lofts in downtown Los Angeles has been driven partly by the desire of people to cut their commutes and live close to work.

The question is whether the people who move into the three new developments are willing to alter their lifestyles accordingly.

"It has much to do with changing people's perceptions of how they want to travel," Weinstein said.

Urban planner Doug Suisman said that in Los Angeles, the challenge for mega-projects and other mixed-use projects near transit corridors is how to create density in a way that works for L.A.

"We are learning here how to do mixed use," Suisman said. "And even if people have lots of experience in other parts of the world, it has to be applied locally."

The stakes for Los Angeles are high.

Con Howe, the city's former longtime planning director, believes that Los Angeles may never have another opportunity to shape its urban fabric as it has now with the three mega-developments.

The influence of those projects will extend far beyond their borders, because mega-developments often influence the kind of growth in surrounding neighborhoods, he said.

"There are some major projects that because of their scale or their impact become a generative force, or a regenerative force," said Howe, who heads the Urban Land Institute's Center for Balanced Development in the West.

L.A. Live already has sparked a significant number of residential projects in the South Park neighborhood around it, with developers trusting that the center will be such a draw that people will want to live nearby.

L.A. Live offers "a vibrancy that you can't get in other parts of the city," said Greg Vilkin of Forest City, a developer who recently built the upscale rental Met Lofts there. It will be "like living two blocks off of Times Square."

[svs]

People from small towns who bad mouth LA will generally bad mouth New York and Chicago too. They just don't like big cities.

New Yorkers who bad mouth LA are usually doing it only to boost their own city, nothing personal, just a way of establishing pecking order. They often will blast Chicago as well, although not as much.

Chicagoans who bad mouth LA are often compensating for the fact that they are no longer the true "second city".

A lot of transplants bad mouth LA because they somehow feel ashamed of joining the enemy.

Its really a shame. All three of America's great cities have a lot to offer and really belong to all Americans. Personally, I feel at home in all three. (I can get around all of them without a map.)