[deleted]
Walking in L.A.
41–50 of 118 posts
Re: Walking in L.A.
#42I've lived in three areas in LA -- Hollywood, downtown and Marina del Rey. I walked all the time, to most of the places I needed to go. I currently live next to a Ralph's, with another Ralphs, Gelson's and Pavilions within 0.5 miles. Plus tons of restaurants, banks etc. And between Uber/Lyft and the Metro Rail, I can get anywhere.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#43LA is so ugly compared with SF.
As a foreigner who's been to both, I'd say LA is a little better. There seems to be less urine in the streets. If you're talking about pure visual aesthetics, I'd also say LA wins, just by a little and primarily because of Santa Monica.
In the grand scheme of things though, I don't think either rank very high, even among American cities. Chicago and New York have far nicer architecture.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#44LA is so ugly compared with SF.
Its ugly compared to most places tbh.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#45Oh heck yes, El Segundo and Hawthorne: http://www.walkinginla.com/2016/Jul24/07_24_16.html
My daily walking commute is between these two cities. El Segundo is home to several firms as it's a particularly business-friendly city. Meanwhile Hawthorne is best known as the home of Spacex.
The In N Out that several of us go to more often than we should is in one of the photos.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#46Earlier 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 think it has gotten better since Uber/Lyft came about as well as younger people not being hesitant to take the subway (now open until 2).
Terrible driving in general is still the same - no signals, double-parking without hesitation, general craziness. On big holidays, there are a lot of drunk driving checkpoints but, overall, very little to no traffic enforcement.
Hit-and-runs are a really big problem.
I think the city is going through some growing pains as there as there are more pedestrians and cyclists on the road. If you are in those categories, you have to be very, very aware.
As a comparison, I was much more worried about drunk drivers when living in a rural area. Also, a recent visit to Santa Fe I saw at least 2-3 clearly drunk drivers, which my friends said is a huge problem there.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#47So 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'm going to assume you have never been to LA.
Just like London it is a collection of "villages". What were originally separate cities: Santa Monica, Hollywood, Pasadena etc have all been absorbed into the whole that is LA. I'm sure you can recognize the same process in london where Hampstead and Stratford have distinct personalities and yet are now both a small part of the whole that is London.
Now LA, unlike London is a city much easier to live in and less easy to experience as a tourist. Tourists try to travel from Malibu to Hollywood boulevard to the Broad museum all in the same day. This is a wonderful way to experience LA traffic. Any person who lives here would recommend you choose on area and spend most of your time experiencing it properly. If you want a walkable neighborhood go to Santa Monica, West Hollywood or Downtown. If you want nature, hiking and to feel like you are not in the city go to Malibu or the Hollywood Hills.
I would argue that all of the LA neighborhoods I mentioned are very familiar to most of us because we watch movies and television and LA is traditionally where those products are made. Maybe you don't watch tv or go to the movies - in that case go to the David Hockney exhibition in london and you will see that LA is one of the most distinctive cities in the world. It is good weather, easy living, good looking inhabitants and it is surrounded by a natural beauty few other cities possess. I could argue it makes London look like a giant rat hole in comparison but to each their own!
I think London has its historic sights and some pretty neighborhoods but the livability of the city is shockingly bad. From crappy housing stock to antiquated tube - I am much happier in LA. But that's just me.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#48I've lived in three areas in LA -- Hollywood, downtown and Marina del Rey. I walked all the time, to most of the places I needed to go. I currently live next to a Ralph's, with another Ralphs, Gelson's and Pavilions within 0.5 miles. Plus tons of restaurants, banks etc. And between Uber/Lyft and the Metro Rail, I can get anywhere.
I live next to a Trader Joe's, target, and Ralph's in Westwood. It is also two short blocks away from where I work. I pay money for that, but damn is it convenient.
I have to remember to drive my car every so often so the battery doesn't drain completely.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#49LA is so ugly compared with SF.
As a foreigner who's been to both, I'd say LA is a little better. There seems to be less urine in the streets. If you're talking about pure visual aesthetics, I'd also say LA wins, just by a little and primarily because of Santa Monica. In the grand scheme of things though, I don't think either rank very high, even among American cities. Chicago and New York have far nicer architecture.
Santa Monica isn't LA, like San Jose isn't SF.
And anyways, Seattle and even Portland beat both of them.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Generalizations are usually considered good when we are talking about code. But ya, LA is the definition of superficial.