5 ms·

Full of the stereotypical things the NY media likes to print about LA. Hollywood openings? Check. Advice to New Yorkers headed to LA? Check. Comparisons of a

by mturmon 10y ago

Full of the stereotypical things the NY media likes to print about LA. Hollywood openings? Check. Advice to New Yorkers headed to LA? Check. Comparisons of any LA phenomenon with NY analog? Check. Lacking perspective on the city as a whole, beyond Hollywood, downtown, and the west side? Check. Sigh. Yet, some truisms sprinkled among the retreads. Author's about page: A New Yorker at heart (and by area code), I’m currently based in Los Angeles.

cpncrunch 10y ago
Well, in fairness it is the "New Yorker". Looking at the current LA Metro map (http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/system_map_2016-0520.pdf http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/system_map_2...), rail service is still pretty sparse.
- _delirium 10y ago
  Most transit users in L.A. take the bus rather than rail, and there's a lot denser bus network. Weekday ridership numbers are about 1m for Metro Bus, 300k for Metro Rail (subway / light rail), and 40k for Metrolink (commuter rail).
- mturmon 10y ago
  Yes, you are right, rail service is (still) sparse in LA -- despite the new lines. But that's not my point. My point is: Why do I have to read anecdotes about New Yorkers transplanting to LA when I'm reading an article supposedly about the new LA Metro line? It's lazy on the part of the author.
  - dalke 10y ago
    It's the New Yorker. They write for their audience, which is people who read a magazine which famously had "View of the World from 9th Avenue" on their front cover in 1976. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Avenue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Ave... > "The work is sometimes referred to as A Parochial New Yorker's View of the World or A New Yorker's View of the World because it depicts a map of the world as seen by self-absorbed New Yorkers." They have a market of potentially millions of potential readers who are interested in the parochial New York world view. Why produce articles for a more general national or international market where there is more competition and less ability to distinguish oneself?
    - mturmon 10y ago
      One would hope that their cosmopolitan and well-educated audience would tire of repeated regional stereotypes. I have apparently overestimated the aim of their editors. That's why I subscribe to NY Review -- which can be parochial, but is more adventurous.
      - dalke 10y ago
        I can assure you there's a large audience of cosmopolitan and well-educated people who also want regional flavor. Nearly everyone wants to feel special, and many do not want the homogeneous world you seem to desire. I used to subscribe to the "Santa Fean", which is "an art, culture, dining, history and lifestyle magazine in Santa Fe, New Mexico." If a city of 60K inhabitants can have its own city-centered publication, then a city of millions can certainly have its own. I now live in Sweden, which has a smaller population that the NYC area. When Swedes cover international news, they often describe it with a Swedish viewpoint, or how it affects Swedes. Do you think Swedes are using "repeated regional stereotypes"? Or that Swedes are not a "cosmopolitan and well-educated audience"?
    - pvg 10y ago
      It seems a little silly to equate a tongue-in-cheek New Yorker cover with the audience of the New Yorker. The vast bulk of the New Yorker is not written by, or intended for 'people interested in the parochial New York View'.
      - dalke 10y ago
        Well, yes. My answer was also meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
- api 10y ago
  LA is just huge. It'll take a long time to wire it with rail.
  - wwweston 10y ago
    Would have taken less time if we hadn't torn out what was already built.
  - ikawe 10y ago
    And in some cases it really doesn't make that much sense. I think there is definitely some urban vanity at play with the huge investment in train spending. Would personally love to see more bus rapid transit lines. Here's a peak at what Metro might be up to the next 40 years: http://la.curbed.com/2016/3/18/11265444/metro-los-angeles-ballot-measure-future-map http://la.curbed.com/2016/3/18/11265444/metro-los-angeles-ba...
    - electricEmu 10y ago
      Commuter from Seattle here. BRT is an improvement here (I'm on it now) but vastly inferior to rail. Downtown to UW is 10 minutes on rail. My similar distanced BRT commute is 25-60 minutes. Grade separated rail makes a gigantic difference and moves leagues more humans faster than BRT could dream of. Unless BRT gets dedicated lanes it's no better than any other bus, except it stops is fewer places more often.
      - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
        I thought, and wikipedia agrees, that BRT implies dedicated lanes, for at least the majority of the route. There's lots of little improvements that could be made to bus transport, for similar money to trains, I think a big part of it is just wanting to be responsible for big construction, whether to get kickbacks or to just a more straightforward ego boost.
  - zachrose 10y ago
    To wire it _back_ with rail, you mean. What is now the Expo line from Downtown to Santa Monica was, in 1875, the Los Angeles and Independence Railroad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_and_Independence_Railroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_and_Independence_R...
EGreg 10y ago
Well, the publication is called the New Yorker! Can you please elaborate where in LA you don't need a car? Beverly Hills on Shabbat? :)
- wj 10y ago
  With the disclosure that my girlfriend had a car, I did pretty well in Santa Monica without one for years (pre Uber). There were enough bus lines that went through there that it wasn't a big problem. However anytime you needed to get somewhere that required a transfer it really extended the trip.
- ikawe 10y ago
  Apart from the relatively few places accessible by train, bus coverage is pretty extensive. If you live anywhere near a rapid bus stop (along Sunset, Wilshire, or Santa Monica for example) you'll be fine. Also, since Metro publishes real time arrival data, there is a healthy collection of apps that give you to-the-minute arrival times for the next bus. source: I have lived in East Hollywood / Silverlake / Echo Park for the last 8 years, never with a car. I bike, walk, bus, train, lyft/uber (in that order).
- beachstartup 10y ago
  you don't need a car anywhere in LA. take public transit, or stay in one neighborhood, i.e. santa monica. it's not rocket science. when people visit LA they spend hours driving across town over and over, for absolutely no reason. you don't have to do that. LA residents avoid doing that at all costs.
  - tomjakubowski 10y ago
    Yup. When I lived in Venice I went to great efforts not to cross the 405 for errands unless absolutely necessary (and even then, tried to batch trips if possible). If Expo II had been around I might've taken that across the 405 instead of driving. By the same token, if you move to the Westside from pretty much anywhere else in LA, you'll get tons of shit from your friends who now have to go over the river and through the woods to see you.

by mturmon 10y ago

cpncrunch 10y ago

Well, in fairness it is the "New Yorker". Looking at the current LA Metro map (http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/system_map_2016-0520.pdf http://media.metro.net/riding_metro/maps/images/system_map_2...), rail service is still pretty sparse.

_delirium 10y ago
Most transit users in L.A. take the bus rather than rail, and there's a lot denser bus network. Weekday ridership numbers are about 1m for Metro Bus, 300k for Metro Rail (subway / light rail), and 40k for Metrolink (commuter rail).
mturmon 10y ago
Yes, you are right, rail service is (still) sparse in LA -- despite the new lines. But that's not my point. My point is: Why do I have to read anecdotes about New Yorkers transplanting to LA when I'm reading an article supposedly about the new LA Metro line? It's lazy on the part of the author.
- dalke 10y ago
  It's the New Yorker. They write for their audience, which is people who read a magazine which famously had "View of the World from 9th Avenue" on their front cover in 1976. Quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Avenue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View_of_the_World_from_9th_Ave... > "The work is sometimes referred to as A Parochial New Yorker's View of the World or A New Yorker's View of the World because it depicts a map of the world as seen by self-absorbed New Yorkers." They have a market of potentially millions of potential readers who are interested in the parochial New York world view. Why produce articles for a more general national or international market where there is more competition and less ability to distinguish oneself?
  - mturmon 10y ago
    One would hope that their cosmopolitan and well-educated audience would tire of repeated regional stereotypes. I have apparently overestimated the aim of their editors. That's why I subscribe to NY Review -- which can be parochial, but is more adventurous.
    - dalke 10y ago
      I can assure you there's a large audience of cosmopolitan and well-educated people who also want regional flavor. Nearly everyone wants to feel special, and many do not want the homogeneous world you seem to desire. I used to subscribe to the "Santa Fean", which is "an art, culture, dining, history and lifestyle magazine in Santa Fe, New Mexico." If a city of 60K inhabitants can have its own city-centered publication, then a city of millions can certainly have its own. I now live in Sweden, which has a smaller population that the NYC area. When Swedes cover international news, they often describe it with a Swedish viewpoint, or how it affects Swedes. Do you think Swedes are using "repeated regional stereotypes"? Or that Swedes are not a "cosmopolitan and well-educated audience"?
  - pvg 10y ago
    It seems a little silly to equate a tongue-in-cheek New Yorker cover with the audience of the New Yorker. The vast bulk of the New Yorker is not written by, or intended for 'people interested in the parochial New York View'.
    - dalke 10y ago
      Well, yes. My answer was also meant to be tongue-in-cheek.
api 10y ago
LA is just huge. It'll take a long time to wire it with rail.
- wwweston 10y ago
  Would have taken less time if we hadn't torn out what was already built.
- ikawe 10y ago
  And in some cases it really doesn't make that much sense. I think there is definitely some urban vanity at play with the huge investment in train spending. Would personally love to see more bus rapid transit lines. Here's a peak at what Metro might be up to the next 40 years: http://la.curbed.com/2016/3/18/11265444/metro-los-angeles-ballot-measure-future-map http://la.curbed.com/2016/3/18/11265444/metro-los-angeles-ba...
  - electricEmu 10y ago
    Commuter from Seattle here. BRT is an improvement here (I'm on it now) but vastly inferior to rail. Downtown to UW is 10 minutes on rail. My similar distanced BRT commute is 25-60 minutes. Grade separated rail makes a gigantic difference and moves leagues more humans faster than BRT could dream of. Unless BRT gets dedicated lanes it's no better than any other bus, except it stops is fewer places more often.
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      I thought, and wikipedia agrees, that BRT implies dedicated lanes, for at least the majority of the route. There's lots of little improvements that could be made to bus transport, for similar money to trains, I think a big part of it is just wanting to be responsible for big construction, whether to get kickbacks or to just a more straightforward ego boost.
- zachrose 10y ago
  To wire it _back_ with rail, you mean. What is now the Expo line from Downtown to Santa Monica was, in 1875, the Los Angeles and Independence Railroad. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_and_Independence_Railroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_and_Independence_R...

EGreg 10y ago

Well, the publication is called the New Yorker! Can you please elaborate where in LA you don't need a car? Beverly Hills on Shabbat? :)

wj 10y ago
With the disclosure that my girlfriend had a car, I did pretty well in Santa Monica without one for years (pre Uber). There were enough bus lines that went through there that it wasn't a big problem. However anytime you needed to get somewhere that required a transfer it really extended the trip.
ikawe 10y ago
Apart from the relatively few places accessible by train, bus coverage is pretty extensive. If you live anywhere near a rapid bus stop (along Sunset, Wilshire, or Santa Monica for example) you'll be fine. Also, since Metro publishes real time arrival data, there is a healthy collection of apps that give you to-the-minute arrival times for the next bus. source: I have lived in East Hollywood / Silverlake / Echo Park for the last 8 years, never with a car. I bike, walk, bus, train, lyft/uber (in that order).
beachstartup 10y ago
you don't need a car anywhere in LA. take public transit, or stay in one neighborhood, i.e. santa monica. it's not rocket science. when people visit LA they spend hours driving across town over and over, for absolutely no reason. you don't have to do that. LA residents avoid doing that at all costs.
- tomjakubowski 10y ago
  Yup. When I lived in Venice I went to great efforts not to cross the 405 for errands unless absolutely necessary (and even then, tried to batch trips if possible). If Expo II had been around I might've taken that across the 405 instead of driving. By the same token, if you move to the Westside from pretty much anywhere else in LA, you'll get tons of shit from your friends who now have to go over the river and through the woods to see you.