Walking in L.A.
walkinginla.com
Walking in L.A.
1–10 of 118 posts
Re: Walking in L.A.
#2Best viewed, of course, with this playing in the background:
Re: Walking in L.A.
#3[deleted]
Re: Walking in L.A.
#4This is really a neat site, thank you. Have lived in LA all my life, so recognizing places was really fun.
Makes one want to take pictures themselves so they don't forget it.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#5So 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.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#6Reminds me of http://bahiker.com/ which was a terrific resource when I lived in CA 2000-04.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#7So 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 unlike London, there is really only 100 years of development in this city. It's much older but if you look at old photos, Santa Monica used to be "far away" and Hollywood used to just be orchards. LA is really more like many small towns growing into a very large city. Each neighborhood has its own identity.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#8So 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.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#9So 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.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#10So 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