71–80 of 118 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Santa Monica isn't LA, like San Jose isn't SF. And anyways, Seattle and even Portland beat both of them.
I would argue that Santa Monica is much closer to LA in proximity and culture that SJ is to SF.
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.
It's a young city, relatively speaking, and it grew up with the automobile - leading to the infamous sprawl you see today.
It's a city that's meant to be experienced by car (historically), meaning that many things are primarily accessible by car, to the extent that without a car you were basically of another class, kept out of the various "fortresses" (shopping malls, etc.)
Hence the famous song, "nobody walks in LA."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it important to point out that Santa Monica isn't the same as the city of Los Angeles? If you live there, you probably know already. If you don't live there, it doesn't matter anyway. They're neighbors. And it's not like Santa Monica is any more culturally unique than the dozens of communities that make up L.A. proper.
LA is kind of a bad place to live, Santa Monica isn't. No one would confuse San Jose with San Francisco, Evans if they didn't live there.
Like if I say I live in Marina Del Rey and I have a friend in Santa Monica invite me over, it's not a big deal. That's what important. If I live in SF and a friend in San Jose invites me over, I'm like hmmm do I really want to drive an hour..
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
San Jose and San Francisco are in separate counties and are 48 miles apart, while downtown LA to Santa Monica is 16 miles. Also they do not border each other.
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.
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.
I've lived in LA for a number of years, and that's a pretty accurate statement. Also, there are a lot of people and cars.
It's not a livable city. It's basically a big mess.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I recommend "Los Angeles Plays Itself" to any interested in seeing the juxtaposition of what you see in movies/tv with the reality. There's also a much shorter, funnier one called "Vancouver Never Plays Itself" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojm74VGsZBU
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/056/730/597...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Santa Monica isn't LA, like San Jose isn't SF. And anyways, Seattle and even Portland beat both of them.
I would argue that Santa Monica is much closer to LA in proximity and culture that SJ is to SF.
To me, Santa Monica's politics seem much more engaging, idealistic and left-leaning than those of LA. Santa Monica is also much wealthier, on average, than LA.
Because of its greater wealth (or its idealism, you decide) Santa Monica seems to be a better run city with what appear to be better maintained streets and public facilities. It's the kind of city LA residents like to escape to from time to time, if they can afford it.
It's perhaps relevant that Stephen Miller, an influential element of the Trump administration, forged his identity as a reactionary provocateur in the politically correct crucible of Santa Monica High School.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-advisor-steph...
Just my 2 cents ...
