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.
