Pro tip: tell the ICE agent at border control that you've come to check out the snide unhelpful bumpkins in their natural habitat. He'll smile knowingly and wave you through without so much as a cavity search.
Walking in L.A.
21–30 of 118 posts
Re: Walking in L.A.
#22So 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.
Except downtown LA, and some other isolated spots, there isn't much architectural beauty. Most of the city just feels like roads, box-shaped buildings, and strip-malls with ugly signs. At night, when it lights up, it has a certain charm that you do not find during the day. However, I have seen very few urban landscapes as beautiful as when the sun sets behind a horizon cut by its palm tree silhouettes. It is a city one loves more for its vibe and endless possibilities, and for the nature that surrounds it, than for its architectural beauty.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#23Earlier 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.
I've only lived in Los Angeles for ~6 months, but my understanding of what people accept as the "greater LA area" goes as far east as Covina, includes Santa Monica, down to Long Beach, and up to Santa Clarita. These are all rough estimations, depending on personal preference (which I've exposed here, I suppose), but it gives you a sense of what one might consider in trying to figure out where LA ends, and where the rest of Southern CA begins.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#24LA is so ugly compared with SF.
As someone who grew up mostly in SF/Oak and now lives in LA, I'm not sure I'd agree. They both have some truly beautiful areas but large parts of SF aren't particularly aesthetically pleasing, at least to me. I grew up mostly in the sunset and I found it fairly drab.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#25So 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 was developed in very large tracts due to being in the desert and needing to import water. So, the financing only made sense if you developed large, spawling areas. This was true before cars were popular, when there was a tram and people took the tram and then walked everywhere. Then cars became popular, I think the tram died and now you have to take the freeway to get anywhere.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#26LA is so ugly compared with SF.
That's what I like about LA. Keeps out the superficial people, and draws those who can see past appearances.
California native here. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say this about LA. Most generalizations usually go the other way; this is new.
To be clear, all the generalizations are bad, IMO, but this perspective is new, and I think maybe the least accurate.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#27Nobody walks in LA
Re: Walking in L.A.
#28Ha. I see he walked down Gage Ave. I grew up on the opposite end of it Next to East LA. The area (s)he walked thru can be pretty sketchy.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#29So 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.
I'll concede that LA might lack a true urban identity since it can be very disjointed, although even this is debatable if you spend some time in the historic core, but I'm not sure I would say it's featureless. The mountains to the north and the ocean to the west make for a pretty dramatic cityscape, along with the Wilshire corridor[1] and downtown. LA also tends to look great at night, particularly from the air[2].
Hopefully the LA River revitalization goes according to plan and it can be better integrated with the neighborhoods it runs through[3].
[1]http://www.lanebarden.com/linear-city-wilshire-boulevard/
[2]http://www.michaellight.net/new-gallery-1/
[3]http://www.changkimphoto.com/where-the-water-once-flowed-la-...