# What Do You Think of Los Angeles?



## FM 2258 (Jan 24, 2004)

I want to visit Los Angeles sometime soon. I think it's a very cool place to be.


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

federicoft said:


> I personally found most american cities outside North-East very dull, and LA is one of these. They are nothing more than a bunch of skyscrapers with huge low-density neighbourhoods around it, where cars rule over humans, without a urban lifestyle and a bustling atmosphere like European cities. This doens't go for all American cities of course, and I consider NYC by far the most vibrant city in the world, but LA seems to me just a depressing and uninteresting urban landscape without soul and personality.


Sorry you didn't enjoy your time here. I suspect you ended up in the wrong parts of the city. Like most big city areas, there are lively and dead parts. Maybe the next time you visit, you will have a better guide. Myself, I much prefer LA to Rome.


----------



## empersouf (Mar 19, 2004)

I hope to live there in future.


----------



## Steel Flame (Jan 21, 2006)

I think L.A. is underrated as an urban center. Has anyone seen the pano of that city ? freaking impressive.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

When you ask out-of-towners how they enjoy a city, chances are you are asking tourists more than business travelers.

So, for the sake of argument, let's take a look at California's two global cities: Los Angeles and San Francisco. 

If we examine them both and we're honest, we'd just about have to come to this conclusion:

• both are fascinating, one-of-a-kind cities (one tightly urban, the other sprawled out)

• both are loaded with things to see and do

Yet truthfully, for so many visitors, SF gets the edge. There are many possible reasons for this, but I'd like to throw in one that is most visitor-oreinted and may account why the City by the Bay edges the City of Angels:

*SAN FRANCISCO IS ACCESSIBLE IN A WAY LOS ANGELES IS NOT*

from downtown SF to the north waterfront, you are literally a cable car's ride away from so many of the city's attractions: Union Sq, Chinatown, North Beach, SoMa, SBC, Nob Hill, the Wharf, Ghirardelli, Cannery, Pier 39, Alcatraz tours, Coit Tower, Lombard's corkscrew, Embaracdero Center.

brought your car? SF is loaded with neighborhood attractions that are so accessible in a city of 49 sq miles: so not only will you love the attractions, you'll love the drive to them: the GG, Palace of Fine Arts, GG Park, view from Twin Peaks, victorians on Alamo Sq, Cliff House and the ocean, the homes in Sea Cliff, Pacific Heights mansions, Japan Town, the Castro, Mission Dolores.

If that's not enough....either car or ferry can take you to Sausalito. BART will get you to Berkeley. a short car ride across the GG will give you not only Sausalito, but the smashing views from the outer Golden Gate in the Marin Headlands and Muir Woods.

*How about LA?* The attractions are legendary, but it's not like you're likely to access the red line to get to them. Think about it: you've got to use a car for most and they are spread over the landscape. 

The Getty Museum, Rodeo Drive, Farmers Market, Disneyland, Universal, Knotts, driving down Mullholland, the SM Pier & SM shopping, Hollywood, Griffith Park, Westwood & UCLA, Sea World, Malibu.

That's one wide stretch of real estate. And while many parts of the drive are spectacular (i.e. the Westside, Mullhollund, the coast), much isn't.....and tends to be mundane compared to the shorter and more enthralling SF scenery. Could any trip be more dreary and depressing than downtown LA to Disneyland?

LA's far flung real estate has its charms, but I hope you Angelenos realize that it isn't always accessible to tourists and that, as a result, the more urban friendly transportation and density of cities like NY, Chgo, SF, Bos give them an edge.....even though LA's attractions themselves are competitive with those other cities.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

I love LA, and I love that it's getting better!


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

The Los Angeles rail system in 2010!


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Are those actual plans that are expected to be completed? That'd be pretty awesome.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> Are those actual plans that are expected to be completed? That'd be pretty awesome.


Yes. Threehundred believes the Red Line should be extended all the way to Century City. I agree. Century City is currently doing way better than Downtown. I see CC's future as a bright one with skyscrapers, shopping, entertainment, restaurants, hotels,etc.-most of which are in place already. It would be very practical also if the rail system could reach Santa Monica. This would allow future tourists staying in Downtown to have easy access to Santa Monica as well as all other major destinations. The rail system is a very important aspect of the improvement of the city.


----------



## Lee (Jun 2, 2003)

I really like it, in that it's nicer than Miami. The weather is much less humid, yet a tad too dry.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> Are those actual plans that are expected to be completed? That'd be pretty awesome.


According to Threehundred, the Expo Line will be completed in 2 phases. Phase one is to Culver City. Phase two, Culver City to Santa Monica.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

pottebaum said:


> Are those actual plans that are expected to be completed? That'd be pretty awesome.


The Expo Line will start in the spring. Both the Gold Line Eastside and the Expo Line will be complete in 2010.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

TalB said:


> Does LA really have a highway ramp that looks like a four-leaf clover, or is that just shown on TV?


There are many interchanges in SoCal that are cloverleafs. IMO they are horrible.

http://members.cox.net/mkpl/interchange/interchange.html


Click that link for various LA freeway interchanges.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

Rapid transit plans look great. What a shame they don't extend to one part of LA you'd most expect it: the incredibly rich and powerful westside.

Wasn't it one powerful city official from that part of town that is fighting it?


----------



## OtAkAw (Aug 5, 2004)

I think LA is a very great city.

But I dont like LA Society:clubbing, gangs, money, sex, vanity etc.
People seem to be over-liberated, super freedom of expression, my impression is that LA people does sex as they frequently brush their teeth.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

OtAkAw said:


> I think LA is a very great city.
> 
> But I dont like LA Society:clubbing, gangs, money, sex, vanity etc.
> People seem to be over-liberated, super freedom of expression, my impression is that LA people does sex as they frequently brush their teeth.


Like that stuff doesn't exist anywhere else in the world. I would say Miami is very big on clubbing and so are many other cities. Money, that goes everywhere. Sex will always be present everywhere in the world-it's too big on this planet. Vanity, definitely in LA. Gangs, well crime has been reducing dramatically and WILL continue to do so.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

OtAkAw said:


> People seem to be over-liberated, super freedom of expression, my impression is that LA people does sex as they frequently brush their teeth.


How horrible! Personal freedom and easy sex!!! How can people live like that?

ha ha if only it were true...


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

edsg25 said:


> When you ask out-of-towners how they enjoy a city, chances are you are asking tourists more than business travelers.
> 
> So, for the sake of argument, let's take a look at California's two global cities: Los Angeles and San Francisco.
> 
> ...


For once I agree with you. You have to make an effort to enjoy LA. If you just drive around randomly, take a bus tour, or worst of all, try walking around, you'll be massively disappointed and wonder what all the fuss is about.

However, if you take time to get to know the metro well, it's one of the best places on earth, IMO.

SF is way way way more accessable, but at the end of the day, has far less to offer for people in the know.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Uhmmmm.... been there a few times and I have to be honest it 
is not for me.
I prefer the East Coast cities and lifestyle.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

I think the problem with LA is that there is a lack of evidence of a "city" which I believe causes many people to express hatred towards LA and honestly I can understand that. I think LA does possess somewhat of a "city" with DTLA-when you walk around some areas, you get that feeling of being in a city. However I don't know why LA is late with the city loft/apartment trend.I think that the past DTLA lacked vibrancy which caused many to shy away from that area, leaving it as a destination for work/business. I believe that partly contributes to the lack of "city" feeling. But now, Los Angeles is starting to pick up on the trend and downtown is changing and i believe we will start seeing a "city".


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

mongozx said:


> Yikes! You've let the cat out of the bag! Now all the American forummers in SSC will do this
> :badnews:


Yeah actually even I wouldn't like living in Orlando, Pheonix, suburban NJ or somewhere like that. But that's just my (minority) preference. 

What I like about LA though is how it combines some of the strong points of a city (world-class dining, nightlife, art scene, alternative lifestyles, a hugely diverse population) with a sense of space (at least compared to Manhattan) and the freedom associated with having your own car. Not to mention great weather, a laid-back vibe, and having the beach, mountains and desert within easy striking distance. 

I almost feel dirty writing this on SSC, but give me a convertible with the top down, music playing, cruising down a sunny palm lined avenue toward the ocean in January, over sitting in a subway car in NY or London any day!


----------



## Vidiot (Apr 27, 2005)

brooklynprospect said:


> Yeah actually even I wouldn't like living in Orlando, Pheonix, suburban NJ or somewhere like that. But that's just my (minority) preference.
> 
> What I like about LA though is how it combines some of the strong points of a city (world-class dining, nightlife, art scene, alternative lifestyles, a hugely diverse population) with a sense of space (at least compared to Manhattan) and the freedom associated with having your own car. Not to mention great weather, a laid-back vibe, and having the beach, mountains and desert within easy striking distance.
> 
> I almost feel dirty writing this on SSC, but give me a convertible with the top down, music playing, cruising down a sunny palm lined avenue toward the ocean in January, over sitting in a subway car in NY or London any day!


there you go. show some love to your distant cousins on the left coast


----------



## divi0013 (May 24, 2005)

brooklynprospect said:


> Yeah actually even I wouldn't like living in Orlando, Pheonix, suburban NJ or somewhere like that. But that's just my (minority) preference.
> 
> What I like about LA though is how it combines some of the strong points of a city (world-class dining, nightlife, art scene, alternative lifestyles, a hugely diverse population) with a sense of space (at least compared to Manhattan) and the freedom associated with having your own car. Not to mention great weather, a laid-back vibe, and having the beach, mountains and desert within easy striking distance.
> 
> I almost feel dirty writing this on SSC, but give me a convertible with the top down, music playing, cruising down a sunny palm lined avenue toward the ocean in January, over sitting in a subway car in NY or London any day!


even though i would probably rather live in a place like minneapolis, chicago or new york...i completely see where you're coming from. There is something to be said about the freedom of having a car and not being crammed on to public transportation and tossed to pretetermined destinations that some technocrat picked for you. you can't deny freedom baby  and damn, the weather is nice in LA!


----------



## divi0013 (May 24, 2005)

cityhater said:


> I were to discuss a ghetto, everyone would be in agreement that it is a failure and a negative, but for suburban development, we get this childish, "well, everyone's doing it, so it must be right!" kind of response.



I don't know, i used to hate suburbs, but i definatly would not call them a failure. There are a distinctly american form of urbanism that was created with distinctly american conditions. Furthermore, the populations of major cities have declined pretty constantly since the 1950's, this would indicate that the american people have voted with their feet. The american public has repeatedly demanded affordible housing, along with the freedom of a car-based society. 

Will this have to change as gas prices rise? Certianly. However, the beauty of a free market system is that people will find it more economically preferential to live in cities where they can walk more and have access to more public transportation. Therefore, they will demand more affordable housing close to their places of employment, transit lines, restaurants and attractions. They will however, be giving up the freedom of a car based society, a lawn where there kids can play away from the street and quite possibly a safe neighborhood. Families would also be moving into the problems that large cities inherrently face, gangs, drugs, crimes, prostitution, and a whole host of other evils that I wouldn't want my children to be exposed to.

Even if most of the world (with the exception of canada and australia) does not have the same surburban form as America, that doesn't mean America is doing anything "wrong." America has been shaped by a distinct set of geographic, natural, social, cultural, political and economic conditions that are very different from the rest of the world. Thus, America's urban form is bound to be different from that of other nations.


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

I don't like the way it's cut by highways throughout its entire city limits. Also, those highways didn't seem to help a lot except for causing more traffic. I can still remember the time I went with my family there in 2001 when we had to go through several interchanges just to get from one place to another.


----------



## urbane (Jan 4, 2005)

for me Los Angeles is an urban laboratory:

most American cities were not created for the car and only became car oriented in the XX century: thus their density decreased in the last decades. Los Angeles instead grew and thrived as a car-oriented metropolis and now is realizing that it has to change its urban form in order to thrive in the future. I am optimistic that LA will become more dense and more urban (in the sense of higher density and more pedestrian friendliness) in the future, as it has already been doing in the last decades. If it works in LA it means that it will work in the other cities.


Now I know that I made some broad statements, but if I was asked by someone what I think of LA that would be the first thought to come to my mind.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

I updated the list of links. Check out the "Los Angeles Developments" thread!


----------



## OtAkAw (Aug 5, 2004)

Ive watched in CNN that the filthy dirt-veined Al Qaeda terrorists are planning to attack a skyscraper in LA, please be very vigilant, don't let another 9/11 happen again. It's not only the Americans that are affected, but everyone else who cares.


----------



## carlisle (Nov 10, 2005)

brooklynprospect said:


> Auto-oriented development is a failure? Hmmm... so then naturally you would expect the world's most suburbanized and auto-dependent country (the USA) to also be a failure, would you not? Strange though how America is not only not failing, but is in fact the world's wealthiest country, with an economic growth rate that leaves the EU and Japan in the dust.
> 
> Wait, but Japan has all those shiny bullet trains. And efficient, clean, large-scale metro systems. Perhaps the best public transport network on earth. Sugoi-desu-ne? But it also has a stagnant economy (yay it's growing at 1.7% this year!), and a rapidly aging and soon to be imploding population. What's going on????? Doshiyo! Hmmm... could it be that economic and societal failure and success have little to do with subway systems and heavy rail networks? I wonder...


Yes, America is the most successful country in the world, so lets all emulate everything America does. I can't wait to demolish Liverpool's townhouses to replace them with parking lots... well they have them in Houston so they must be the way to go. :|


----------



## cityhater (Jan 4, 2005)

Cities are based on the public life, culture is bred out of public interaction. You kill the street, you are killing public interaction. You can mix and match 9 out of 10 suburbs in the US and people wouldn't know the difference. Matter of fact, the areas of interest in every single suburb are urban, or resemble urbanity (i.e. malls). What you have now is a quasi-rural landscape. Unlike rural areas, they are not productive uses of the land, and they have grown far beyond out of control. 

No need to play semantics either, there are great suburbs and horrible cities, I'm specifically referring to cities built without the pedestrian in mind first. Suburbs offer no *personal freedom* to the pedestrian. I can already predict responses such as: *intended sarcasm* "_oh I'm wrong for not wanting to stay cramped up in some rowhouse or syscraper!_" , as if personal space can't coexist with pedestrian life. And as if the problems we associate with cities are because of their built environment. 

The only reason that the city is seen as negative is because of historical trends and practices,(many of them connected to the rise of the automobile). There is no direct connection to urban cities and crime or poor schools. Compton is a suburb. As time progresses, more and more ghettos will be located in suburban landscapes. That is a completely different problem that has roots in cities/suburbs, but also involves a number of other factors. 

Autmobile development is based on the naïve belief that a suburb will remain in its current state. The US still experiencing rapid growth and as more people purchase cars, of course traffic gets worse. Los Angeles is the finest example of this 

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=316788

You can't build a city near a growing metropolis with the belief that it will be in its current state forever. Urbanity grows organically, and density soon comes as time passes. 

20 years from now, those who are touting the convience of the relative ease of getting from point A to B in LA will be in for a shock as thoroughfares across the metro become routinely packed like Manhattan streets. The density of LA's inner city is that of European cities, yet there isn't enough infrastructure to support it. There is no way to alleviate this problem outside of investing in public transit and pedestrian life.


----------



## danthediscoman (Feb 8, 2006)

brooklynprospect said:


> Why don't Americans live in densely populated settings? Because they don't want to! It's a free country man. There are no internal passport systems regulating travel between municipalities or counties, last time I checked.


Not sure what your point is here?!...I wasn't claiming Americans should ALL live in urban environments...you missed my point and it was simply this: the reason why "95% of Americans do not care about mass transit" (as you originally stated) is because 95% of Americans don't live in densely populated settings capable of sustaining a succesfull mass transit system... And as far as the whole "passport" thing Im not even going to ask what you meant by that!...


----------



## danthediscoman (Feb 8, 2006)

Formersocaler said:


> Do you have statistics to back up LA's failure to clean up the smog? Actually LA has done a remarkable job cleaning up the air thanks to AQMD, and the number of smoggy days have been brought down greatly compared to the 1970's-1980's. From the AQMD: In 1974, there were more than 200 days the air quality exceeded the federal one hour ozone standard. In 2004 it was less than 50 days. The LA basin has some of the strictest emission standards. It's next goal is to clean up air pollution from the ports. Does more work need to be done? Yes. But to say its been a complete failure is completely false.


Im not talking about a "complete failure" when it comes air quality regulations in LA as you are implying I stated,

I stated:
_..."an equal or better alternative to cars..And LA has completely failed on this issue which is the most disgusting issue I have with LA..."_

Im talking about a complete failure when it comes down to LA's mass transit system which is undoubtedly a part of LA's pollution problems (which is why I refrenced the smog but only in relation to the failed transit systems)


----------



## svs (Dec 5, 2005)

danthediscoman said:


> Im not talking about a "complete failure" when it comes air quality regulations in LA as you are implying I stated,
> 
> I stated:
> _..."an equal or better alternative to cars..And LA has completely failed on this issue which is the most disgusting issue I have with LA..."_
> ...


You obviously don't know the city very well. During the past twenty years, LA has constructed a basic transit system serving most of the county except for the west side. Currently you can take light rail from downtown to LOng Beach, North Hollywood, hollywood, Universal City, and pasadena. The orange line goes to Warner center on the West end of the valley. Commuter rail goes out to Orange county and the Simi Valley. The Exposition line to the west side should be finished by 2010 or so extending to Santa Monica.

Hopefully plans to extend the subway to the west side will be approved in the near future. Then it becomes a job of filling in the rest of the map. God knows rapid transit could be better in this town but it is definitely not a complete failure.


----------



## Wilko (Oct 18, 2004)

I am very intersted in Los Angeles, I look in Los Angles forums a lot for pictures, I love the look of the place although my concerns are gangs, no go zone neighborhoods, gated communities which I think are a real shame.


----------



## Westsidelife (Nov 26, 2005)

Wilko said:


> I am very intersted in Los Angeles, I look in Los Angles forums a lot for pictures, I love the look of the place although my concerns are gangs, no go zone neighborhoods, gated communities which I think are a real shame.


I believe gangs are starting to disappear and are moving to what LA forumers say Las Vegas and Phoenix. Crime in LA is REDUCING.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

TalB said:


> I don't like the way it's cut by highways throughout its entire city limits. Also, those highways didn't seem to help a lot except for causing more traffic. I can still remember the time I went with my family there in 2001 when we had to go through several interchanges just to get from one place to another.


LA's masterplan for it's freeway system 50 years ago, was that everyone would be no more than 10 miles from a freeway. 

Also, in regards to the transit system: 5 years ago, the extention of the Red Line subway was the last thing of people's mind. Now that people realize that a better transit system is NEEDED in LA, people are strongly interested in extending it.

Also, at one point, LA had the Pacific Red Car system...lets see if I can find the map..

Found it...and to answer your question, yes this actually existed.












By 2010, this is what LA's MetroRail map will look like.


----------



## architect_girl (Feb 17, 2006)

LA could be better, it's a city that lacks community sense, you can drive around LA for miles and not see a single pedestrian, is all in cars, and if you want to walk down the street and enjoy that street atmosphere and window shop and look at people pass by you can't do it, unless you get on your car and drive to santa monica.

La should be better organized, the city should be half of the size it is, it should have more apartment complexes, more of a defined downtown with shopping malls, lots of pedestrian areas, lots of things that regular cities have.

Let's hope when the Suburban nightmare boom passes, LA won't become a second Detroit.


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

^ Have you been to LA?


----------



## architect_girl (Feb 17, 2006)

Threehundred said:


> ^ Have you been to LA?



yep lived there for 3 years


----------



## soup or man (Nov 17, 2004)

3 years isn't long enough sadly. There are people who live in Long Beach who have never seen the ocean. I really have how people like to say that there is no places for people to walk and relax. Clearly that is untrue. You have, Hollywood, West Hollywood, Mid Wilshire, Korea Town, Long Beach, the Grove, Santa Monica, Venice, Old Town Pasadena, Universal City Walk, Los Feliz, the Sunset Strip..there is alot of areas. People are retarded in thinking that riding the bus is the worst thing next to murder.

LA is slowly waking up. And when it does it'll be a force.

Btw..look at the downtown thread in the construction section.


----------

