"Post pictures of LA"

[Amavel 0]

Originally posted by: GQBouncer05

Umm...actually Anaheim is a Suburb to LA as well as the whole OC, hence the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the same was for the rams,  Many OC resident commute to LA.  There isn't enough offices in the OC to house its residents and therefore depends on LA making it a suburb of Los Angeles like the many other surrounding counties.   The OC only got established becasue of LA for people who had a family and didn't want to live in the city.  Without LA there wouldn't be an OC, and if something were to happen to LA it would effect the OC, I would say the only way the OC was to be known as its own entity is if the OC was strong enough to stand alone if something were to happen to LA's economy which i don't believe they could.   Sorry...quote>

Let's be honest here, OC (If you could, please refrain from the subconscious use of "the" before the initials.) has had quite a booming economy since recovering from its debt in the early to mid-90's. The unemployment rate is much lower than the national average, many private and public schools are thriving, crime is significantly lower than other parts of SoCal, the housing market is still moving steadily, and the tourism industry is as strong as ever. Orange County has truly developed into its own entity; I believe that if for some reason the job markets declined in LA or the IE, Orange County has the capability to expand and support its own residents (yes, I know many currently commute to LA). So don't be fooled into thinking that OC is solely dependent on LA-- there is countless entertainment, sport, tourism, and up-and-coming arts/culture accesible to most of the 3,000,000 residents.

As of the 21st century, the only way in which OC is truly considered a "suburb" or "bedroom community" of LA is in terms of metropolitan statistical data. As LA proper is the largest and most influential entity within the Southland, inevitably all other entities (regardless of their size) are lumped under its shadow.

[mayorron 0]

Yes, Indeed. Platinum Triangle will be the center of it all in a few years. Commercial and Industrial. And yes, Residential. Luxury, The fine lifestyle down in Anaheim. I'm can't wait for that. My teacher back in High School told me that there are a few great condos up and running now near Angels Stadium. Restaurants everywhere, Companies, and more. I think OC will be bigger and better in a few years. And yes, it ain't that crowded. And there, I'm only talking about Anaheim, not to mention Santa Ana, Orange, Buena Park, Fullerton and the others down south.

[GQBouncer05 0]

Originally posted by: Amavel

Originally posted by: GQBouncer05

Umm...actually Anaheim is a Suburb to LA as well as the whole OC, hence the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the same was for the rams,  Many OC resident commute to LA.  There isn't enough offices in the OC to house its residents and therefore depends on LA making it a suburb of Los Angeles like the many other surrounding counties.   The OC only got established

As of the 21st century, the only way in which OC is truly considered a "suburb" or "bedroom community" of LA is in terms of metropolitan statistical data. As LA proper is the largest and most influential entity within the Southland, inevitably all other entities (regardless of their size) are lumped under its shadow.quote>

 

So your agreeing?

[Amavel 0]

I don't agree that Orange County cannot stand on its own considering the amount of development and thriving tourism industry. I don't agree that Orange County is still beneath the shadow and/or culture of Los Angeles. I do agree, however, that Orange County is considered an L.A suburb only in terms of statistical data, not because its the weak younger sibling.

[neolikesfood 0]

I used to live down there, and people refer to LA as basically just LA, and "The Southland" as the whole thing, from LA, OC and the inland empire region.

I like it down there because it reminds me of being a kid I guess.  Also some of the best lookin girls per capita.  Especially along the coast. 

[FreewayofFlight 41]

Los Angeles has a beautiful skyline, as well as Chicago. I was wondering, is the subway/light rail in the City of Angels really as sparse and everyone imagines? Also, would it be useful if a monorail system was aligned with the major freeways in the Los Angeles, and surrounding areas, like I-5, 405, 10, 110, 105, 101 etc.? What would work if a monorail (that ran as fast as the speed limit on the freeways) were put into place?

[mayorron 0]

Great Idea, and another LA Highlight, if that happened. The thing is, the cost of the project.

[keiferkapper 0]

I grew up in Buena Park (the center of the Southland) and went to school in Anaheim & now live in Long Beach.  Anaheim is definately a suburb of LA.   North OC aka the 714 has more in common with LA than 949 South OC but like the IE, it's all SoCal.

[SpecialEddie 3]

A monorail was actually planned to be built in LA during the 50's, but too costly. If it was built, wouldn't have had these traffic problems and sprawl.

[paperboy15 4]

Originally posted by: SpecialEddie If it was built, wouldn't have had these traffic problems and sprawl.

quote>

 

For some reason, I highly doubt that. Even if it was an excellent system it would not eliminate sprawl and heavy auto traffic....it would allow higher density development, perhaps slowing sprawl.

[LegoMyDego28 1]

I think its sprawl is what makes it attractive, who said a city couldn't sprawl.

[SpecialEddie 3]

hj

Originally posted by: paperboy15

Originally posted by: SpecialEddie If it was built, wouldn't have had these traffic problems and sprawl.

quote>

 

For some reason, I highly doubt that. Even if it was an excellent system it would not eliminate sprawl and heavy auto traffic....it would allow higher density development, perhaps slowing sprawl.quote>

 

The monorail could've seriously decreased traffic if it was built during the 50's. Then, the freeway system was still young, and the addition of a monorail could've slowed the dependence on freeways. Additionally, if the monorail proved to be an efficient system, they would've expanded it, modernized it, futurized it...LA would've had a monorail. The city would've looked drastically different too.  

[paperboy15 4]

Originally posted by: SpecialEddie hj

Originally posted by: paperboy15

Originally posted by: SpecialEddie If it was built, wouldn't have had these traffic problems and sprawl.

quote>

 

For some reason, I highly doubt that. Even if it was an excellent system it would not eliminate sprawl and heavy auto traffic....it would allow higher density development, perhaps slowing sprawl.quote>

 

The monorail could've seriously decreased traffic if it was built during the 50's. Then, the freeway system was still young, and the addition of a monorail could've slowed the dependence on freeways. Additionally, if the monorail proved to be an efficient system, they would've expanded it, modernized it, futurized it...LA would've had a monorail. The city would've looked drastically different too.  quote>

 

Granted, you wouldn't have the exact same traffic problems on the freeways. What I was trying to say was that the freeways would still be congested...the city is simply huge.

[City2TheMax 3]

That's funny, my dad grew up in a place like San Fernando Valley. One of those crime-infested low wealth suburbs. I'm glad I didn't grow up there, those places sound pretty bad.

Anyways, those are some really nice pics you got there!

[Socorocks 7]

regardless of how far back the little spat about the merits of density was, I can't resist but comment.

clearly, people don't get it.

Density is WHAT MAKES A CITY A CITY.

once a city reaches a critical mass of people within a given area, it is able to support a far greater variety of organizations, services, businesses, lifestyles, and uses than your now-typical low-density wastelands.

Crowding is part of city life. Being compact is not necessarily detrimental, it's just that our typical American "bigger-is-better" thought paradigm has clearly indoctrinated most of you into believing that being emptier makes a place better.

If Los Angeles wants to reaffirm its footing as a global city, increased density within a defined area is absolutely requisite.

Without that, the world will continue to look down its collective nose at LA as a vacuous, sprawling nowhere.

[SpecialEddie 3]

Originally posted by: Socorocks

clearly, people don't get it.

If Los Angeles wants to reaffirm its footing as a global city, increased density within a defined area is absolutely requisite.

Without that, the world will continue to look down its collective nose at LA as a vacuous, sprawling nowhere.quote>

 

Let me get this straight. LA simply isn't crowded enough, so the world is looking down with its collective noses at us.

Clearly, you don't get it. 

Los Angeles has 14 million people in an area as big as Connecticut. I don't know about you, but LA itself is bigger than most of the states in the U.S., population and (in some cases) area-wise. We don't need to get any denser to establish ourselves as a Global City. Oh! And speaking of LA reaffirming itself as a world city...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_City#GaWC_Inventory_of_World_Cities.2C_1999

Will you look at that...An Alpha World City. Wow. We really need to get denser to reaffirm our footing here, guys. The world's looking down with its collective noses at us. 

Or is it the other way around?

SpecialEddie has spoken.

[Socorocks 7]

other than the fact that you've conveniently chosen to disregard most of my main points,

I suppose the best thing to do for L.A. would be, in an "ideal" low-density fashion, re-designate developed land with an FAR ration of greater than 3.0 to "parking lot" or "landscaped easement", so then we can go about getting rid of those pesky, cramped office towers and apartments. In fact, why don't we just tear out all the side walks and mercilessly 8-lane every road we can? Everyone should live in a single-family home, and no buildings should exceed 35 feet in height.

Low density LA sounds like a dream come true.

L.A. is not crowded, not by world standards. Tons of room for improvement.

[Pittsteelers247 0]

L.A.'s Metro area includes the counties of san bernardino, orange, riverside, and ventura. So can we please put the suburb/metro are whatever behind us.

[toxicpiano 125]

I fail to see the attractiveness of LA, especially as a European. At least in New York, despite it's size there is enormous amounts of public transport you can just jump on to get around. In Europe everything is so much more compact, I think I would absolutely hate to live in somewhere like LA.

[ATLLAD 0]

toxicpiano:   wats the big deal about transportation if u cant drive then to bad LA aint for u........ u kno nuthin about LA ..its the best city ever in my opinion u cant beat LA... and wats the big deal about new york....nyc isnt special just because it has a subway system why would u wanna be in a stinky,old,dirty,crowded crappy train...... ans all those suburbs from malibu all the way down to laguna beach they all belong 2 LA so put it to rest

[Coyote Seven 6]

I know plenty of Europeans who live in Los Angeles.  I'm pretty sure you don't speak for them!

And yes, they even love living here.  So go figure.  If you don't like L.A., I'm pretty sure it's not because you're European.

[sembla 0]

Long-time lurker popping in here to offer a few comments; this thread caught my interest b/c I just moved to LA for grad school. I've lived in Orange County, San Jose (Bay Area), San Diego, and now LA so I like to think I have a pretty good understanding of California (frankly, I'm getting a little tired of CA - heresy I know!).

First off, I notice that people here have some fairly strong opinions. I didn't realize that there was such loyalist sentiment between the LA and OC camps.

Maybe it's because I've lived in the Bay Area for most of my adolescent years (and thus by that time any semblance of OC pride has vanished), but I personally don't see LA and OC as very much distinct from each other (although, now I do acknowledge that LA and OC are politically distinct, thanks previous posters) Culturally, they're very similar. Geographically, they're only 30 miles away from each other and connected quite cozily together with delicious sprawl. I'm sorry - As much as I know that Disneyland is in OC, when I think of Disneyland I think of LA. It's probably because LA's the name that's volleyed around the world stage a lot. I'm wondering though, is this heated LA-OC argument just over semantics? Or is there more to it? Are people in OC tired of living in LA's shadow? Or ashamed to be associated with the "vacuous, sprawling nowhere" that is LA?  

Second, I don’t think LA is a nightmare to live in. LA is tolerable. Sure, there's traffic, and that ubiquitous purple haze, and the weekly murders you see on the news, but you get used to it and learn to adapt (i.e. avoid the highway like the plague and take local streets), and then you can start appreciating the perks that everyone's mentioned before. Although, given a choice, I would rather live in OC, San Jose, or SD. I was a suburban kid so that's just me, I guess. Dense cities are fun to visit and nice to look at, but I wouldn't live there long-term.

toxicpiano: The attractiveness of LA lies in its culture. If you mean the attractiveness of LA’s trafficky highways, nobody really finds it attractive (although LA is famous for it), they just tolerate it. They’re simply a means, albeit a faulty one, to get you places. It DOES feel good to have the personal freedom of being able to drive a car wherever you want, whenever you want, without being limited by the strict routes/times of mass transit. And if you’re smart and plan ahead, you can avoid some traffic.

SpecialEddie: I think you misunderstand Socorocks. He isn’t saying that LA isn’t a global city or that the world doesn’t think LA is a global city. He’s just saying that they don’t like LA’s sprawl and traffic. Surely, you don’t like sprawl and traffic too? And you’re right, we don’t want more population with more crowding. But while LA does have a lot of people already, it doesn’t have much density (i.e. compare the population densities of NY, SF, and LA on Wikipedia; you’ll notice that LA’s density is considerably lower). Socorocks is saying that we need to increase density *within a defined area*. In essence, you’re taking people from the sprawling areas and squeezing them into a certain area, such as downtown, to make it higher density, while opening up the areas that were previously sprawl for use as open space. As a result, you have less sprawl, correspondingly less traffic, and a high-density residential area that can make downtown more vibrant and create more incentive for mass transit. Fortunately, this is all happening in LA’s downtown as we speak.

Sorry for the long post and my awkward entrance – I just had this urge to mediate.