5 ms·

It's amazing in a kinda-depressing way to think of LA as a "City without a name/face". It's really a melting pot in more ways than one. Are all of the landmark

It's amazing in a kinda-depressing way to think of LA as a "City without a name/face". It's really a melting pot in more ways than one. Are all of the landmarks there really so generic? Did the movie industry influence less-recognizable monuments and other features in the past? Or is it just that the city's culture lends itself to a "scrubbed" culture?

jetako 11y ago
The city does seem to be in constant flux, but there are plenty of landmarks. Griffith Observatory and the Downtown Library come to mind. The author sounds like she spent most of her life west of Hollywood. I would be bitter too if my outlook was so myopic. She somehow managed to miss the bustling Jewelry District and Gallery Row on her way to Skid Row, and must have turned around before she reached the Arts District.
- stephengillie 11y ago
  She does sound a little bitter. But she describes it as a place where she was afraid to explore because she'd be lost forever. > Nobody knows where to go; it’s not a city designed for accidental social discoveries. You think of a place, you look it up, you go; you look up the way back, you go home.
  - jetako 11y ago
    The city only gives back what you put in. It's an onion with enormous depth, and you have to dig. I guess she wasn't willing to put in the effort. It's definitely not for everyone.
    - sprokolopolis 11y ago
      This is so true and the reason why many people who visit LA have such a distorted, acute view of the city. Most of the touristy sites are lame, but there is so much culture and so many hidden gems all throughout the city. LA is what you make of it.
- mturmon 11y ago
  "she spent most of her life west of Hollywood" Yes, this is just not a very well-informed article. It's pitched as kind of a pithy survey of the city, but it works better as some impressions from the viewpoint of a teen who grew up there. The author appears to have graduated Brown in 2011 and been in Brooklyn since then. In her childhood and teen years here, it's unfortunate she didn't get to visit more of the city. ("All I ever did was drive the familiar loop of surface streets I knew, smoking cigarettes, blasting the heat with the windows down on winter nights.") That's all ok as far as it goes, but what mars the article to the point of profound irritation is that she seems to have taken on a lot of tired and dated viewpoints. (Hollywood as an over-riding explanation, the freeways, hauling Thomas Mann and Bertolt Brecht up from their graves for one more anecdote, the remarks about Downtown.) The article sounds like the way stereotypical older Westside residents talk.
jboggan 11y ago
I don't think it's that generic. Watch last year's "Nightcrawler" for a really great survey of the city. There aren't so many landmarks portrayed as there are distinct neighborhoods and 'feelscapes'. It is definitely an A->B city where it is hard to notice what comes in between. So often I'm invited to a restaurant or event and it exposes a cultural micro-climate that I've never guessed was there despite driving within a block of it every day for years. It's a great city if you want to have territory to explore.
- wwweston 11y ago
  I think it's not so much an A-to-B city as that it's full of people with A-to-B habits. I'm not excluding myself here, but I've gone through times where I had different sets of habits (usually involving ditching the car and being a little more active about any curiousity) and from those experiences I'm reasonably confident I can say LA often rewards wandering. (Though havig acquaintances who know places and the internet helps a lot too.)
beachstartup 11y ago
making LA sound terrible is an entire cottage industry and this is a prime example of some top notch product. the truth is a lot more boring. LA is a great major city to live/work in but an exceptionally shitty place to visit, unless you stay with knowledgeable locals. in that way, it's the opposite of SF and NY, tough places to live in but mind-blowing next-level kind of awesome places to visit.
- remarkEon 11y ago
  This was my sentiment exactly...I ended up making some friends in LA over the past 1.5 years and have been visiting enough to the point where I got to know the areas pretty well (mostly in the South Bay..El Segundo, Hermosa, Redondo..less so Santa Monica, Venice). Decided to turn down a school in New York for one in LA because of those reasons you mentioned. I guess I have such a mystical view of NYC and SF because everytime I visit I have such a great time. In a weird way, I think I picked LA because my experience thus far has been more real than NYC or SF.
  - beachstartup 11y ago
    yes, south bay LA is very nice and quite liveable.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  Not to mention that the things to do in LA are so spread out. If you try to visit the city with the intention of visiting as many destinations as possible, you'll be spending more time in the car getting to these places then you will actually being at these places.
  - beachstartup 11y ago
    by next year with the opening of the expo line, public transit will surpass that of the bay area, and within the next 15 years will be in the same league as new york. a lot of money is being spent on it. blue is being extended next year, then purple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Rail_%28Los_Angeles_County%29#/media/File:Los_Angeles_County_Metro_Rail_and_Metro_Liner_map.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Rail_%28Los_Angeles_Count...
jedberg 11y ago
Do you remember the movie Independence Day? You know the part where <spoiler alert> the aliens are blowing up landmarks in cities. You probably remember the Empire State building and White House. Do you remember LA? It was the First Interstate tower (now called the US Bank Tower), a fairly unremarkable building downtown, other than the fact that it is the tallest building in California and tallest building west of the Mississippi. So to answer your question, yes, the landmarks in LA are very generic and non-memorable.
- cf 11y ago
  I think the landmarks are just less well-known. Things like the Getty and Griffith Observatory. Others are generic, but instantly recognizable, like Venice boardwalk and the LA river.
  - nmcveity 11y ago
    Nothing generic about the Walt Disney Concert Hall either :) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Walt_Disney_Concert_Hall,_LA,_CA,_jjron_22.03.2012.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Walt_Disn... But as you say: less well-known.
lukaslalinsky 11y ago
I spent the last three months in SF and I visited LA as a tourist twice during that time. I really wanted to see the city, but I really couldn't find anything worth seeing. Combined with the fact that you have to drive hours around the city to get anywhere, at the end I always got the feeling to just get the hell out of there. I imagine living in (some parts of) the city is quite different and I'd probably enjoy it, but as a visitor, I couldn't find anything interesting enough.

jetako 11y ago

The city does seem to be in constant flux, but there are plenty of landmarks. Griffith Observatory and the Downtown Library come to mind. The author sounds like she spent most of her life west of Hollywood. I would be bitter too if my outlook was so myopic. She somehow managed to miss the bustling Jewelry District and Gallery Row on her way to Skid Row, and must have turned around before she reached the Arts District.

stephengillie 11y ago
She does sound a little bitter. But she describes it as a place where she was afraid to explore because she'd be lost forever. > Nobody knows where to go; it’s not a city designed for accidental social discoveries. You think of a place, you look it up, you go; you look up the way back, you go home.
- jetako 11y ago
  The city only gives back what you put in. It's an onion with enormous depth, and you have to dig. I guess she wasn't willing to put in the effort. It's definitely not for everyone.
  - sprokolopolis 11y ago
    This is so true and the reason why many people who visit LA have such a distorted, acute view of the city. Most of the touristy sites are lame, but there is so much culture and so many hidden gems all throughout the city. LA is what you make of it.
mturmon 11y ago
"she spent most of her life west of Hollywood" Yes, this is just not a very well-informed article. It's pitched as kind of a pithy survey of the city, but it works better as some impressions from the viewpoint of a teen who grew up there. The author appears to have graduated Brown in 2011 and been in Brooklyn since then. In her childhood and teen years here, it's unfortunate she didn't get to visit more of the city. ("All I ever did was drive the familiar loop of surface streets I knew, smoking cigarettes, blasting the heat with the windows down on winter nights.") That's all ok as far as it goes, but what mars the article to the point of profound irritation is that she seems to have taken on a lot of tired and dated viewpoints. (Hollywood as an over-riding explanation, the freeways, hauling Thomas Mann and Bertolt Brecht up from their graves for one more anecdote, the remarks about Downtown.) The article sounds like the way stereotypical older Westside residents talk.

jboggan 11y ago

I don't think it's that generic. Watch last year's "Nightcrawler" for a really great survey of the city. There aren't so many landmarks portrayed as there are distinct neighborhoods and 'feelscapes'. It is definitely an A->B city where it is hard to notice what comes in between. So often I'm invited to a restaurant or event and it exposes a cultural micro-climate that I've never guessed was there despite driving within a block of it every day for years. It's a great city if you want to have territory to explore.

wwweston 11y ago
I think it's not so much an A-to-B city as that it's full of people with A-to-B habits. I'm not excluding myself here, but I've gone through times where I had different sets of habits (usually involving ditching the car and being a little more active about any curiousity) and from those experiences I'm reasonably confident I can say LA often rewards wandering. (Though havig acquaintances who know places and the internet helps a lot too.)

beachstartup 11y ago

making LA sound terrible is an entire cottage industry and this is a prime example of some top notch product. the truth is a lot more boring. LA is a great major city to live/work in but an exceptionally shitty place to visit, unless you stay with knowledgeable locals. in that way, it's the opposite of SF and NY, tough places to live in but mind-blowing next-level kind of awesome places to visit.

remarkEon 11y ago
This was my sentiment exactly...I ended up making some friends in LA over the past 1.5 years and have been visiting enough to the point where I got to know the areas pretty well (mostly in the South Bay..El Segundo, Hermosa, Redondo..less so Santa Monica, Venice). Decided to turn down a school in New York for one in LA because of those reasons you mentioned. I guess I have such a mystical view of NYC and SF because everytime I visit I have such a great time. In a weird way, I think I picked LA because my experience thus far has been more real than NYC or SF.
- beachstartup 11y ago
  yes, south bay LA is very nice and quite liveable.
crimsonalucard 11y ago
Not to mention that the things to do in LA are so spread out. If you try to visit the city with the intention of visiting as many destinations as possible, you'll be spending more time in the car getting to these places then you will actually being at these places.
- beachstartup 11y ago
  by next year with the opening of the expo line, public transit will surpass that of the bay area, and within the next 15 years will be in the same league as new york. a lot of money is being spent on it. blue is being extended next year, then purple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Rail_%28Los_Angeles_County%29#/media/File:Los_Angeles_County_Metro_Rail_and_Metro_Liner_map.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Rail_%28Los_Angeles_Count...

jedberg 11y ago

Do you remember the movie Independence Day? You know the part where <spoiler alert> the aliens are blowing up landmarks in cities. You probably remember the Empire State building and White House. Do you remember LA? It was the First Interstate tower (now called the US Bank Tower), a fairly unremarkable building downtown, other than the fact that it is the tallest building in California and tallest building west of the Mississippi. So to answer your question, yes, the landmarks in LA are very generic and non-memorable.

cf 11y ago
I think the landmarks are just less well-known. Things like the Getty and Griffith Observatory. Others are generic, but instantly recognizable, like Venice boardwalk and the LA river.
- nmcveity 11y ago
  Nothing generic about the Walt Disney Concert Hall either :) http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Walt_Disney_Concert_Hall,_LA,_CA,_jjron_22.03.2012.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Walt_Disn... But as you say: less well-known.

lukaslalinsky 11y ago

I spent the last three months in SF and I visited LA as a tourist twice during that time. I really wanted to see the city, but I really couldn't find anything worth seeing. Combined with the fact that you have to drive hours around the city to get anywhere, at the end I always got the feeling to just get the hell out of there. I imagine living in (some parts of) the city is quite different and I'd probably enjoy it, but as a visitor, I couldn't find anything interesting enough.