31–40 of 96 posts
It's available for streaming on Netflix instant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She does sound a little bitter. But she describes it as a place where she was afraid to explore because she'd be lost forever. > Nobody knows where to go; it’s not a city designed for accidental social discoveries. You think of a place, you look it up, you go; you look up the way back, you go home.
The city only gives back what you put in. It's an onion with enormous depth, and you have to dig. I guess she wasn't willing to put in the effort. It's definitely not for everyone.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
West LA has lots of plenty of legit Mexican food, you shouldn't be driving for it. I suggest Tacos Por Favor next time you want some in Santa Monica. http://www.yelp.com/biz/tacos-por-favor-santa-monica There are some things you have to drive for, like great dim sum, but the great Middle Eastern and Japanese food more than makes up for it. Two of my favorite restaurants in the world: http://www.yelp.com/biz/zankou-ch…
Can't say I'm a fan of Tacos por Favor. Any taco truck is better and cheaper in my book. Monte Alban on the west side is a pretty great for Oaxacan. If you must eat tacos and can make it to midtown go to El Chato for excellent tacos.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/tacomiendo-los-angeles
monte alban is great but not for tacos/burritos.
It's amazing in a kinda-depressing way to think of LA as a "City without a name/face". It's really a melting pot in more ways than one. Are all of the landmarks there really so generic? Did the movie industry influence less-recognizable monuments and other features in the past? Or is it just that the city's culture lends itself to a "scrubbed" culture?
the truth is a lot more boring. LA is a great major city to live/work in but an exceptionally shitty place to visit, unless you stay with knowledgeable locals.
in that way, it's the opposite of SF and NY, tough places to live in but mind-blowing next-level kind of awesome places to visit.
>She refers to their relationship as long-distance. It takes her an hour to get to where he lives, so she stays for three days at a time, then comes home for one or two. I assume this isn't a typical reaction? I live in London, and if it takes me an hour to get somewhere, I consider that fairly reasonable. Is it actually common for people over there to consider an hour journey as something extraordinary?
Is that an hour by car or an hour by public transport? Being an American, and never having been around good, reliable public transport except when visiting Europe, I wonder what the tolerance for time/distance is for active vs. passive transportation. I never seemed to mind a longer amount of time spent on transport if I was sitting around on a bus an S/U-Bahn, but at home I consider anything outside of a 20-30 minut…
>She refers to their relationship as long-distance. It takes her an hour to get to where he lives, so she stays for three days at a time, then comes home for one or two. I assume this isn't a typical reaction? I live in London, and if it takes me an hour to get somewhere, I consider that fairly reasonable. Is it actually common for people over there to consider an hour journey as something extraordinary?
I had a friend in Santa Monica ask me a few years back if i wanted to get a burrito, so we get in her car, get on the 10, the 405, and another freeway towards downtown. After driving 40 minutes, i ask her, "are we getting close?", she says, "of course, don't be so impatient"
>She refers to their relationship as long-distance. It takes her an hour to get to where he lives, so she stays for three days at a time, then comes home for one or two. I assume this isn't a typical reaction? I live in London, and if it takes me an hour to get somewhere, I consider that fairly reasonable. Is it actually common for people over there to consider an hour journey as something extraordinary?
But when you are driving in that stop go traffic that feels comparable to walking speed, with the same cars around you, and no particular visible progress, the brain really hates it.
These highways are in what you would consider urban areas, but there are walls on either side to alleviate the noise for residents. Consequently there isn't that much to see along stretches other than stop and go cars going into the distance.
>She refers to their relationship as long-distance. It takes her an hour to get to where he lives, so she stays for three days at a time, then comes home for one or two. I assume this isn't a typical reaction? I live in London, and if it takes me an hour to get somewhere, I consider that fairly reasonable. Is it actually common for people over there to consider an hour journey as something extraordinary?
Depends on your sensibilities and what you're used to, but personally, I consider an hour exceptionally long. For me, it takes roughly 20 minutes to get into the nearest major metropolitan area by car, or 30 to an international airport. Almost anywhere we'd regularly travel to or run an errand to is within 5-10 minutes; more unusual destinations are within 15-20. An hour is what it would take to drive to the ocean or…
I am from Perth, Australia and people voluntarily driving for upwards of 30 minutes each way is extremely common with 1 hour not being all that unusual so people will happily buy a home that is distant from where they work.
Although Perth isn't huge in terms of population (~2 million) it is extremely spread out due to its very low population density. 310/km2 Vs 5354/km2 for London for example. Australian cities generally have a low density, Melbourne is 430/km2, but Perth is at the low end of the low end.
Most Perth people have never lived anywhere else so they grow up assuming that being in the car for 20-40 minutes to get anywhere is common and that a 1 hour drive to work isn't particularly bad. At a company I worked at there was someone who had a 2 hour commute. That is very definitely at the very high end and he actually lived outside of the city and drove in every day but let that sink in a little. 4 hours a day in the car.
This is, in my opinion, part of the reason why Perth people who experience living elsewhere rarely return to live in Perth. Some return after some time elsewhere but typically they leave for good after another year or two. Once you have acclimatized to having a <20 minute commute, especially if its by public transport or walking, the notion of paying a bunch of money to buy a car so you can sit in traffic for 20-60 minute each way every day is profoundly unattractive.
It's amazing in a kinda-depressing way to think of LA as a "City without a name/face". It's really a melting pot in more ways than one. Are all of the landmarks there really so generic? Did the movie industry influence less-recognizable monuments and other features in the past? Or is it just that the city's culture lends itself to a "scrubbed" culture?
I don't think it's that generic. Watch last year's "Nightcrawler" for a really great survey of the city. There aren't so many landmarks portrayed as there are distinct neighborhoods and 'feelscapes'. It is definitely an A->B city where it is hard to notice what comes in between. So often I'm invited to a restaurant or event and it exposes a cultural micro-climate that I've never guessed was there despite driving with…
(Though havig acquaintances who know places and the internet helps a lot too.)