Hello everyone... Welcome to San Fernando Valley

http://dianepernet.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/san_fernando_valley.jpg

Population: 1,808,599 (all part of San Fernando Valley)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v356/mp8shnt/sfv.jpg
Many communities within the San Fernando Valley are part of the City of Los Angeles. (Examples include: Arleta, Canoga Park, Chatsworth, Encino, Granada Hills, Lake View Terrace, Mission Hills, North Hollywood, North Hills, Northridge, Pacoima, Panorama City, Porter Ranch, Reseda, Sherman Oaks, Studio City, Sun Valley, Sunland, Sylmar, Tarzana, Toluca Lake, Tujunga, Van Nuys, Valley Village, West Hills, Winnetka, and Woodland Hills.

Glendale, Burbank, Hidden Hills, San Fernando and Calabasas are out of LA city proper but it's still part of San Fernando Valley.

SFV Picture:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ee/SFValley.jpg/350px-SFValley.jpg
http://www.klimages.com/stock/usa/california/Los_Angeles_Co/images/large/SanFernandoValley0119_05011.jpg
http://www.klimages.com/stock/usa/california/Los_Angeles_Co/images/large/SanFernandoValley0104_05011.jpg
Scroll --------->
http://www.klimages.com/stock/usa/california/Los_Angeles_Co/images/large/SanFernandoValley0130b_050202.jpg
Scroll --------->
http://www.klimages.com/stock/usa/california/Los_Angeles_Co/images/large/SanFernandoValley0150a_050202.jpg
http://www.san-fernando-valley-real-estate.com/web_front.jpg
http://you-are-here.com/location/hansen_dam.jpg
http://image.pegs.com/images/CY/LAXSF/laxsf_b1a.jpg
http://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2004/05/26/129325/cp_parade_transam.jpg
http://www.landscapeonline.com/research/lol/2005/07/img/8573-1
http://www.ahbe.com/portfolio/san_fernando_valley_courthouse/2.jpg
http://www.ahbe.com/portfolio/san_fernando_valley_courthouse/1.jpg
http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~kkao/pictures/batch12/P512sfvy.jpg
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/10/13/photos/wor-valley.jpg
http://www.loshombres.org/californication/LAMarathon/mediafiles/l29.jpg
http://www.lisamorton.com/graphics/firesky.jpg
http://www.valleyofthestars.org/1999-2000/images/estate.jpg
http://www.you-are-here.com/transport/sylmar.jpg
http://transitorienteddevelopment.dot.ca.gov/images/photo/257.jpg
http://www.sarahsu.com/Mariposa/Mariposa-front.jpg
http://www.sarahsu.com/Mariposa/Mariposa-yard.jpg
http://www.sfvfc.org/images/navover2.jpg

Would you like to live here? :)

Warner Center
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Warner_Center_Skyscrapers.jpg/800px-Warner_Center_Skyscrapers.jpg
http://www.interconnection-europe.com/photolarge/discovery/amerique/warner_center/warner01.jpg
http://image.apartmentguide.com/242/46572/photos/up-cidgfz9jittg.jpg

If I had to live in SFV I would reside either in Encino or Sherman Oaks. By the way I read somewhere that the the neighborhoods in the triangle(city of San Fernando-Van Nuys-Sun Valley-SFC) have declined to a point to be considered ghetto, as supposed to couple of decades ago all of SFV was basically a middle class heaven. Is this true?

If I had to live in SFV I would reside either in Encino or Sherman Oaks. By the way I read somewhere that the the neighborhoods in the triangle(city of San Fernando-Van Nuys-Sun Valley-SFC) have declined to a point to be considered ghetto, as supposed to couple of decades ago all of SFV was basically a middle class heaven. Is this true?

Yeah but it's still middle class region in most part of Van Nuys and Sun Valley but there's alot of apartments that supposed to have more latino than white. Pacoima and San Fernando is known as more low class families than middle class. You forgot to mentioned Panorama City and Pacoima so it seems shitty area but it's considered still middle class in some part, just live in houses as middle class and mainly white and asian are homeowners.

Massive sprawl is occured in SFV in from 1950's until 1970's then it's went declined in between 70's until 90's. In late 90's, redevelopment is occuring to fixing the sprawl damage, clean up, new transit mass, torn down the old apartments and replaces new nice apartments, new Target store with cool deco art, improving the school and renovation in old houses.

It's not ghetto but it's have shitty area in some part.

You forgot to mentioned Panorama City and Pacoima so it seems shitty area but it's considered still middle class in some part, just live in houses as middle class and mainly white and asian are homeowners.

I really don't know how to read this and much else that you've written without coming to the conclusion that you are pretty racist.

I really don't know how to read this and much else that you've written without coming to the conclusion that you are pretty racist.

What hell are you talking about? Who cares with racist so nothing is racist then shut the fuck up.

Again, You are racist though. End story.

I remembered the movie Ghostbusters II where Peter Venkmen criticized Vigo for choosing New York when he can choose San Fernando Valley.

Anyway, The San Fernando Valley isn't that bad at all! But it's better to live there if you have a car. If I'm gonna choose where to live in the valley, it's either Burbank, Tarzana or Calabasas.

BTW has anyone seen the movie Lost Angels starring Donald Sutherland and Adam Horovitz of the Beastie Boys? What part of the valley is that in? The last part of the film?

I remembered the movie Ghostbusters II where Peter Venkmen criticized Vigo for choosing New York when he can choose San Fernando Valley.

Anyway, The San Fernando Valley isn't that bad at all! But it's better to live there if you have a car. If I'm gonna choose where to live in the valley, it's either Burbank, Tarzana or Calabasas.

BTW has anyone seen the movie Lost Angels starring Donald Sutherland and Adam Horovitz of the Beastie Boys? What part of the valley is that in? The last part of the film?

how weird, I was just watching GhostBusters II a few hours ago!

I have family in the Valley. Pretty nice place .

I would like to live there

http://www.loshombres.org/californication/LAMarathon/mediafiles/l29.jpg

This image is more convincing that you would wanna live here :)

This thread is such an abuse of the english language. The question makes no sense at all.

This thread is such an abuse of the english language. The question makes no sense at all.

Didn't you read LA Lover's signature?

Here are some cool maps of the Valley:
http://architronic.saed.kent.edu/v6n1/pix/3fig11.jpg
http://www.valleyofthestars.net/Overview/Map%20Location%20San%20Fernando%20Valley%20Chart%203%20OVE.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/92/Wpdms_shdrlfi020l_san_fernando_valley.jpg
http://www.piercecollege.com/offices/weather/images/san_fernando.jpg

Hold on let me get this straight. The SFV is parts of LA and suburbs? I never knew that, I thought it was an Orange Country suburb.

Well.. SFV is alright but much better than Phoenix and Las Vegas...

Hold on let me get this straight. The SFV is parts of LA and suburbs? I never knew that, I thought it was an Orange Country suburb.

Well.. SFV is alright but much better than Phoenix and Las Vegas...

The San Fernando Valley is mostly part of Los Angeles but there are some sub cities like Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, Arcadia and more.

Orange County lies southeast of LA and is far from The Valley.

I think one of the most important things that gives me a picture of what the SFV is like is not even in the valley, but separates it from LA proper: the Santa Monica Mountains.

It utterly amazes me that this range of mountains, not the tallest, but incredibly large to cut across a major US city, permits the valley and LA proper from being the same city.

the secession election aside, I find it hard to believe these two places can actually function as one city. The Santa Monicas clearly create a different world out in the valley and with LA being the majority of the valley, the communities within the city there all seem like their own suburbs.

LA baffles because places like Bev Hills & W. Hwd are smack in the middle of LA proper and a total part of it....yet are independent cities, while much of the SFV and harbor, far removed from the city proper, are not.

Do Angelenos think this is pure insantiy.....not the lay of the land, but municipal boundaries that virtually make no sense?

I don't know... the valley just doesn't seem like my kind of place from those pictures. The closest I've ever been to it is at my cousin's out in San Bernadino County.

This thread is such an abuse of the english language. The question makes no sense at all.

STFU.

I think one of the most important things that gives me a picture of what the SFV is like is not even in the valley, but separates it from LA proper: the Santa Monica Mountains.

It utterly amazes me that this range of mountains, not the tallest, but incredibly large to cut across a major US city, permits the valley and LA proper from being the same city.

the secession election aside, I find it hard to believe these two places can actually function as one city. The Santa Monicas clearly create a different world out in the valley and with LA being the majority of the valley, the communities within the city there all seem like their own suburbs.

LA baffles because places like Bev Hills & W. Hwd are smack in the middle of LA proper and a total part of it....yet are independent cities, while much of the SFV and harbor, far removed from the city proper, are not.

Do Angelenos think this is pure insantiy.....not the lay of the land, but municipal boundaries that virtually make no sense?

Honestly, SFV is real valley cuz you can see big land with round of mountain and can goes there across the freeway.

The San Fernando Valley is mostly part of Los Angeles but there are some sub cities like Burbank, Glendale, Pasadena, Arcadia and more.

Orange County lies southeast of LA and is far from The Valley.

Yeah but Pasadena and Arcadia isn't part of SFV.

I don't know... the valley just doesn't seem like my kind of place from those pictures. The closest I've ever been to it is at my cousin's out in San Bernadino County.

No. SFV is much prettier than San Bernardino County.

San Bernardino County is only have more gangs issue and crime than SFV does but gangs and crime in SFV are dropping since late 90's but murder rate in SFV is around less than 70 per year so much less than Phoenix.

Bump

I use to live in the valley in Northridge and Granada Hills. It's pretty nice imo. I like the weather on the other side of the moutains. Always about 10 or 15 degrees hotter in the valley.

The better question to ask is if the Valley will ever secede form L.A. proper and form it's own city (of about 1.2 million mind you). I believe that it should, since geographically it is seperated, and also from what I saw, it doesn't even resemble the rest of L.A. To be honest I thought it was all suburbia when I was there.

I know a recent referendum on seccesion failed by a close margin.

Yeah the SFV is part of Los Angeles. I didn't even know the SFV population has almost 2 million people alone.

The better question to ask is if the Valley will ever secede form L.A. proper and form it's own city (of about 1.2 million mind you). I believe that it should, since geographically it is seperated, and also from what I saw, it doesn't even resemble the rest of L.A. To be honest I thought it was all suburbia when I was there.

I know a recent referendum on seccesion failed by a close margin.

Yeah, Thanks to god for failed. I'm anti-seccesion and never dock down to be 3rd largest city again.

SFV for me is Tom Petty (vampires on Ventura Blvd), yuppies chased out from Malibu breaks by real surfers (Point Break) and nice silicone ladies taking a break at lunch from their daily schedules in adult entertainment industry (based on my own viewing experiences) :)

I wouldn't mind living in Studio City though. Smog over SFV looks spectacular.

SFV is pretty cool.. but i would only move there if i moved into the west side of it

i wouldnt say i love it though.. im ok with it, but its not love

the valley is, like, one huge mistake. well, it's like, not that bad.

It's alright, but I wouldn't live there.

Yeah but Pasadena and Arcadia isn't part of SFV.

Ok :) Because Pasadena is right beside Glendale and from what I know, Glendale is part of The Valley.

I think one of the most important things that gives me a picture of what the SFV is like is not even in the valley, but separates it from LA proper: the Santa Monica Mountains.

It utterly amazes me that this range of mountains, not the tallest, but incredibly large to cut across a major US city, permits the valley and LA proper from being the same city.

the secession election aside, I find it hard to believe these two places can actually function as one city. The Santa Monicas clearly create a different world out in the valley and with LA being the majority of the valley, the communities within the city there all seem like their own suburbs.

LA baffles because places like Bev Hills & W. Hwd are smack in the middle of LA proper and a total part of it....yet are independent cities, while much of the SFV and harbor, far removed from the city proper, are not.

Do Angelenos think this is pure insantiy.....not the lay of the land, but municipal boundaries that virtually make no sense?I think it very strange that a major city or any city is perforated by a mountain range. The Valley is truly a different place than the rest of LA. Los Angeles would be smaller than NYC w/o The Valley. In almost every way The Valley is different from the rest of LA, I hardly ever go there eventhough they do have a subway stop.

It doesn't seem as bad as some make it out to be.

Reminds me of that "typical" American suburb that Hollywood likes to project.
Except that it's a major chunk in area and population of the US's second largest city.

The valley is a lot less different from the rest of LA than Staten Island is from the rest of New York City. It is quite a big place, larger geographically than Chicago and with almost two million inhabitants. IT is half of the city of LA and it does function. The best built subway line connects North Hollywood with Hollywood proper and Downtown. There are richer and poorer sections of the SFV but the nicest parts, Encino, Tarzana, Sherman Oaks, and Studio City are very nice places to live. I used to work in the Valley and could live there though I prefer Santa Monica because it is cooler and closer to the Beach. I would much rather live in the Valley than Staten Island, all things being equal.

i prefer Santa Monica.

Hey you forgot that Northridge, Granada Hills, Porter Ranch, West Hills, Woodland Hills, Chatsworth are all pretty nice areas in the Valley.

As a teenager I had always dreamed of living in the SFV, but now I have no desire. It has suburban parts, and the weather is a bit more extreme (very hot and more sunshine in the summer, and colder in the winter). The west valley is also very lush, and I do like the tree canopy you see on many of the residental streets.

In some ways it has a different feel than in the basin, but in other ways it feels very much like the city. The valley has some pretty dense areas, and traffic is pretty bad as well. I think one thing thats a bit more noticable is bus service isn't as good as over in the basin, but even thats changing.

Overall I don't think the valley is a bad place to live, its just not where I perfer to live.

The only disadvantage I find with SFV is the climate during the summers. Some parts of the Valley can reach up to 40 C like Woodland Hills

idk Ive never been but from movies and TV shows it seems like just the suburbs I would probley chosse Venice Beach over it.

Rural China is more dense than this, so I barely think it belongs in the Citytalk Forums. ;)

I lived in Northridge for a year, have family in the valley. To me the San Fernando Valley is NOTHING but one gigantic strip mall. If you don't own a car, you're screwed. It's not urban at all, it is just a HUGE suburb. All of the towns run together, there isn't anything unique about them. You can spend 15 minutes in Northridge, drive to Van Nuys and you would never be able to tell the difference. One exception is West Hills, that's a nice little place. Reason being you don't see shopping carts left on the sidewalks, it's clean and it generally seems that the residents there actually care about their little town.

All in all, the SFV is a shining example of how NOT to successfully plan an urban area. What a shame...

...You can spend 15 minutes in Northridge, drive to Van Nuys and you would never be able to tell the difference....
that's because they are the same city

Rural China is more dense than this, so I barely think it belongs in the Citytalk Forums. ;)

SFV is one large urban area isn't it? And it's part of LA so it's Citytalk :)

I personally live in Glendale which is part of SFV. It's a pretty safe city I would say and it feels very urban and dense to me.

Ok :) Because Pasadena is right beside Glendale and from what I know, Glendale is part of The Valley.

You are oversimplifying the geography and the boundaries of neighborhoods and cities. Only the hilly and less populated N.E. section of Glendale borders on Pasadena and La Canada-Flintridge, neither of which any longtime Angeleno I've known would consider part of the SFV. And that part of Glendale, including Montrose, traverses yet another range of steep hills (mountains to some Skyscraper members).

Pasadena and communities like Arcadia are usually considered part of the San Gabriel Valley.

Some would argue that Glendale and parts of northeast L.A. (i.e. Eagle Rock) are a transitional area between the two big "valleys." Most of the flatlands in central and southern Glendale are geographically closer to Atwater and Los Feliz (to the SW), Eagle Rock (to the East), and Glassell Park (to the SE) than they are to the expanse of the SFV, parts of which are over 10 miles away. But if you want to call Glendale part of the SFV, go ahead.

Eagle Rock, though (it's between east central Glendale and the SW part of Pasadena), is definitely not SFV--in looks or mentality.

i love it:) and i used to live there for almost 7 years:)

SFV seems OK. Could be a city in its own right. But should stay part of LA.

For those of you from southeast Asia:

* The San Fernando Valley is roughly the same size as the island/country/city of Singapore.

* The entire Metro Manila area can fit inside the San Fernando Valley (SFV traffic moves much more faster though :))

I live on the more livelier side of the hill, but I'd rather live in the SFV than the OC or IE ANY DAY!!!

You are oversimplifying the geography and the boundaries of neighborhoods and cities. Only the hilly and less populated N.E. section of Glendale borders on Pasadena and La Canada-Flintridge, neither of which any longtime Angeleno I've known would consider part of the SFV. And that part of Glendale, including Montrose, traverses yet another range of steep hills (mountains to some Skyscraper members).


Glendale IS part of the SFV, but La Canada-Flintridge are in their *own* valley: The Crescenta Valley.

As I wrote, I'm not going to argue about whether Glendale is considered SFV or not. It isn't worth it.

The poster to whom I was responding mentioned Pasadena. He didn't seem to realize that Eagle Rock--a NORTHEAST Los Angeles area--lies between east central Glendale and Pasadena.

And regardless of Glendale being in the SFV, many areas are older and bear little resemblance to the photos in this thread. Geographically, Los Feliz, Atwater, Glassell Park, and Silver Lake are closer to the southern portions of Glendale than are nearly all the other SFV areas. You cross railroad tracks--and voila, you're in Atwater. You cross a boundary along Verdugo-- and voila, you're in Glassell Park. Those areas are much closer than, say, Northridge or Van Nuys. If you don't know that, you don't know the area.

I wouldn't want to live in the SFV unless you are counting Pasadena then I would live there...maybe.

You are oversimplifying the geography and the boundaries of neighborhoods and cities. Only the hilly and less populated N.E. section of Glendale borders on Pasadena and La Canada-Flintridge, neither of which any longtime Angeleno I've known would consider part of the SFV. And that part of Glendale, including Montrose, traverses yet another range of steep hills (mountains to some Skyscraper members).

Pasadena and communities like Arcadia are usually considered part of the San Gabriel Valley.

Some would argue that Glendale and parts of northeast L.A. (i.e. Eagle Rock) are a transitional area between the two big "valleys." Most of the flatlands in central and southern Glendale are geographically closer to Atwater and Los Feliz (to the SW), Eagle Rock (to the East), and Glassell Park (to the SE) than they are to the expanse of the SFV, parts of which are over 10 miles away. But if you want to call Glendale part of the SFV, go ahead.

Eagle Rock, though (it's between east central Glendale and the SW part of Pasadena), is definitely not SFV--in looks or mentality.

Ok Pasadena is part of San Gabriel. But San Fernando and San Gabriel valleys form one large urban or suburban area. Long time ago, these were rural farms.

As far as succession, the west valley should succeed and the East valley should remain part of LA because it is definitely more urban in nature than the west valley. I also think that each neighborhood in the west valley should become it's own city. My favorite neighborhoods in the west valley:
Encino
Woodland Hills
Chatsworth

Rural China is more dense than this, so I barely think it belongs in the Citytalk Forums. ;)

No, it's not.
The Valley has a population of 1.8 million in 345 sq. miles.

I hate the vibe of SFV

What.. where is san valley? Is it in Hollywood/LA? Im confuscious???? and wats up with the question??? dont make sense. This thread should be called CONFUSION

What.. where is san valley? Is it in Hollywood/LA? Im confuscious???? and wats up with the question??? dont make sense. This thread should be called CONFUSION

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Fernando_Valley

I hate the vibe of SFV

Some areas in the valley have a vibrant nightlife such as Burbank.

No, it's not.
The Valley has a population of 1.8 million in 345 sq. miles.

I'd like to know where you got these stats from......so that means that the rest of Los Angeles is only 124 sq miles and that's not taking into consideration of the mountains w/ 2.2 million people...That area is smaller than Chicago......who said LA wasn't dense???

What.. where is san valley? Is it in Hollywood/LA? Im confuscious???? and wats up with the question??? dont make sense. This thread should be called CONFUSION

Why the confusion? Simple. LA is bisected by a mountain range which on the other side of that range lies....a valley, the San Fernando Valley. Not all of it is the city of Los Angeles but most of it is. Originally the valley was not part of Los Angeles up until the early part of last century. Basically LA the original city needed access to water so acquired the area. Hollywood, downtown, the cities of Beverly Hills and Santa Monica along w/ Venice Beach are all on the other side of the hill called the basin. According to a previous post the basin area of the city of LA has around 2.2 million people in about 124 sq miles. The Valley side has 1.8 million in an area of 345sq miles or so. Actually the basin side is much more congested because we are not counting the population of indepedent cities that are physically surrounded by the city of Los Angeles such as Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Santa Monica. Then their are also areas that are neither cities nor part of the city of Los Angeles such as Baldwin Hills, Ladera Heights, Marina Del Rey......I hope this cleared up any confusion you might hold regarding the great City Of Los Angeles.