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

91–100 of 118 posts

Re: Walking in L.A.

#91

Post by l33tbro »

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.

Well LA is a county, as well as a city. Therefore the perceived featurelessness stems from the huge geographic spread. The city of LA does have metropolitan aspects, but this doesn't extend to Santa Monica, Compton, East LA, etc.

Re: Walking in L.A.

#92

Post by imperialdrive »

meddlepal wrote: post #27

Nobody 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!

Re: Walking in L.A.

#93

Post by Broken_Hippo »

l33tbro wrote: post #91
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.

Well LA is a county, as well as a city. Therefore the perceived featurelessness stems from the huge geographic spread. The city of LA does have metropolitan aspects, but this doesn't extend to Santa Monica, Compton, East LA, etc.

"Well, LA is a county, as well as a city."

I'm not convinced this is the reason. Indianapolis is a city confined by the county borders (Indianapolis consumes the whole of marion county in Indiana). Places such as Speedway have been included: Carmel and Fishers to the north are not, because they are in different counties - yet they are definitely part of the greater Indianapolis area. Indianapolis definitely feels different from LA or London - but it feels closer to LA than it would London.

I think some of the other replies hit the correct answer: London has history that LA, Indianapolis, New York, and many other American cities do not. Many sections of American cities remind me of the areas here in Trondheim that were built back up after WWII. It makes for little architectural variation, and there isn't even a history of war and strife behind them in the US.

Re: Walking in L.A.

#94

Post by icantdrive55 »

cylinder wrote: post #35
tastythrowaway2 wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is drunk driving a big issue in LA?

Drunk driving has always been an issue in most of America. It's not taken seriously. In Houston there was regularly horrific DUI deaths and people wouldn't bat an eyelash (several times there were cars driven by drunks onto the freeway *on the wrong side. Bam, four killed. Doesn't make top story on the local news).

It's taken seriously where I live. I think it depends on where you live?

In the Bay Area--it's a big deal. So many little towns police squads will pull you over, just salivating, over a marginal DUI.

The one thing I liked about Texas is they have a seemingly more rational approach to DUI's. I heard courts will take into consideration a person's ability to handle alcohol.

We act like we all are the same, but there's people I won't drive with if they have had one drink.

I'm not defending drunk driving. Where I live, some nights--it looks like it's a fee grab, and not a safety thing?

Re: Walking in L.A.

#95

Post by hball666 »

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've never lived in LA, but trust me I would be permanently based there if I could. Luckily i get to visit several times a year out of choice.

I have lived in London, and I work there lots also, living about 1 hour outside it on the train.

Both have their pros and their cons. To say however that LA is lacking in urban identity comparing one to the other doesn't, for me, do either justice.

The Spanish inspired architecture of areas like the Hollywood Hills, juxtaposed with the small but very well formed downtown LA area, which both has amazing modern architecture and some amazing vintage art deco buildings like the Oviatt building and it's amazing penthouse mean LA has some fantastic places to see. But yes, if you drive down certain streets you'll come across endless rows of nondescript bungalows on boring looking streets, and vast industrial estates which offer nothing to see at all - connected by a network of freeways (which everyone knows you should just avoid at certain times of the day if at all possible).

Similarly, London, arguably a city many hundreds of years older than LA in the first place - also has some amazing culture and architecture - but wander up to the Wembley area and down some side streets and trust me, it's not exactly a world-class destination! Ever been to Staines?

Both have things to offer. And certain people won't like one over the other. I myself don't particularly like San Francisco, and New York, impressive as it is, is a bit too much like London for my own tastes.

Each to their own. But to say LA is featureless and lacking in urban identity makes me think you need to spend some serious time in that city, get to know the distinct neighbourhoods for a good week at a time, and really enjoy what the Angelinos take for granted.

Re: Walking in L.A.

#97

Post by jsemrau »

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.

Portlandia! San Francisco has some rough corners. Even thing adjacent to Market street is terrible. Went to some clubs in the Tenderloin with a bunch of friends. Always trouble.

Re: Walking in L.A.

#99

Post by mtberatwork »

iamacynic wrote: post #55
jmulvi wrote: post #47

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…

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

I know you are being sarcastic, but ... small villages being absorbed by the larger city is happening in every major city in the US. DC, Chicago, NY, you name it. Consequently, everyone complains about too many people moving to their city.

Re: Walking in L.A.

#100

Post by return0 »

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.

more like freeways decorated with buildings
Post reply on HN