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.
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.
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 is a city much easier to live in and less easy to experience as a tourist. Tourists try to travel from Malibu to Hollywood boulevard to the Broad museum all in the same day. This is a wonderful way to experience LA traffic. Any person who lives here would recommend you choose on area and spend most of your time experiencing it properly. If you want a walkable neighborhood go to Santa Monica, West Hollywood or Downtown. If you want nature, hiking and to feel like you are not in the city go to Malibu or the Hollywood Hills.
I would argue that all of the LA neighborhoods I mentioned are very familiar to most of us because we watch movies and television and LA is traditionally where those products are made. Maybe you don't watch tv or go to the movies - in that case go to the David Hockney exhibition in london and you will see that LA is one of the most distinctive cities in the world. It is good weather, easy living, good looking inhabitants and it is surrounded by a natural beauty few other cities possess. I could argue it makes London look like a giant rat hole in comparison but to each their own!
I think London has its historic sights and some pretty neighborhoods but the livability of the city is shockingly bad. From crappy housing stock to antiquated tube - I am much happier in LA. But that's just me.
This is a perceptive comment that hits the salient points.
One thing I'd add is that the public spaces and monumental architecture of LA are indeed lacking compared to tourist destinations like London. To top it off, the OP has deliberately chosen to walk some of the widest, most commercial streets in the city -- that is his particular interest. Other walkers concentrate on stairways in the hilly neighborhoods, or the architecture of downtown.
I think it was Christopher Hawthorne, the excellent architecture critic of the LA Times, who said that some of the defining spaces in the city are the residential architecture, and the back yards. (The comment above already covered the larger outdoor spaces, like the beaches, the mountains, and Griffith Park.)
If you rent a car and get stuck in traffic driving on the 405, you will miss all of that, which is a pity. But that's ok, I get to live here, and read in my back yard, barefoot, eating oranges from my trees, in January.
Want a movie or TV series to die? Set it in Canada. There is something about the American market that just doesn't react well. London or Paris, sure. But other than a few scifi backstories (Wolverine) Canada is never mentioned. I blame the accent. Vancouver sounds like LA and that creates a uncanny valley for the American ear. Audiences are unnerved when characters on TV don't match the stereotypes. It's discomforting, but we cannot all be from Canmore or Torono.
> 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.
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.
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.
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 one loves more for its vibe and endless possibilities, and for the nature that surrounds it, than for its architectural beauty.
> 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.
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 certain of the neighborhoods: besides highways and palm trees, many blocks have "courtyard apartment" construction. 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. With so much of the development spanning a brief period in the 20th century(by the 70's laments for "old LA" were common) there isn't a great deal of history. San Francisco contrasts as a city that has had fires and reconstruction in its core, but if you go out to the western parts of town or a bit down the peninsula, it's all recognizable as being of the same generation as many of those LA suburbs.
>it's actually a bit shocking to see some of the landmarks in person for the first time
I vividly remember my first drive from LAX to campus when I started undergrad in the area. First time there in the flesh, but I recognized overpass after hillside mansion after chain link fence after palm tree boulevard... from GTA: San Andreas. Déjà vu is hardly a strong enough term.
I would have been more prepared to recognize things if it had been, say, Jerusalem or Rome and the game Assassin's Creed, since one thinks of those cities as exotic, iconic. But LA has made its particular brand of "lack of distinguishing features" the default in a huge swath of media, and that was when I realized it.
I'll concede that LA might lack a true urban identity since it can be very disjointed, although even this is debatable if you spend some time in the historic core, but I'm not sure I would say it's featureless. The mountains to the north and the ocean to the west make for a pretty dramatic cityscape, along with the Wilshire corridor[1] and downtown. LA also tends to look great at night, particularly from the air[2].
Hopefully the LA River revitalization goes according to plan and it can be better integrated with the neighborhoods it runs through[3].
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.
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.
It's giving you the city of Los Angeles there. If you do "greater L.A. area" it gives two numbers, the L.A. Metro area at 4,850 square miles and the wider metro region at 33,954 square miles.
I don't know enough about either region to make a useful comparison, but I think the area for L.A. has to include more than just the city of L.A. proper.
The figure for the wider metro region probably includes a ton of undeveloped land in the LA mountains all the way out to Palmdale/Lancaster, which will skew things quite a bit since those areas are very low density.
I would definitely include neighboring cities in the LA basin when discussing LA as a whole though. The cities in the SGV, south bay, and gateway cities are very much a part of LA even if they're not within city limits.
I've only lived in Los Angeles for ~6 months, but my understanding of what people accept as the "greater LA area" goes as far east as Covina, includes Santa Monica, down to Long Beach, and up to Santa Clarita. These are all rough estimations, depending on personal preference (which I've exposed here, I suppose), but it gives you a sense of what one might consider in trying to figure out where LA ends, and where the rest of Southern CA begins.
If you include down to Irvine, then what you're describing is the "studio zone" or "thirty mile zone" (TMZ), where standard studio rates apply to film production as set by unions.
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).
I'm sure it's a big issue but I don't think it's any worse than most other large American metros. In fact, I imagine it may be less of an issue here. LA does actually have a somewhat functional rail/bus system and some pockets of very walkable neighborhoods that also tend to have an abundance of nightlife.
I think it has gotten better since Uber/Lyft came about as well as younger people not being hesitant to take the subway (now open until 2).
Terrible driving in general is still the same - no signals, double-parking without hesitation, general craziness. On big holidays, there are a lot of drunk driving checkpoints but, overall, very little to no traffic enforcement.
Hit-and-runs are a really big problem.
I think the city is going through some growing pains as there as there are more pedestrians and cyclists on the road. If you are in those categories, you have to be very, very aware.
As a comparison, I was much more worried about drunk drivers when living in a rural area. Also, a recent visit to Santa Fe I saw at least 2-3 clearly drunk drivers, which my friends said is a huge problem there.
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.
Because it was developed in very large tracts due to being in the desert and needing to import water. So, the financing only made sense if you developed large, spawling areas. This was true before cars were popular, when there was a tram and people took the tram and then walked everywhere. Then cars became popular, I think the tram died and now you have to take the freeway to get anywhere.
Who Framed Roger Rabbit: Judge Doom's Plot to Destroy Public Transit [1]
My favorite thing about this movie is that the villain's evil plot is to bring about car culture in America. Watch and giggle/shiver. Read about Pacific City Lines, National City Lines, and the Great American Streetcar Scandal if you'd like to know more about its historical parallels.
General Motors streetcar conspiracy [2]
The 1988 film Who Framed Roger Rabbit, vectors the folktale about the decline of the Pacific Electric. Scriptwriters Jeffrey Price and Peter S. Seaman explained: "the Red Car plot, suburb expansion, urban and political corruption really did happen. In Los Angeles, during the 1940s, car and tire companies teamed up against the Pacific Electric Railway system and bought them out of business. Where the freeway runs in Los Angeles is where the Red Car used to be." The story was told again in 1996 in Taken for a Ride and then in 2004 in the film The End of Suburbia.
According to this doco that's not true, or rather they died for other reasons. From 1929 until the last one closed they never made a profit. Partly because they had signed contracts to maintain the roads the tracks went down. As cars got more popular that became too expensive
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.
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.
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.
The baseline architecture is pretty bland, admittedly. But what makes LA an awesome city is not so much what is captured in photos but the whole experience of beautiful, sunny weather all year, hill-top views of the massive expansiveness of the LA basin, the mix of suburban vibes within a sprawling metropolis (e.g. you can be on a quiet suburban-style street in Beverly Hills, then go down a couple blocks and you'll be in the middle of bustling Rodeo Drive), and its diversity of people and niches. It's also a far more livable city than cities like San Francisco, especially if you're not rich.
The worst part is the freeways and they are the worst way to see the city. I always find myself wishing they'd dismantle most of them and force the city to evolve without them.
There are a lot of beautiful places in and around Los Angeles, but you have to search for them. Los Angeles isn't a "wide open" city like other towns, where, as a tourist, you can drop in and just get it. It takes a lot of exploration to figure out.
As an example, you can find areas in Silver Lake that have staircases as streets. I'd hate to be the mail man for that area, but it's pretty interesting to see.
LA is huge, with a lot of different areas, ranging from terrible ghettos to Bel Air. Some areas are flat, some are steep. Korea Town and Beverly Hills has more and larger buildings than most city's downtowns, yet Griffith Park is the second largest park in California. Other areas are residential, others are rather rural. It's a huge mishmash of areas.
With all that said, you are sort of right. Los Angeles is a wide area divided into many smaller sections, each with it's own identity, but I'd hardly call it featureless.
I last visited LA when I was ten years old, I don't remember much apart from it being a huge expanse of tarmac with a few buildings dotted around. It doesn't look far from the truth now, utterly dominated by the car.
City of Quartz, by Mike Davis is a good book on the city's architecture.
It's a young city, relatively speaking, and it grew up with the automobile - leading to the infamous sprawl you see today.
It's a city that's meant to be experienced by car (historically), meaning that many things are primarily accessible by car, to the extent that without a car you were basically of another class, kept out of the various "fortresses" (shopping malls, etc.)
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.
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.
LA emphatically was not planned, especially not by an automotive manufacturer. The automotive industry simply colluded to destroy the metropolitis's mass transit system, to be replaced by automobile freeways. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_con...
[edit: redlining didn't necessarily cause auto-dependence but it is an example of planning]
After all, if every structure has to have 2 parking spots per apartment, you'll get far, far fewer apartments in the same space, forcing things to sprawl.
I think they might finally be learning though. The Expo line goes to the beach now. And they spent $1 billion+ to widen Sepulveda pass and now it's slower than it was before. Perhaps next time they'll put rail in instead.
My daily walking commute is between these two cities. El Segundo is home to several firms as it's a particularly business-friendly city. Meanwhile Hawthorne is best known as the home of Spacex.
The In N Out that several of us go to more often than we should is in one of the photos.
Bizarrely, about the nicest commute I ever had was to El Segundo. I lived in Santa Monica by the beach, and worked in El Segundo by the beach (crappy job but that's a different story).
It was a 13 mile cycle down the beach, with the terrible exception of Marina Del Rey, where you had to go inland.
I saw bonfires every Friday after work; an episode of Wilfred being filmed; and once even a pod of Dolphins swimming along and jumping out of the water as I cycled along this unusual formation: https://goo.gl/maps/WXaZm1Kb5Lu (long and narrow with water on either side). I saw numerous beautiful sunsets, drum circles in Venice beach, homeless encampments waking up for the day (I always liked the idea that the homeless at least got to sleep with a ten million dollar view), and the occasional tallbike. Of course, my own recumbent got a fair amount of attention.
This all took about 50-55 minutes. The drive down 405 was 40-50 minutes by comparison.
All the while I inhaled loads of particulates, no doubt, and my rib still hurts from the crack put there by an inattentive driver for the 1 mile stretch between my apartment and the beach. I got screamed at the few times I tried to cycle down Lincoln, and one guy got out of his car and threatened to punch me. I was buzzed too many times to count by gigantic brodozer SUV's and lifted pickups.
Man, I usually say I hate LA but those 8 months of commuting were amazing. I really wish I'd gotten a helmet camera. Paradoxically every commute I've had since has been under 10 minutes and kind of dull. At the risk of being melodramatic I weep to think of the city it could've been.
I've always loved El Segundo for some reason. Most people I tell this to don't understand why but it's just a very charming town to me. Even the old industrial areas west of Sepulveda and north of the refinery have a very cool feel. I love walking around that area and I've noticed over the last 2-3 years that a number of those smaller warehouse/industrial properties are being converted into office space for tech/ad/vfx companies.
The refinery usually offers a tour once a year for the public which is very informative and there is a great park at the top of a small hill off of Imperial Ave that affords what is probably the best view of LAX.
Sadly El Segundo's aerospace industry is slowly but surely shrinking. Plaza El Segundo, where that huge Whole Foods is, used to be a Honeywell fab if memory serves correctly.
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.
Lived in LA for 15 years, Los Feliz area. For most of that time I didn't have a car - I just walked. The weather was always great, Ralphs close enough, Trader Joes, and so on. When they opened the subway, it was almost perfect - would've been better if it actually made it all the way out to the beaches from down-town.
LA truly is a beautiful city if you take the time to check out the non-tourist areas. I'll always remember the delightful, warm purple afternoons in Silverlake and I'll always have a bit of LA with me wherever I go.
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.
Awesome 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.
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!
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.
Well, both LA and Santa Monica are part of Los Angeles County. Plus, Santa Monica is bordered on all sides by the actual city of LA.
People frequently do refer to many cities in the county as living in LA.
San Jose and San Francisco are in separate counties and are 48 miles apart, while downtown LA to Santa Monica is 16 miles. Also they do not border each other.
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.
Living in LA could mean anything from Brentwood or Bel Air (which I'd strongly argue are not bad places to live) to ghettos in South Central. Most people speak in terms of neighborhoods in LA, and most people consider Santa Monica a kind of neighborhood in LA even though it's a separate city.
Like if I say I live in Marina Del Rey and I have a friend in Santa Monica invite me over, it's not a big deal. That's what important. If I live in SF and a friend in San Jose invites me over, I'm like hmmm do I really want to drive an hour..
Thats like saying living in the tenderloin is a kind of bad place to live but noe valley is not. Both are in SF just like both Santa Monica and downtown LA are considered part of the same "greater LA"
FWIW, I see Santa Monica as being more akin to Berkeley, or even San Francisco, than to LA.
To me, Santa Monica's politics seem much more engaging, idealistic and left-leaning than those of LA. Santa Monica is also much wealthier, on average, than LA.
Because of its greater wealth (or its idealism, you decide) Santa Monica seems to be a better run city with what appear to be better maintained streets and public facilities. It's the kind of city LA residents like to escape to from time to time, if they can afford it.
It's perhaps relevant that Stephen Miller, an influential element of the Trump administration, forged his identity as a reactionary provocateur in the politically correct crucible of Santa Monica High School.
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.
Q: How many Northern Californians does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Hella!
Q: How many Southern Californians does it take to change a lightbulb?
A: Totally!
Hella Nor Cal or Totally So Cal? The Perceptual Dialectology of California [1]
"This study provides the first detailed account of perceptual dialectology within California (as well as one of the first accounts of perceptual dialectology within any single state). Quantitative analysis of a map-labeling task carried out in Southern California reveals that California's most salient linguistic boundary is between the northern and southern regions of the state. Whereas studies of the perceptual dialectology of the United States as a whole have focused almost exclusively on regional dialect differences, respondents associated particular regions of California less with distinctive dialects than with differences in language (English versus Spanish), slang use, and social groups. The diverse sociolinguistic situation of California is reflected in the emphasis both on highly salient social groups thought to be stereotypical of California by residents and nonresidents alike (e.g., surfers) and on groups that, though prominent in the cultural landscape of the state, remain largely unrecognized by outsiders (e.g., hicks)."
Extra credit question:
Can you locate the isogloss [2] designating the "101" / "The 101" line? [3]
As someone who grew up mostly in SF/Oak and now lives in LA, I'm not sure I'd agree. They both have some truly beautiful areas but large parts of SF aren't particularly aesthetically pleasing, at least to me. I grew up mostly in the sunset and I found it fairly drab.
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.