Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Walking in L.A.

walkinginla.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 118 posts

Re: Walking in L.A.

#51

Post by JBlue42 »

hbex5 wrote: post #5

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 think part of the attraction of LA is that you can have a wide variety of buildings within a small place. It's a lot of nodes, that rise and lessen in density. If you stay off the freeways, you can see a lot (I've only taken them to get out of the city). It's a young city still trying to figure itself out, kind of like the teenager that will dye their hair a different color every month. There's a lot of ugly shit, a lot of beautiful shit, and lot that varies between those two spectrums. Probably one thing no one told you about is the nature - lots of slightly tamed parks and mountains to hike in as well as fun on the water, if that's your thing.

Re: Walking in L.A.

#52

Post by JBlue42 »

jmulvi wrote: post #47
hbex5 wrote: post #5

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'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

Re: Walking in L.A.

#54

Post by Inconel »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #49
Veratyr wrote: post #43

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.

I would argue that Santa Monica is much closer to LA in proximity and culture that SJ is to SF.

Re: Walking in L.A.

#55

Post by iamacynic »

jmulvi wrote: post #47
hbex5 wrote: post #5

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'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…

we need to stop explaining LA to people. way too many people are moving here lately.

Re: Walking in L.A.

#56

Post by [deleted] »

hbex5 wrote: post #5

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.

[deleted]

Re: Walking in L.A.

#57

Post by khazhoux »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #49
Veratyr wrote: post #43

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.

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.

Re: Walking in L.A.

#58

Post by IvyMike »

A couple of years ago, I walked the entirety of Wilshire Boulevard, from One Wilshire in Downtown all the way to the beach in Santa Monica. It's about 16 miles, and it takes all day, but you can do it.

Breakfast at Eggslut, lunch at the Food Trucks at LACMA, and dinner in downtown Santa Monica.

Landmarks along the way include Downtown, Macarthur Park, Koreatown, LACMA, La Brea Tar Pits, Beverly Hills, Westwood, and of course Santa Monica.

It's a great way to re-experience the city.

Re: Walking in L.A.

#59

Post by Baeocystin »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #48
mrjohnthomas wrote: post #42

I'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.

I use one of these plugged in to my car's always-on cigarette lighter. It works. My battery is never flat, even if I don't drive for a month or two.

http://www.harborfreight.com/15-watt-solar-battery-charger-6...

Post reply on HN