Los angeles when you here the word??
what do you think of Los Angeles the city??
i want to know the british view of LA?????

I'm a Brit in LA and it is a very eclectic place. It is a huge metropolis but the individual "cities" that make up LA are very proud of their own standings within CA. Example, Hollywood which is about 7 miles from DTLA mostly always is followed by CA and zipcode, and hardly ever Los Angeles. But you can tell that the whole urban population of 12 million (3 million in LA city) is collectively behind the metro city idea. Where do you live Joey? I'm currently in Northridge, in the Valley.

Everyone I know who has been there has said it's an incredible, bizarre, place, but hasn't recommended visiting it. They noted the lack of a city centre and terrible transport issues mostly.

When I think of Los Angeles, I think of the Library Tower and then I think smog. Then I think Mexicans, then I think Compton and finally I think "That place needs help"

An incredible place... but you need lots of money to enjoy it.

An incredible place... but you need lots of money to enjoy it.

Ain't that true for most places around the world?

"..........sprawled-out. Disconnected............".

The words of Tom Cruise's Vincent in the fantastic movie, Collateral.

Well I'm afraid that I'd have to agree. For me a city has to have a definable city centre that you can walk around and soak up that big-city feel. New York has it, Paris has it, Tokyo has it and London has it. Now I've never been to LA, but people I know who have been there say that they spent the whole time searching for the city centre. Also, I don't like the idea of needing a car to get you from A to B. I love using public transport when I'm in a new city, travelling on the metro, getting the feel for the city's people and street-culture. I don't think that you get that when you're driving around.

Now, this is just my opinion. there are probably plenty of people in LA who don't like London because the weather sucks and we don't have the outdoor lifestyle that cities like LA and Sydney have and I would respect their opinion.

The thing is, we all have our own likes and dislikes and quite often the things that we like are the things that we grew up with, so for me, I'll always prefer cities with a slightly older feel, nice architecture, world-class museums and art-galleries and a buzzing, cosmopolitan feel. My cities of choice would therefore be New York, Paris, Rome, Berlin and of course, London!

I'm sorry but when I went I really didn't like it: Full of pollution, oppressive streets with huge motorways, congestion, impossible to get a feel of and a lack of street life. That said, I found Venice Beach a really interesting, quirky place and I was only there for about three days.

Its got interesting topography, and pockets of beauty...however, I don't like the car culture either. I also don't really like the stip-mall architecture. I do like the beautiful hill side houses with pools and lovley lush vegetation everywhere.. however, i assume one must be very wealthy to afford such houses. Santa Monica was Ok, the pedestrian street was nice but lacking in architectural quality. I was shocked at the ugliness of some roadways like Route 1 through the L.A area. I love BH and Bel Air. Hollywood is OK. I dislike the mexican bazar downtown. Ghetty center is nice.

I like the city, and find it full of energy and opportunity to improve.

I think of Raymond Chandler.

This got me thinking...after looking at the HK thread over on the world forums with its buz and energy, its color and human interactivity, how LA just cannot compare at all due to its car culture. That is what L.A needs to aim for to be honest, but it will never have it due to its spread out nature...afterall, HK is so compact. L.A should have put its CBD on the coast, allowing people to easily interact with the waterfront and beaches.. In fact, the CBD would have been great where Long Beach is....I think the fact that there are so many CBD's in the l.a area, so many town centers, reduces critical mass in one central location which in turn destroys any semblance of a real urban conglomeration.

LA was always meant to be a polycentric place with a no one core as it sprawled and sprung up many areas of unique identity, people have argued that this is infact a vision of the future city and that LA is on the edge. I think it is an extreme City but that doesnt mean to say it is a pointing in a useful direction.

Well, tokyo is polycentric too - look how livley its streets are due to its transport system .. If L.A were to have such a train system, perhaps it could be similar.

As Potto pointed out, it is simply a different model for a city. I like the fact that LA is unlike most other places It provides an alternative for those of us who prefer not to live in a centralized high density city. While many of the problems LA suffers are due to congestion and pollution resulting from its car based structure, it is not outside the realms of possibility that new techology (car guidance systems) and clean fuel could resolve these over the next few generations. Then a city based around personalized transportation may be THE model for future city growth.

Los Angeles is a city that most don't understand or just can't accept that it works as a city. Especially Europeans and US Northeasterners. I didn't at first. But the city functions and its sucessful in doing so. It has its expensive million dollar homes and amazing shopping areas and some wonderful neighborhoods. Yes most can't accept Los Angeles the way it is. It is not well connected. But the reality is that Los Angeles was built with the automobile in mind. That is part of its history. Unlike cities in the northeast and deffenetly most of Europe. That is why it lacks a good public transportation system. But the whole urban living thing is taking off in Los Angeles and people are buying it. So Los Angeles in the end will be an understandable city for most. Maybe more public transit sytem will follow aswell.

I found LA to be a bit of a let down to be honest. My first impressions were from looking down on it from the plane and the place is huge. I have to say that i didn't really see anyone when i was in LA. Most cities i go to are busy places with lots of people out and about but LA was dead. I went to Longbeach, went to a restraunt opposite some big convention center. The road was so quite although the restraunt had people in. Went to the Queen Mary and again it was pretty quiet. Went to that place with the expensive shops on, again dead although there was a fashion show being set up. The Waner Brothers studio was empty.

So basically the only people we really saw were other American tourists.

Now SanFransisco is a fantasitc place. Lively, lots of little streets with art studios, independant bars. China town, the town hall, trams and the surrounding area is beautiful.

I guess LA's problem is it doesn't really have any opportunities for people watching. LA is a series of attractions connected by highways. As a tourist i always want to experience living in a city. If i go to Barcelona i want to go to the little tapas bars, walk through the guadi Park, hire bikes and cycle into the hills. In Rome id want to go to tour the fountains and visit historical sites etc etc

Thats odd.....
You should of whent to Hollywood would of found all the people you need.
Or go to a mall,walmart,Downtown........

the shape of Los Angeles was determined by a railway, the Pacific Electric Railway, and the urban area originally grew along it's lines.

The railway was purchased by a consortium of companies from the automobile industry and the railway was dug up and freeways laid along it's routes.

I visited in 2000. From the aeroplane all I saw was smog and dirt :ohno: . The skyline, though impressive, hasn't really changed much in about 10 years and the suberbs were pretty scary to drive through. Yeah I'm sure there are nice places on the hills, but don't they get burnt down every few years due to fire? The tourist attractions (Universal Studios, Disney etc), however, were a world away from the grime of LA, and were superbly put together.

I was at Universal Studios when they were filming 'The Mummy Returns' and it was great how the public could sit and watch the filming process. The shows were excellent, the tour was amazing (I patted Jaws on the head) and the Jurassic Park boat ride was the best ride I have ever been on.
Seeing the Tyrannosaurus lurch forwards at you was surreal, and then the huge drop afterwards was sooo scary!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v507/Lovie2002/T-Rex.jpg = :eek:
I recommend Uni Studios for anyone visitng LA. :)

I also got a taste of baseball, as my hotel near Disneyland (which was equally as good as Uni Studios, if for a younger audience) was not too far from the Anaheim Angels' baseball ground. I got a great seat, and had a good chat with locals about all things baseball, and all things food.
http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e204/jforty/100_0274.jpg

I think the Los Angeles is quite overlooked by the British, as we are so used to seeing Hollywood on television that we forget LA itself. I'd visit again for sure, but I'd keep well on the tourist routes. :)

I respect Los Angeles more than I like it. It's an enormously influential city because of Hollywood and it's also wealthy and full of immigrant communities from all over the world. However I don't really like it. It's just far too suburban. There's no urban feel there. It also has a very superior attitude that is not matched by the city's actual level of sophistication. Angelenos struck me as being very ignorant about the world outside for the inhabitants of such a diverse city.

Yes, but you can't beat the weather in comparison to London, Paris, etc.. even NYC has a crap climate in comparison. Its so nice, clear and dry, never too cold nor too hot. The summer humidity on the east coast is horrible..its like living in the wet tropics for 3 months in D.C, and to a lesser extent NYC.

I took some pics of Downtown L.A maybe this is what kind of Urban living your looking for.....

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00236-1.jpg
ORPHEUM Theatre
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00224.jpg
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00223.jpg
Renovations
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00263.jpg
655 Hope
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00250.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00218.jpg
7th and Broadway (soon to be filled with fine dinning)
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00199-1.jpg

AON Tower
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00209-1.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00249.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00252.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00253.jpg
US Bank Tower
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00258.jpg
Awsome building
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00270.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00210-1.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00211.jpg
my fav Historic building in LA
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00203.jpg


http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00204.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00208.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00206.jpg


http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00201.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00205.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00189.jpg
Los Angeles Theatre
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00193.jpg
Closer view
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00194.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00184.jpg

http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00183.jpg



SUnny Day but it was not that hot just looks like it LOLOL
http://i58.photobucket.com/albums/g280/Joey313_photos/DSC00267.jpg

i think for along time in the 80's and 90's LA represented to europeans what most people hate about america - individualism, greed, and superficiality.

lately the impression i get is that its started to move on, they are building a metro, and trying to move away from the my home is my castle and i'll kill you if you come near me attitude that most europeans find repulsive about the states, but in particular, california and LA.

LA is one of the biggest cities in the world, but its not really a city is it? its a large collection of closed off, private, fuck you, housing. Go to Madrid, Paris, Berlin, Barcelona.. then you'll know what a real city feels like.

i havent been to LA however, so im basing what i say on pure prejudice and second hand information. I have been to seattle, and i imagine its a bit like that but not as pretty. Seattles city centre is no bigger than the main street in wigan. Pretty poor really.

Seattles city centre is no bigger than the main street in wigan. Pretty poor really.
Are you sure you were in Seattle?

Are you sure you were in Seattle?

yeah about 10 years ago though, so granted my memory might be bad, and it might have changed a bit. The kingdome is not there anymore. i remember they had a market and an fish and chip shop. I know they have big skyscrapers etc, but they are not really part of any centre. US cities look good from the distance, for postcards, but when you are actually in what is supposed to be the city centre, there is very little to offer other than offices and private buildings. From what i remember of the states, people dont really see the city centre as a place to go for the day, they go to the local shopping malls, or the ball game instead. US cities, especially in the west, have nothing historic as they are not old enough. I think its easy to confuse british culture as being similar to american because of the common language but in reality britain resembles much more northern france, west germany, holland and belgium than the states. US culture is totally different, after all they only have 500 years of history. They have had to invent who they are. I always felt that they built tall buildings etc to compensate for the lack of historical buildings.

ithe my home is my castle and i'll kill you if you come near me attitude that most europeans find repulsive about the states, but in particular, california and LA.

You're actually wrong on this statement... I'd put California in a category of having some of the most accepting people in America. You're stereotyping a red-state mindstate, meanwhile California is one of the most liberal states in America.

LA looks stunning from those pictures!!!

Ive never been to LA before, but its definatly on the list. Im a bit paranoid though as i dont wanna get shot. Virtualy everything i know about LA is from films ive seen and they all involve criminal gangs and crime, in fact dont think ive ever seen an american film without a gun featured. America scares me..

yeah about 10 years ago though, so granted my memory might be bad, and it might have changed a bit. The kingdome is not there anymore. i remember they had a market and an fish and chip shop. I know they have big skyscrapers etc, but they are not really part of any centre. US cities look good from the distance, for postcards, but when you are actually in what is supposed to be the city centre, there is very little to offer other than offices and private buildings. From what i remember of the states, people dont really see the city centre as a place to go for the day, they go to the local shopping malls, or the ball game instead. US cities, especially in the west, have nothing historic as they are not old enough. I think its easy to confuse british culture as being similar to american because of the common language but in reality britain resembles much more northern france, west germany, holland and belgium than the states. US culture is totally different, after all they only have 500 years of history. They have had to invent who they are. I always felt that they built tall buildings etc to compensate for the lack of historical buildings.
Uhh, I think your memory is bad, because Seattle is one of the most vibrant cities in the states and is known for having one of the best downtowns in the U.S. I think everyone is aware that the U.S. is a much younger country than any in Europe, yet it is very euro-centric to believe that the U.S. has no history before your arrival at its shores. Have you ever seen a Navajo indian pueblo tucked into the side of a canyon cliff. I have and its amazing. I don't think many confuse British to American culture unless they are severely misinformed. Yes, we've had to invent as we went along as all countries do on a daily basis regardless of age.. and while we were inventing we came up with rockn'roll, jazz, gospel, blues, rap, hip hop, funk, the internet, the light bulb, NASA, etc..etc..oh yeah, and skyscrapers. you know for which this site is named and that you probably look at on a daily basis. We're just trying to compensate I guess.

of course the US has no History
and L.A has very little history compared to British Cities. What i find Interesting is how America with no History managed to get to the Top.
I think L.A is a very Interesting city its different from many other cities its a new breed of cities and L.A is changing with new development and proposed projects. Cant wait to see L.A ten years from now.
o and no you wont get shot in L.A its not that bad.

http://www.inhabitat.com/images/lariver.jpg

I always think of the concrete river.

yes...........thats an eye sore
but their are plans to fix all that up hopefully

yes...........thats an eye sore
but their are plans to fix all that up hopefully

I like it

i flew into LA a few years back - saw the fattest woman i have ever seen in the flesh - in the car hire place next to the arrivals gate - had an ass that was at 90 degrees to her spine, you could have balanced a vase on her backside!

drove on the 101 freeway out to santa barbara - which was amazing - really nice, smart rich place

spent most of the holiday there so didnt see much actual LA, but from the TV in England, it is percieved as...
1) glitz/glamour
2) Many Famous people live there
3) Loads of gangs, guns, murders, all split into blocks
4) smog
5) hot
6) brilliant beaches
7) mecca of film making

I took some pics of Downtown L.A maybe this is what kind of Urban living your looking for.....Those are well selected photos but cummon LA is definitely not urban. LA's downtown is absolutely tiny. Hollywood is livelier but Hollywood already feels suburban.

I think the LA riots and the gang problems had a terrible effect on outsiders perception of the place. It wasnt helped through the 80`s and 90`s with rap bands glorifying the south central gang culture plus films such as falling down showcasing the seedy side of the city. Added to that was the general perceptoin that the city was an endless sprawl constantly clogged with traffic.

From what I understand things have moved on hugely. I read somewhere that the infamous south central area of the city has been renamed and `rebranded` as Southern LA to try to shake of the negative associations. In fact I understand that gentrification is sweeping accross the city and taking with it many of the old problems. Add in the serious effort to create a useable public transport system and create higher density and I'd say LA is really reinventing itself.

Unfortunately perceptions take a long time to change. Its odd really that LA is still viewed as a sprawling nothingness when in reality its fairly dense when compared to cities such as Pheonix. I guess it will just take time for people to re-visit the city and reform their opinions of the place.

^ I was there two years ago and it's a giant suburb as much as ever. People drive everywhere!

Ive never been to LA before, but its definatly on the list. Im a bit paranoid though as i dont wanna get shot. Virtualy everything i know about LA is from films ive seen and they all involve criminal gangs and crime, in fact dont think ive ever seen an american film without a gun featured. America scares me..

Los Angeles is the second safest big city in America after New York City. Stay out of South Central and you will be just fine.

^ I was there two years ago and it's a giant suburb as much as ever. People drive everywhere!

Excuse me, but Los Angeles is not a suburb. CORRECTION: The sprawling suburban cities are Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta. Their population densities are in the 3,000's while LA's population density is approaching 9,000. In fact, Los Angeles has a greater population density than Seattle. You are certainly wrong on your claim of LA having no urbanity. It's there alright, and you can definitely walk in these areas. It's just that you have to drive to these places first. Take a look at these photos. Do these look like suburbs to you?

From Flickr, by manna from the heavens:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/106/298365570_3298902907_b.jpg

From Flickr, by .Nikki:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/140/349344515_fb97ebcb59_o.jpg

By ChrisLA:

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/3974/koreantwn1301bu.jpg

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/3681/koreantwn1327hm.jpg

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/5323/koreantwn1338yj.jpg

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/1524/koreantwn1352iv.jpg

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/2498/koreantwn1276wn.jpg

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/1518/koreantwn1263to.jpg

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/2223/koreantwn1688bm.jpg

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/8206/koreantwn1879mh.jpg

By Urban Sky:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v466/urban_sky/DSC01549.jpg

i flew into LA a few years back - saw the fattest woman i have ever seen in the flesh - in the car hire place next to the arrivals gate - had an ass that was at 90 degrees to her spine, you could have balanced a vase on her backside!

drove on the 101 freeway out to santa barbara - which was amazing - really nice, smart rich place

spent most of the holiday there so didnt see much actual LA, but from the TV in England, it is percieved as...
1) glitz/glamour
2) Many Famous people live there
3) Loads of gangs, guns, murders, all split into blocks
4) smog
5) hot
6) brilliant beaches
7) mecca of film making

I would love for Europeans to forget all of that and instead think of LA as more of a cultural destination. Are there any Europeans out there who are aware of LA's cultural attractions?

^ Well you believe that LA's urban if you want. Noone outside of North America is going to take you very seriously though. ;)

The fact that people like you write off a city that's culturally and ethnically unique and diverse as Los Angeles with such a global profile, worldwide recognition, and strong regional dominance speaks a lot. In that sense, how can Los Angeles NOT be urban? It's official name is the City of Los Angeles. Do you really believe you can fully assess LA's urbanity even though you are located some 6,000 miles away with little knowledge (obviously) of LA? Has it ever occurred to you that LA may not seem urban to you because you have not visited any of the urban neighborhoods? A lot of the people who live in Downtown LA, Hollywood, and Koreatown have access to the subway and do walk actually. With the exception of Hollywood, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood, the tourist destinations aren't as urban as the ones posted in the above photos.

BTW, the person who used Berlin as an example of an urban city should know that Berlin's population density isn't that much higher than Los Angeles's population density.

LA's urbanity may not be continuous but your statement of LA having "no urban feel" is just absolutely ludicrious. You're obviously mistaken, because the photos I posted are of neighborhoods that most certainly possess an "urban feel" to some degree at least. I don't think you can deny that. If this isn't urban, then I don't know what is...

By alex3000:

http://img345.imageshack.us/img345/8183/dsc000015al.jpg

http://img434.imageshack.us/img434/8554/dsc000106mq.jpg

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/3672/dsc000152gh.jpg

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/7742/dsc000187xo.jpg

http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/122/dsc000195ys.jpg

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/3020/dsc000258py.jpg

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/4116/dsc000388tr.jpg

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/4717/dsc001224fo.jpg

http://img459.imageshack.us/img459/1269/dsc001318sf.jpg

http://img374.imageshack.us/img374/3300/dsc001344pc.jpg

http://img476.imageshack.us/img476/2504/dsc001277sx.jpg

http://img476.imageshack.us/img476/6595/dsc001300zr.jpg

The fact that people like you write off a city that's culturally and ethnically unique and diverse as Los Angeles with such a global profile, worldwide recognition, and strong regional dominance speaks a lot. In that sense, how can Los Angeles NOT be urban? It's official name is the City of Los Angeles. Do you really believe you can fully assess LA's urbanity even though you are located some 6,000 miles away with little knowledge (obviously) of LA? Has it ever occurred to you that LA may not seem urban to you because you have not visited any of the urban neighborhoods? A lot of the people who live in Downtown LA, Hollywood, and Koreatown have access to the subway and do walk actually. With the exception of Hollywood, Santa Monica, and West Hollywood, the tourist destinations aren't as urban as the ones posted in the above photos.

BTW, the person who used Berlin as an example of an urban city should know that Berlin's population density isn't that much higher than Los Angeles's population density.I never wrote off LA or refused to recognise it's cultural influence and diversity. Read my words from earlier in this thread:I respect Los Angeles more than I like it. It's an enormously influential city because of Hollywood and it's also wealthy and full of immigrant communities from all over the world. However I don't really like it. It's just far too suburban. There's no urban feel there....However I stand by my assertion that LA is not urban. I have been to Downtown and Hollywood and many other districts besides. Some of them are attractive and interesting but they are not very urban. Berlin has a much larger city centre and stronger urban feel than LA. LA is easily the least urban city of its' size anywhere in the world.

Okay, so tell me. How do YOU define "urban?" We can cross off density from the list, since obviously Berlin isn't that much denser that Los Angeles. I fail to see how Downtown LA (Historic Core) and Hollywood are not urban. That is just ridiculous. Hollywood Blvd. has a steady strem of foot traffic throughout the day and its retail strip is continuous. From what it sounds like on SSC and SSP, urban is defined as pedestrian friendly environments well served by mass transit. Downtown LA and Hollywood most certainly fit that description. You many not find LA as a whole urban but saying that the city is devoid of any kind of urbanity is absolutely ridiculous. I repeat, how can Downtown LA and Hollywood not be urban? They certainly aren't suburban.

^ "Urban" is not defined solely by population density. The City of London (London's financial district and the eastern part of central London) has the highest building density anywhere in Europe. It has a huge daytime population. However on residential population density maps it ranks lower than many far flung suburbs as few people live there. It's all commerical office space. Berlin is not quite as extreme an example as the City of London but central Berlin is largely commercial and office space rather than residential. Pedestrian density is certainly aided by mass transit and central Berlin has a lot more of both of those than any part of LA. LA is easily the least urban city of its' size anywhere in the world. LA is by far the least dense 10 million+ city/metro in the world and the only comparably suburban cities I can think of are some others in North America.

There ARE parts of Los Angeles that are denser than Berlin. In fact there are parts of LA that rival Manhattan.

Based on your European standards, the brownstones of Boston and Philly and the rowhouses of San Francisco are not urban. I know exactly what you are talking about when you are referring to the built up density commonly found in European cities. It's that typical street lined with 5-6 story apartment buildings with street retail. In the US, our version of that is the brownstone or the rowhouse. So by European standards, there are very few areas of the US that are urban. Based on European standards, the only urban areas of the US are the downtowns of some cities and places like Morningside Heights in Manhattan and Washington, DC's downtown, which looks VERY European. And in LA, our version of the brownstone/rowhouse is this:

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b43/samceb/ktown.jpg

^And those people have access to the subway as well as many commerical corridors.

I guess I will end by saying that European urbanity is very different from the urbanity found in States. By your standards, true urbanity isn't found in the neighborhoods of SF with the rowhouses or the area of Boston known as Beacon Hill. However, by US standards those (including LA's version of the rowhouse/browstone) areas are considered urban.

One last thing, the pics I posted of Downtown LA's Historic Core certainly show that part of Downtown to be built up and they EASILY match the built up density of many European cities.

The main difference is that streets in old Europe are narrow, about 10 metres 'wide'. LA looks nice on many of the photos but not busy or crowded in any way. On the above photo, the lawns seem around 10 metres already. Plus the street itself plus the lawns on the other side, make those roads almost thrice wide.

^Those pics were taken very early in the morning.

Well in the US, you will seldom find narrow, pedestrian-only streets. There are a few in Boston and Philly, but that's pretty much it. But those have more of a village like-quality to them.

One last thing, the pics I posted of Downtown LA's Historic Core certainly show that part of Downtown to be built up and they EASILY match the built up density of many European cities.But Downtown LA is tiny! LA has a metro population of 16 million yet the Downtown is just a few blocks!! Compare that to, say, Barcelona, where the metro population is just 4 million, and where dense apartment buildings extend continuously for miles on end. There's no comparison! LA's public transportation network is also tiny even compared to much smaller European cities. LA is about suburbs and cars whether you like it or not. It's not urban or dense at all. Like I said before it's easily the least dense city of it's size anywhere in the world.

^In terms of population density, are you sure it's the least dense?

http://www.douban.com/lpic/s1430698.jpg
I think of this

But Downtown LA is tiny! LA has a metro population of 16 million yet the Downtown is just a few blocks!! Compare that to, say, Barcelona, where the metro population is just 4 million, and where dense apartment buildings extend continuously for miles on end. There's no comparison! LA's public transportation network is also tiny even compared to much smaller European cities. LA is about suburbs and cars whether you like it or not. It's not urban or dense at all. Like I said before it's easily the least dense city of it's size anywhere in the world.

LA's public transportation network isn't small...maybe in terms of rail but when you count the bus network it's very large. In fact, LA has by far the second highest bus ridership in the US. LOL, I think I would know my city better than you. YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING AT ALL, YOU MORON. It's urban and dense. 'Nuff said.

IDIOT.

^ I'm not ignorant. I've been to LA and all over the world. LA is definitely not dense and urban. In fact it's the least dense and urban 10 million+ city/metro ON THE PLANET!!

I posted photos of neighborhoods in Los Angeles (city) with high population densities with access to subways, busses, corporate offices, restaurants, retail, the works and you STILL deny that as being urban. What a load of crap. Those neighborhoods possess ALL the characterisitics of an urban environment. LA's urbanity may not be continuous, because you have to drive to these urban pockets, but it's there. And being to a city once or twice does not make you an expert.

LOL, BTW a lot of the cities in Europe feel more village-like rather than urban. I certainly wouldn't regard Positano, Italy as being more urban than Los Angeles, one of the world's ten Alpha cities.

Your arguments are dull and I have refuted each and every one of them. I'm done with you.

MOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOONNNNNNNNN!

some pics i found on L.a
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/cwl989/Los%20Angeles/SchoolLATrip041.jpg

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d44/tamarabasinamerika/SUC50623-1.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j268/NamiSaysYeah/feb2007038.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/DaveofCali/lafreeways.jpg

I posted photos of neighborhoods in Los Angeles (city) with high population densities with access to subways, busses, corporate offices, restaurants, retail, the works and you STILL deny that as being urban. What a load of crap. Those neighborhoods possess ALL the characterisitics of an urban environment. LA's urbanity may not be continuous, because you have to drive to these urban pockets, but it's there. And being to a city once or twice does not make you an expert.

LOL, BTW a lot of the cities in Europe feel more village-like rather than urban. I certainly wouldn't regard Positano, Italy as being more urban than Los Angeles, one of the world's ten Alpha cities.

Your arguments are dull and I have refuted each and every one of them. I'm done with you.

MOOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRROOOOOOONNNNNNNNN!Positano is a village you fool!

^In terms of population density, are you sure it's the least dense?Can you think of any 10 million+ city/metro anywhere in the world that is less dense? I know I can't.... :dunno:

Can you think of any 10 million+ city/metro anywhere in the world that is less dense? I know I can't.... :dunno:

NYC metro isn't much more dense.

NYC metro isn't much more dense.I find that a little surprising given how much denser the urban core of New York is than Los Angeles, but then I suppose the New York metro, with its' 22 million population, 3 x the population of NYC itself, must sprawl over a vast area and the peripheries of that area must be low density. However it's denser nonetheless.

I prefer Northern US cities (New York, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia etc.) because they look denser, they are less car oriented and they have a lot of old architecture. As I have said before, that's probably because I'm European and these cities feel more European than Southern US cities. Perhaps people from cities in Australia and South Africa would prefer LA to New York because it has more open space, it is more modern, has similar weather and a similar lifestyle with all the beaches etc.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b43/samceb/ktown.jpg

I think that looks terrible. Anyway, I will say no more as I have never set foot in this city.

^LOL, you're an idiot...as well as one of the biggest trolls on SSC.

^LOL, you're an idiot...as well as one of the biggest trolls on SSC.

what the hell? how about instead of calling everyone names, you engage in a discussion?

^That forumer has a long history of entering numerous threads and trolling in them, especially in the Cityscapes and Skyline Photos. He never has anything good to say and always has to add his smart little remarks.

^That forumer has a long history of entering numerous threads and trolling in them, especially in the Cityscapes and Skyline Photos. He never has anything good to say and always has to add his smart little remarks.


Go back to LA forums little man.

^That forumer has a long history of entering numerous threads and trolling in them, especially in the Cityscapes and Skyline Photos. He never has anything good to say and always has to add his smart little remarks.

Sorry but the thread title is "What do you think of LA?", I thought you wanted to hear peoples opinions right?

Go back to LA forums little man.

LOL, this is my last post EVER in this thread. :)

All right. You people have been rather fair...I guess. But you have to admit, the topic to begin with was bound for destruction. A lot of the Europeans here really DON'T know what LA is all about. Educating people on LA's true identity and merits is something I actually enjoy. The ignorace of some of the forumers here can only be taken with pride because I feel that it just reaffirms my personal connection with this city. LA will always be thought of as a sprawling suburb with no urbanity, culture, or sense of reality. But I, a resident of this great city, know the true LA...and that's something an outsider (especially a European) will never be able to fully understand. Bye. :)

Oh, and to SuomiPoikia. Although I still think you to be somewhat of an elitist, I apologize for snapping at you earlier...I was in a bad mood. ;)

Though you're right. It's just your opinion...but I will most likely always disagree with you.

^ Something you should leave happy about before you leave this thread, besides all the cultural and entertainment that Los Angeles has, the city has an amazing all-year-around weather. Much better than that of 'urban' London and 'urban' New York City! Next time you are relaxing at the beach in LA, think and laugh back at the people in this thread who can't never seem to understand what LA greatness is all about. :cheers:

Oh I understand LA alright. First visit, I did not like it too much. But now is one of my favorite cities to visit. But it takes a couple of visits to really understand the city and then it becomes very enjoyable. :yes:

Of course L.A has areas of urbanity; saying there is no urbanity in L.A is rather stupid. The urbanity just happens to be quite small for a city of its population and it tends to be surrounded by suburban style homes - I suppose thats why the Monkey seems to think there's no urbanity there - of course I disagree, there are several areas that I would consider dense and urban including - downtown (not that small if you look from 20,000 ft on google earth), Santa Monica, Century City, Hollywood Blvd.

The weather and geography is L.A's main selling point - its architecture and cityscape is not something to be proud of. Case in point, Santa Monica downtown, the average commercial street in L.A, etc tend to be rather ugly, filled with stripmall style architecture and fast food signs, ugly roadside shops, and dull office blocks.. My impression is that L.A's beauty is rather private, it lies in the rich enclaves in the hills and coastlines, this is where you find the beautiful private residential architecture. Also, Its beach front is a dissapointment - few areas to stroll, sip coffee while sitting across from the beach unlike european beach enviornments. Santa monicas beachside is bogus dude.

LA does have a suburban feel to it, but these are suburbs that are unrecognisable from those you'd find in British Cities, where over two-thirds of all people live in apartments and its absolutely brimming with commercial and industrial activity.

HAVE u guys read about our condo convertions going on in our downtown and wilshire areas?

@ Joey313

When looking at the pictures of L.A. downtown, some things struck me immediately: The highrises and architecture is ok for a proper city center, BUT: first of all, the pavements are far too narrow, thus very very (for a 12 mio. metro) people are around, while the car lanes are not that big as well, actually thw whole street is too narrow, but at least the pavements should be wider.
Second, one can't see any appealing front on street-level, like cafes, restaurants, shops other than some standard stuff. And there have to be some excemptions to the street organisations (which NYC has as well) like a square or some diagonal streets creating interesting spots where people gather.

So far...

btw. I am German, so this statement might not reflect the British point of view to it.

metro new york isn't that dense. new york itself is but the metro is a sprawly mess that extends into 4 states.

LA is no new york or london but for a car oriented city it's pretty dense and has a lot of character.

If you think L.A. is a big suburb, has no character, or is blown away by London and NYC.....look at this thread.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=435705

If you think L.A. is a big suburb, has no character, or is blown away by London and NYC.....look at this thread.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=435705

Most of those places look very suburban, many even dirty and poor. But as I´ve said, maybe I would find LA to be the greates city on earth if I visited it. Still that doesn´t change the fact that LA is suburban, car dominated and lacks great architecture. Having said that I still believe that it´s the people in the city that makes a city great.

Most of those places look very suburban, many even dirty and poor. But as I´ve said, maybe I would find LA to be the greates city on earth if I visited it. Still that doesn´t change the fact that LA is suburban, car dominated and lacks great architecture. Having said that I still believe that it´s the people in the city that makes a city great.

Did you even look at the entire thread? Whats so suburban about it? And it has interesting architecture. The problem is L.A. is so vast that you wont see most of it.

And so what if its car dominated? Whats the problem with cars to you people? Riding trains and buses around all your life sucks. Cars are apart of L.A. culture anyway--the city grew up as cars became a common possession. And its not as if you cant find public transportation in L.A. if you really wanted it.

Super density and mass transit are overrated on here. L.A.'s incredible natural location and diversity overcomes those things. Id rather be riding a surfboard than a train that goes underground anyway.

good luck commuting to work on your surf board.

good luck commuting to work on your surf board.

rather rely on Doug than the Government to get me to work. I would hate taking public transportation every day. Cars are seriously underrated around these parts---probally because most people on here never drove a car.

Sure, its cheaper to take a train or bus and more convinient in a city---but cars sure are fun. I can have the mobility that kills any train. Nothing beats cruising the Lakefront, listening to the music on a nice summer day.

Yeah right.

yeah right, what? You dispute that cars are awesome!? Thats the problem with Europe--gas is expensive and the cities are too dense to cruise around in.

yeah right, what? You dispute that cars are awesome!? Thats the problem with Europe--gas is expensive and the cities are too dense to cruise around in.

Not really. I can cruise around in Helsinki all I want, and yeah sometimes in the summer it´s nice. However, we´re talking trasportation here, and car dominated cities aren´t nice.

Not really. I can cruise around in Helsinki all I want, and yeah sometimes in the summer it´s nice. However, we´re talking trasportation here, and car dominated cities aren´t nice.

thats not true. More people drive cars then they take public transportation in most U.S. cities.

1. New York, New York 54.35%
2. Jersey City, New Jersey 40.26%
3. Washington, D.C. 34.47%
4. Boston, Massachusetts 33.07%
5. San Francisco, California 32.64%
6. Newark, New Jersey 26.81%
7. Chicago, Illinois 26.71%
8. Cambridge, Massachusetts 26.46%
9. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 25.93%
10. Arlington, Virginia 24.12%
11. Yonkers, New York 23.61%
12. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 20.99%
13. Baltimore, Maryland 19.94%
14. Berkeley, California 19.93%
15. Hartford, Connecticut 18.87%
16. Seattle, Washington 18.44%
17. Oakland, California 18.18%
18. Daly City, California 18.12%
19. Alexandria, Virginia 16.69%
20. Atlanta, Georgia 15.61%
21. Minneapolis, Minnesota 15.07%
22. Elizabeth, New Jersey 14.91%
23. East Los Angeles, California 14.4%
24. New Orleans, Louisiana 14.05%
25. Portland, Oregon 12.89%
26. Buffalo, New York 12.52%
27. Paterson, New Jersey 12.36%
28. Cleveland, Ohio 12.2%
29. Honolulu, Hawaii 12.02%
30. Miami, Florida 11.6%
31. New Haven, Connecticut 11.36%
32. Stamford, Connecticut 11.14%
33. St. Louis, Missouri 10.9%
34. Los Angeles, California 10.64%
35. Milwaukee, Wisconsin 10.44%
36. Cincinnati, Ohio 10.35%
37. Concord, California 9.97%
38. Naperville, Illinois 9.52%
39. St. Paul, Minnesota 9.01%
40. Detroit, Michigan 8.81%
41. Denver, Colorado 8.75%
42. Santa Ana, California 8.62%
43. Bridgeport, Connecticut 8.49%
44. Richmond, Virginia 8.46%
45. Rochester, New York 8.33%
46. Inglewood, California 7.62%
47. Providence, Rhode Island 7.48%
48. Madison, Wisconsin 7.39%
49. El Monte, California 7.38%
50. Syracuse, New York 7.17%

The top city in the nation that uses public transportation is only 4% over half. Thats not that much--especially for a city like NYC. Chicago has a nice train system--but less than 30% of people use it to get to work. San Fran and Boston are only 30% too---yet fine cities. My own city has low ridership--but is pretty nice.

i just realised bluewarning is Reddalert, suddenly everything makes sense! :ohno:

i just realised bluewarning is Reddalert, suddenly everything makes sense! :ohno:

lol, is that a.....bad thing?

Cmon johnny, you and me got to go on a road trip sometime.

lol, is that a.....bad thing?

Cmon johnny, you and me got to go on a road trip sometime.

good idea, let's make it a train journey! :cheers:

LA is a great town.

I like it :D

Great Weather, Great mountains in the background, Great Beaches and a good variety of people.
The only thing I miss when Ive been in L.A is britsh humour. American people don't tend to find sarcastic humour very funny. They tend to take offence to it sometimes which is a shame as I often feel like a dick when knowone laughs at something I say out of the blue thats sarcastic.
The other thing is I've got lost every single time I've been there. But I suppose that's the fun of being on holiday.
Other than that though I can't really complain :)

Shit, sorry double post my comp messed up.

good idea, let's make it a train journey! :cheers:

Cmon, you dont want to drive some muscle car around Europe?

Redd, that doesn't include walking--which I suppose would be a pretty large percentage in New York. And I know the Chicago figure is well over 26%.

I get your point, though.

thats not true. More people drive cars then they take public transportation in most U.S. cities.



Lol.
Ever thought why?Americans drive cars because America has no pulic transport.

Redd, that doesn't include walking--which I suppose would be a pretty large percentage in New York. And I know the Chicago figure is well over 26%.

I get your point, though.

Yeah, I cant imagine it making it higher though. No way is Chicago over 50%--yet it remains one of the greatest cities in the world.

Lol.
Ever thought why?Americans drive cars because America has no pulic transport.

thats not true. Most cities have rail, buses, and other forms of transport. Well, except for Milwaukee and Detroit--which have high population density--but we just cant get a rail system like Salt Lake City and other less dense places.

thats not true.

What I meant is Americas public transport is shit.I know that you have it but its shit.I mean seriously if you live in LA (for example) and dont own a car... well...then youre in a bit of a trouble.So...Americans drive cars because public transport sucks.

What I meant is Americas public transport is shit.I know that you have it but its shit.I mean seriously if you live in LA (for example) and dont own a car... well...then youre in a bit of a trouble.So...Americans drive cars because public transport sucks.

Not all of it is. What is so different about it?

^Lack of frequency, capacity, and accessibility.

^Lack of frequency, capacity, and accessibility.

Is it that bad though? Bad enough to make our cities bad? I dont buy it.

L.A. quietly surpassed the 4-million mark
The city has as many people as New Zealand, more than 24 states. California's total is nearly 37.7 million.
By Cara Mia DiMassa, Times Staff Writer
May 2, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2007-05/29481834.gif

Los Angeles - Finally, something to explain the gridlock at your local coffeehouse and clogged freeways that seem to extend well into the night.
The population of L.A. quietly surpassed the 4-million mark for the first time last year, the California Department of Finance announced Tuesday. [/SIZE]

Angelenos probably don't need a demographer to tell them what they already know: that the city is growing more densely populated. But the numbers show that the city gained 37,658 residents last year, and as of Jan. 1, its population was 4,018,080.

"It's a spectacular arc of development when you consider that in 1900, L.A. had a population of 102,459," said historian Kevin Starr.

L.A. lore holds that the city was founded in 1781 by 44 people, transplants from the San Gabriel Mission. That puts the 226-year gain in population at 4,018,036.

The L.A. numbers were part of a report released Tuesday that pegged the state's population at almost 37.7 million. That represents a growth of almost 1.3%, or 470,000, in 2006.

State demographers use a variety of data — including driver's licenses, school enrollments, Medi-Cal recipients, birthrates, immigration and state to state migration — to estimate population change.

The Riverside County city of Beaumont saw the state's fastest growth rate, 21.2%.

In Orange County, Irvine passed 200,000 in population, bringing to 20 the number of cities in the state that exceed 200,000 in population.

But it was the Los Angeles numbers that had most people talking Tuesday.

Just how big does that make L.A.?

With 4 million people, the city of Los Angeles has more people than 24 states, according to federal census data. And it's got roughly the same number as the entire country of New Zealand.

The increase occurred over the last year, as L.A. added 10,239 housing units, according to the state data.

Many of those units were downtown, where the city has seen a marked increase in population as former commercial buildings have been converted into lofts and apartments and a number of new residential buildings have opened.

The city, Starr said, is "embracing and exulting in its urbanism."

Starr and other historians have said that Los Angeles' role as an international city, attracting immigrants from all over the world, has been a key factor in its quick demographic rise.

Los Angeles, said Harry Pachon, a USC public policy professor, has "been in a growth mode…. The dynamism of Los Angeles continues to attract people."

Pachon sees modest growth in the foreseeable future. Families in Latin America are having fewer children, he said, diminishing population pressures there. He also said that the continued increase in housing prices in Southern California meant that more people were seeking economic opportunity outside the region.

L.A. threw itself parties (and the L.A. Times produced banner headlines) when the city reached the 1-million and 1.5-million levels, in 1923 and 1940. (The 1-million mark was estimated by counting the number of, among other things, barber shops.)

But don't expect a lot of celebrating of the new milestone.
Edward Soja, a professor of urban planning at UCLA, called passing the 4-million mark "not that dramatic a transition," especially as L.A.'s population gains are eclipsed, in percentage, by growth elsewhere in the region.

But he said that he worried that Southern California in general is ill-equipped to deal with rapid growth, especially the area's administrative and governmental structures.

"I would say never before is it more needed to have some form of regional coordination, whether we are talking about housing and homelessness or transportation and airports or environment and pollution," Soja said.

The L.A. region, he added, "has the worst housing crisis anywhere in the developed world. It's not being addressed with the urgency it needs to be addressed."

Janelle Erickson, a spokeswoman for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, wasn't weighing in about whether the numbers were a good or bad thing. But she did hint that she understood why people were moving to the city.

"What the mayor always says is that Los Angeles is a city where the world comes together," Erickson said. "Los Angeles is a city of America's hope and promise, where the dreams of so many have come to life."
Except, perhaps, on the 405 Freeway at rush hour. Or the Starbucks line at 8:30 a.m.

What I meant is Americas public transport is shit.I know that you have it but its shit.I mean seriously if you live in LA (for example) and dont own a car... well...then youre in a bit of a trouble.So...Americans drive cars because public transport sucks.

This is not true... I didn't own a car until after 10 years of living here.
My previous job was located in Compton which is 26 miles south from where I live and I took public transportation to get there. It took me only 45 minutes on the train. There is also a very extensive bus network system in the area.