Global Los Angeles

[Westsidelife]

Haven't we been down this path before? LA is where NYC was in the 1990s, just beginning its urban renewal process. A diamond in the rough now, I would watch out for LA in the coming decade. I believe the past 10 years have been a transition phase for LA. The next 10 years will be a period of tremendous growth and restructuring, starting in July 2009 when Measure R goes into effect.

[klamedia]

By no means am I saying that LA is on some similar timeline along with NYC by any means. By the 90s NYC may have been going through yet another spate of urban renewal but it had already been the biggest and most important city undeniably on the planet at the turn of the 20th century, LA has yet to see that sort of stature if it ever will. All that I am saying is that LA after being on the skids for the last 30 years after a period of phenomenal growth and general optimism about the city seems to be coming around again. Their is a renewed sense of wonderment of the city that I think we will see in the coming decade fully manifesting itself when new transit and parkspace is introduced. There seems to exist some cities that are never quite satisfied with where they are(sort of like great artists), they want more and they have a vision that is not of their current selves. LA has not really been around very long but it defitnetly has that sense of "this isn't good enough" spirit, I think it's more self depricating than it needs to be but the city wouldn't have accomplished what it has in just 100 years if it weren't so hard on itself. The one problem that I do see with the city and once again I think that it's just part of its genetic makeup is that in reaching these lofty goals that usually takes other cities centuries to reach LA tends to cut corners and it comes back and bites it in the ass and that's why other cities that were more conservative with their growth and ambitions find time to chuckle at Angel City.
One case in point is with our transit. I laud the MTA for their ambitions and I believe that we will have much rail covering the city and great ridership and on and on. But some of these lines like Expo and E. Gold should have been invested into more by grade seperating them, even if not fully at least at major crossings like the coming (I shutter to think) Crenshaw/Expo or Vermont/Expo. We as transit and urban advocates must sometimes reign in our excitement and think more soberly about some of the decisions being made. Their seems to be so much kinetic energy in this city that major projects are built suddenly without regard to their impact to the surrounding community or their impact to the larger goal of one cohesive urban fabric. We hold some of the responsibility of guiding this city along a more responsible path and eventhough I would never want that great kinetic unharnessed LA energy to cease, the energy that can take a cashier at a WalMart in Oklahoma and turn her into the greatest star the world has ever known in under a year........but I would like to see the energy more honed in this century. Would that mean that the county must break up into 4 or 5 boroughs, the SF Valley secession(I hope), a restructuring of our County Supervisor system, the breakup of the MTA which gives more power to LADOT..........don't know. But without some sort of sea change within the county the bickering and high drama will never cease. Perhaps that is LA's fate.

[milquetoast]

All you have to do is look at the kind of systematic changes going on in Washington D.C. right now to realize the most important city in the world is our capital. New york suckling at their teet rather illegally and benefitting grotesquely.

New york has always been rather dependent on others- and that's undisputable.

Mike Royko of the Chicago Sun Times said it best: "The tradition of hating new york started long before it began asking the rest of us to pay its bills while condescendingly viewing us as amusing rustics.." I can deny their import until the cows come home, to roost.

Three little words.... pay its bills... what do you think is happening even as we speak. Now, money is going into new york institutions that have failed and Paulson doesn't have to state where and why anymore, and Congressional idiots are stating "We are satisfied with not knowing." That's basically a quote! Sorry, don't get me started- oh yes...Global Los Angeles.

Maybe we should get us a collection of financial institutions and watch them fail by our greed and ineptitude- only to be bailed out like a little child with a boo boo

Absolutely no respect for that window shopping hole...

[nygirl]

Washington is one of the most important cities in the world, this is true. It is, however, far from the most important. "Most important" doesn't really go to any one city. There is arguably a group of "most important" but again that would be debated by folks like you.
NY suckling at the teet of washington... sorry you'll have to elaborate.

This is the one I like most; "The tradition of hating New York started long before it began asking the rest of us to pay its bills while condescendingly viewing us as the amusing rustics" - Mr. Royko

Well since pay their bills is emphasized in this quote with those angry red letters you love to use I guess I'll just say....thanks? Thanks for paying our bills... keep up the good work? I am sure I can't expect you to pay our bills with a smile on your faces but as long as you keep paying you can keep on hating.


I don't really believe that.

The thing is everyone subcontracts to New York...thats just the way it is.

The tradition of hating anything at the top started by the folks at the bottom began long ago. Look at London...other smaller cities in England despise London almost as similar to smaller cities not liking New York. Look at Toronto, Canada--they even made a movie about it. I think it was called "Everyone hates Toronto" but I guess I could be wrong.

I see it as a justifiable disdain tinged with a bit of jealousy all wrapped up in an infatuation that ppl hate because they just can't shake it.

Because if it wasn't NY and rather, Chicago that everyone was sub-contracting out to and quote on quote--payed the bills for than everyone that has disdain for NY in the way you put it would have disdain for Chicago..

The thing is...you really have disdain for the corporations and not the city, the financial institutions and not the city. The city is the people...all 8.2 million of them.. the city is the metro that works that city to death...all 20 some odd million of them. Those are real people just like the piople out in Seattle, or Omaha, or Jacksonville.

To conclude this post... it is so easy to hate anything at the top, my friend Milque, look at the United States...you think globally people love us? That might have been true in the past but it is quite evident today that that is not true. It is tradition when you are not at the top to hate those at the top. Take it however you want to but you do not pay my parents bills, you don't pay my neighbors bills, and you sure as hell aint paying my bills... and I am New York. No two ways around that.

You know Mr. Royko should have understood that the erie canal that was built between Lake Erie and New York city benefitted New York but got the product of the Great Lakes out to the rest of the world.. I don't know that sounds a bit like the Great Lakes depending on New York States canal not the other way around ( Just and example). I find your statement that NY has ALWAYS been dependent on others rather false. Entirely false, even.

[dweebo2220]

Yeah, I mean wall street is obviously not "New York." Wall street and the corporations is the US in its purest form.

Just to add a little love..
My favorite things about NYC:
Fulton St. Mall
Astoria
Brighton Beach
Chinatown

[Westsidelife]

This is why people should watch out for LA in the coming decade...

image hosted on flickr

[ZtBoy]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

This is why people should watch out for LA in the coming decade...

Sorry Westsidelife but I don't understand the meaning of this chart. Im not trying to be rude. But why do you say that?

[milquetoast]

Could you explain?

[Westsidelife]

Originally Posted by crxmen

Sorry Westsidelife but I don't understand the meaning of this chart. Im not trying to be rude. But why do you say that?

A large mass transit system will give LA greater prestige and more bragging rights.

All superficial claims aside, an extensive rail network will alleviate 60% of LA's problems (traffic gridlock, air pollution, and sprawl) and instead encourage more sustainable growth. I believe once the necessary transit improvements are in place, we will start seeing DTLA Manhattanize. The gentrification of central LA will be attractive to both businesses and educated professionals, who will be responsible for adding greater dimension to this Hollywood-centric city. LA's standard of living will improve and the city will become more classy and sophisticated.

Perhaps that scenario is a bit non sequitur, but I believe that's the direction LA is headed.

[Westsidelife]

I also agree with nygirl in that DC is far from being the most important. DC assumed the role of national capital, so it is by default the seat of the federal government and all its subsequent resources. Being that it is the capital of the United States, DC automatically gains prestige. The truth is, that prestige is largely a result of what other cities -- most notably New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, and Boston -- have contributed to America. DC didn't have any prestige of its own before it became the nation's capital. The government is what created DC and that constitutes most of its prestige. DC merely reaps the benefits of other cities.

[milquetoast]

The very same can be said of other cities gaining from each other. The point is: What has been gained?

Decisions made there affect the world to a much greater extent than any other.

No city is an island

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

A large mass transit system will give LA greater prestige and more bragging rights.

All superficial claims aside, an extensive rail network will alleviate 60% of LA's problems (traffic gridlock, air pollution, and sprawl) and instead encourage more sustainable growth. I believe once the necessary transit improvements are in place, we will start seeing DTLA Manhattanize. The gentrification of central LA will be attractive to both businesses and educated professionals, who will be responsible for adding greater dimension to this Hollywood-centric city. LA's standard of living will improve and the city will become more classy and sophisticated.

Perhaps that scenario is a bit non sequitur, but I believe that's the direction LA is headed.

If LA gained the above mass transit system and 100 miles more on top of that NY's, Chicagoans and especially SF's will still be attempting to shit on LA. I mean this is basic schoolyard bully stuff. You never get anywhere by proving anything to anyone, Lesson A Grade 1. LA is larger in population and has a larger economy than both Chicago and SF, has a larger and much more important port than SF or Chicago, is a larger manufacturer than all 3 cities...........you can go on and on. The inferior and self depricating attitude that LA has within itself is not something that can be rectified from the positive affirmation of outsiders. It's not so much that these other cities think badly about LA it's that LA thinks badly about itself.

[ZtBoy]

Originally Posted by klamedia

It's not so much that these other cities think badly about LA it's that LA thinks badly about itself.

I couldn't agree more. A lot of my friends do exactly that. They put down LA. Their civic pride is often expressed to the extremes and YES we can sit here and say "that happens everywhere" but usually people tend talk about something that they really like about their city, at least one thing (the people, galleries, food, attractions, etc...). It has often taken a comment on my behalf to bring up their "pride" often awakening the other side of the spectrum.

[milquetoast]

They talk shit to protect themselves. It's an emotional deal that I delve into myself from time to time. It's "Hurt you before you hurt me."

This mostly happens with sports because sports turns on a dime whereas civic changes are slower. So when a sports team finds itself losing all the time the attitude is set. The passion is there because the team represents YOU. When it doesn't live up to expectations, you turn on it to comfort yourself. You figure: if you shit on the team you win. And if the team actually wins, you win: Boston Red Sox.

Los Angeles has so much potential but it is becoming apparent to most of us now that the city leadership is not up to snuff. Key industries like trade, shipping, manufacturing and Hollywood itself are being challenged everywhere and we seem to be shooting ourselves in the foot by either not adopting the tax sytems that work elsewhere, or keeping the unions at bay or offering competitive tax incentives so that it doesn't become cheaper to film in Romania, or to update and reinforce the rail capabilities of our ports so it can weather the oncoming competition from Mexico, the Gulf states and the northeast.

Los Angeles used to be a city that would build the things needed for big city life. The proof of this is that there are now millions of us here. But now it settles for less at almost every turn.

[klamedia]

I don't agree with this statement at all! It's just more of the "sky is falling on LA" handwringing that has been done since its inception. At one point it was the water issue, then the smog issue, then the gang issue. This is also a part of LA's genetic makeup that probably will never go away.

[terminal]

I would like pointing your attention on an interesting book titled "Reinventing Los Angeles" by Robert Gottlieb
in this book LA is described like the place without a sense of place, famous for sprawl and overdevelopment and defined by its car-clogged freeways—might seem inhospitable to efforts to connect with nature and community. But in Reinventing Los Angeles, educator and activist Robert Gottlieb describes how imaginative and innovative social movements have coalesced around the issues of water development, cars and freeways, and land use, to create a more livable and sustainable city.

Gottlieb traces the emergence of Los Angeles as a global city in the twentieth century and describes its continuing evolution today. He examines the powerful influences of immigration and economic globalization as they intersect with changes in the politics of water, transportation, and land use, and illustrates each of these core concerns with an account of grass roots and activist responses: efforts to reenvision the concrete-bound, fenced-off Los Angeles River as a natural resource; "Arroyofest," the closing of the Pasadena Freeway for a Sunday of walking and bike riding; and immigrants’ initiatives to create urban gardens and connect with their countries of origin. Reinventing Los Angeles is a unique blend of personal narrative (Gottlieb himself participated in several of the grass roots actions described in the book) and historical and theoretical discussion. It provides a road map for a new environmentalism of everyday life, demonstrating the opportunities for renewal

[volsung]

Originally Posted by klamedia

By no means am I saying that LA is on some similar timeline along with NYC by any means. By the 90s NYC may have been going through yet another spate of urban renewal but it had already been the biggest and most important city undeniably on the planet at the turn of the 20th century, LA has yet to see that sort of stature if it ever will. All that I am saying is that LA after being on the skids for the last 30 years after a period of phenomenal growth and general optimism about the city seems to be coming around again. Their is a renewed sense of wonderment of the city that I think we will see in the coming decade fully manifesting itself when new transit and parkspace is introduced. There seems to exist some cities that are never quite satisfied with where they are(sort of like great artists), they want more and they have a vision that is not of their current selves. LA has not really been around very long but it defitnetly has that sense of "this isn't good enough" spirit, I think it's more self depricating than it needs to be but the city wouldn't have accomplished what it has in just 100 years if it weren't so hard on itself. The one problem that I do see with the city and once again I think that it's just part of its genetic makeup is that in reaching these lofty goals that usually takes other cities centuries to reach LA tends to cut corners and it comes back and bites it in the ass and that's why other cities that were more conservative with their growth and ambitions find time to chuckle at Angel City.
One case in point is with our transit. I laud the MTA for their ambitions and I believe that we will have much rail covering the city and great ridership and on and on. But some of these lines like Expo and E. Gold should have been invested into more by grade seperating them, even if not fully at least at major crossings like the coming (I shutter to think) Crenshaw/Expo or Vermont/Expo. We as transit and urban advocates must sometimes reign in our excitement and think more soberly about some of the decisions being made. Their seems to be so much kinetic energy in this city that major projects are built suddenly without regard to their impact to the surrounding community or their impact to the larger goal of one cohesive urban fabric. We hold some of the responsibility of guiding this city along a more responsible path and eventhough I would never want that great kinetic unharnessed LA energy to cease, the energy that can take a cashier at a WalMart in Oklahoma and turn her into the greatest star the world has ever known in under a year........but I would like to see the energy more honed in this century. Would that mean that the county must break up into 4 or 5 boroughs, the SF Valley secession(I hope), a restructuring of our County Supervisor system, the breakup of the MTA which gives more power to LADOT..........don't know. But without some sort of sea change within the county the bickering and high drama will never cease. Perhaps that is LA's fate.

Why do you hate the Valley so much?

[klamedia]

I don't know why. I'm seeing a therapist (in the Valley).

[dweebo2220]

the valley doesn't actually suck, as a whole. The majority of the valley is just like anywhere else in LA. It's just that the valley has that small but infamous contingent of die-hard NIMBY groups who support the "Daily News" view of LA. They're loud and get what they want, which puts the whole valley in a bad light.

[klamedia]

I've heard crickets in the middle of the day in the Valley. Try that at Sunset and La Cienega. I think the Valley should secede to San Diego.