Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Walking in L.A.

walkinginla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 118 posts

Re: Walking in L.A.

#11

Post by tastythrowaway2 »

js2 wrote: post #8
hbex5 wrote: post #5

So as somebody who lives in London, explain to me why Los Angeles always looks so featureless, so lacking in any kind of urban identity I'd expect to find in a city? It always looks to me no so much as a city, but rather merely some buildings that are connected by freeways.

Because it's not as dense. But it still has lots and lots of lovely neighborhoods and places to walk. You just need to drive between them. The view of L.A. from Mulholland Drive at night made me realize how truely immense L.A. is. edit: according to Google. "L.A. area" is 503 sq miles. "London area" is 607 sq miles. Interesting.

So is drunk driving a big issue in LA?

Re: Walking in L.A.

#12

Post by Senderman »

hbex5 wrote: post #5

So as somebody who lives in London, explain to me why Los Angeles always looks so featureless, so lacking in any kind of urban identity I'd expect to find in a city? It always looks to me no so much as a city, but rather merely some buildings that are connected by freeways.

Instead of the explanation you've asked the internet for, you might find a visit to L.A., to clear up your puzzlement, more rewarding.

Re: Walking in L.A.

#13

Post by dickfickling »

tastythrowaway2 wrote: post #11
js2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not as dense. But it still has lots and lots of lovely neighborhoods and places to walk. You just need to drive between them. The view of L.A. from Mulholland Drive at night made me realize how truely immense L.A. is. edit: according to Google. "L.A. area" is 503 sq miles. "London area" is 607 sq miles. Interesting.

So is drunk driving a big issue in LA?

It used to be much worse. Many (most?) drunk drivers have since turned to Uber or Lyft.

Re: Walking in L.A.

#14

Post by tomjakubowski »

tastythrowaway2 wrote: post #9
hbex5 wrote: post #5

So as somebody who lives in London, explain to me why Los Angeles always looks so featureless, so lacking in any kind of urban identity I'd expect to find in a city? It always looks to me no so much as a city, but rather merely some buildings that are connected by freeways.

My guess is it has something to do with [1]. I remember growing up hearing that LA was planned by a large automotive manufacturer, hence it requires copious amounts of driving to fully experience the city. I couldn't find a reliable source with any cursory searching. Still, the linked article mentions LA specifically in one of the captions, so maybe there's a grain of truth to that. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik…

LA emphatically was not planned, especially not by an automotive manufacturer. The automotive industry simply colluded to destroy the metropolitis's mass transit system, to be replaced by automobile freeways. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_con...

Despite this, and contrary to the stereotypes, the LA Metro is actually dead last in the US in freeway lane miles per resident. See http://freakonomics.com/2009/02/24/los-angeles-transportatio...

Re: Walking in L.A.

#15

Post by Inconel »

tastythrowaway2 wrote: post #11
js2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not as dense. But it still has lots and lots of lovely neighborhoods and places to walk. You just need to drive between them. The view of L.A. from Mulholland Drive at night made me realize how truely immense L.A. is. edit: according to Google. "L.A. area" is 503 sq miles. "London area" is 607 sq miles. Interesting.

So is drunk driving a big issue in LA?

I'm sure it's a big issue but I don't think it's any worse than most other large American metros. In fact, I imagine it may be less of an issue here. LA does actually have a somewhat functional rail/bus system and some pockets of very walkable neighborhoods that also tend to have an abundance of nightlife.

Re: Walking in L.A.

#16

Post by maxerickson »

js2 wrote: post #8
hbex5 wrote: post #5

So as somebody who lives in London, explain to me why Los Angeles always looks so featureless, so lacking in any kind of urban identity I'd expect to find in a city? It always looks to me no so much as a city, but rather merely some buildings that are connected by freeways.

Because it's not as dense. But it still has lots and lots of lovely neighborhoods and places to walk. You just need to drive between them. The view of L.A. from Mulholland Drive at night made me realize how truely immense L.A. is. edit: according to Google. "L.A. area" is 503 sq miles. "London area" is 607 sq miles. Interesting.

It's giving you the city of Los Angeles there. If you do "greater L.A. area" it gives two numbers, the L.A. Metro area at 4,850 square miles and the wider metro region at 33,954 square miles.

I don't know enough about either region to make a useful comparison, but I think the area for L.A. has to include more than just the city of L.A. proper.

Re: Walking in L.A.

#19

Post by technophiliac »

nether wrote: post #10
hbex5 wrote: post #5

So as somebody who lives in London, explain to me why Los Angeles always looks so featureless, so lacking in any kind of urban identity I'd expect to find in a city? It always looks to me no so much as a city, but rather merely some buildings that are connected by freeways.

Viewing it from a bike at night reveals more character: http://www.thepassageride.com/Photos

Thanks for sharing this!

Re: Walking in L.A.

#20

Post by Inconel »

maxerickson wrote: post #16
js2 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's not as dense. But it still has lots and lots of lovely neighborhoods and places to walk. You just need to drive between them. The view of L.A. from Mulholland Drive at night made me realize how truely immense L.A. is. edit: according to Google. "L.A. area" is 503 sq miles. "London area" is 607 sq miles. Interesting.

It's giving you the city of Los Angeles there. If you do "greater L.A. area" it gives two numbers, the L.A. Metro area at 4,850 square miles and the wider metro region at 33,954 square miles. I don't know enough about either region to make a useful comparison, but I think the area for L.A. has to include more than just the city of L.A. proper.

The figure for the wider metro region probably includes a ton of undeveloped land in the LA mountains all the way out to Palmdale/Lancaster, which will skew things quite a bit since those areas are very low density.

I would definitely include neighboring cities in the LA basin when discussing LA as a whole though. The cities in the SGV, south bay, and gateway cities are very much a part of LA even if they're not within city limits.

Post reply on HN