I like that the html has changed with the times.
Walking in L.A.
101–110 of 118 posts
Re: Walking in L.A.
#102Anyone else disappointed that the random walk link produced an almost everywhere differentiable path?
Re: Walking in L.A.
#103Get a metro day pass and try to use it as much as possible. You'd be surprised how much you can do and see without getting in a car once
Re: Walking in L.A.
#104So 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.
All the distinctive elements of LA have been packaged and sold to you through Hollywood films, to the point where it's actually a bit shocking to see some of the landmarks in person for the first time, because you didn't think of them as actual places. On the ground, most parts of LA don't look like anywhere in particular because they're too low rise and you can't see the horizon either. But there are some tells in c…
"The landscape favors autos but not in the same way as a city like Atlanta, favoring a regular grid with sidewalks over cul-de-sac deadends."
Lots of people miss this distinction. (I did, too, before you articulated it.) It's why I find LA quite pleasant despite not being a car owner.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#105Awesome find. Amazing how much more enjoyable the world can become when you step out of your car, out of traffic and venture on your own two feet. A lot to see that is easily missed when looking at your own speed as you pass by.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#106So 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 o…
> Most of the city just feels like roads, box-shaped buildings, and strip-malls with ugly signs.
That's an indictment of post-war American residential design, not "LA" per se. Yes, The Suburbs are kind of boring. They were intended to be, really. But the urban cores of LA (and the rest of the world, frankly) remained interesting and innovative throughout.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#107So 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.
A whole lot of factors involving LA's history. The first one is earthquakes. We have a lot of good technology now, that lets us build tall and beautiful structures in earthquake zones, But 100 years ago, that was not the case. Los Angeles sprawled out because it had to, and people built featurelessly because you don't invest so much in something when an earthquake will destroy it at any minute.
The second factor was tuberculosis. In the early 20th century, people moved to LA for the air (no, really.) In very large numbers. And given they were moving to a place where the air would extend their lives and let them live in a more dignified manner, they weren't too picky about esthetics.
A third factor was a very unfortunate thing about American tax policy. Municipalities fund themselves by taxing property value. And that gave people an incentive not to build up too much property value. That got particularly pronounced in the Depressions of 1893 and the Great Depression in the 1930s, when people and businesses would literally shave floors off a building to save on property tax. To this day, American franchise corporations build their stores to be crappy things that fall down as soon as maintenance halts, because building more valuable real estate means paying more in tax.
All these factors converged to make Los Angeles look like that.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#108So 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.
Darwinism seems to apply also on the development of urban identity and there wasn't yet enough time/pressures for these urban fabrics to keep up with the 'old world'.
That's why I would never expat outside Europe. It feels like a downgrade.
Re: Walking in L.A.
#109Nobody walks in LA
Information is my vice, I try to obtain it without a price, and without a doubt, the results aren't nice... shoot, trying to remember lyrics to a great song about "nobody walks in LA" but simply can not find it any which way online! I'm going to have to dust off an old hard drive and transcribe it at 3:23am because now it's driving me crazy, thanks a lot meddle!
Are you thinking about the Missing Persons song Walking in LA? :)
Re: Walking in L.A.
#110So 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…
> What were originally separate cities: Santa Monica, Hollywood, Pasadena etc have all been absorbed into the whole that is LA.
Nit: some still are separate cities. E.g., Santa Monica, West Hollywood.
Although OP is right in that what most people think about is the city of Los Angeles generally encompasses most of what's in the county of Los Angeles. So his central point is still valid.