Los Angeles Plays Itself
nplusonemag.com
nplusonemag.com
I love L.A. - every facet of it, top to bottom, rich to poor, chilled to stressed. But there are more L.A.'s than two. Los Angeles is a bona fide schizophrenic. If the layers of Los Angeles were onion layers, you'd need a thousand onions to demonstrate the complexity of this county, of this town.
I appreciate the article, but I recommend taking a trip to the library and checking out a book from each decade going back to 1930, written by an Angeleino, preferably a few from different ethnic and social backgrounds (and genders), and then you will closer to unraveling this beautiful mess I call home.
[1] (Linking to Huxley's essay on the Southern California desert, as I find it the most thoughtful and universal reflection on how to live amongst any environment) https://danassays.wordpress.com/collected-essays-by-aldous-h...
Even better is the anthology "Writing Los Angeles", which excerpts writings from the 1880s to 2000: http://www.amazon.com/Writing-Los-Angeles-Literary-Anthology... It really brings out how the competing cultural narratives of LA as paradise and LA as near-apocalyptic wasteland have co-existed since the beginning.
I hated it so much so that I began to love it. It reminded me of a person: human, flawed, honest, complex, paradoxical, somehow both ignorant and wise at the same time—and fundamentally alive and beautiful and generally happy in spite of it all. Some would say it lacks perspective, but I do think it has one. And it has such a personality, and knows itself. I've lived in cities without much of a personality, and I think knowing LA has helped me see that clearly. I miss it, for some reason I can't quite put my finger on.
I've now lived here for almost 15 years. I've traveled all over the world, and LA is still my favorite city of them all.
It's a cruel mistress one day. And a wondrous utopia the next day. Never predictable. Home.
If I recall correctly the first line of the article is almost verbatim from that film as well…
[EDIT: Guess I should have read the whole article before posting. I still think that it's an odd choice to co-opt the name of the film, and then give a throwaway shoutout halfway through.]
I assume this isn't a typical reaction? I live in London, and if it takes me an hour to get somewhere, I consider that fairly reasonable. Is it actually common for people over there to consider an hour journey as something extraordinary?
I commute most days, usually several miles. The only time I prefer car or train is when its raining, which is rare.
http://www.yelp.com/biz/tacos-por-favor-santa-monica
There are some things you have to drive for, like great dim sum, but the great Middle Eastern and Japanese food more than makes up for it.
Two of my favorite restaurants in the world:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/zankou-chicken-los-angeles-2
http://www.yelp.com/biz/hide-sushi-japanese-restaurant-los-a...
http://www.yelp.com/biz/tacomiendo-los-angeles
monte alban is great but not for tacos/burritos.
On the other hand, ones favorite place for these things might well be an hour away. I live in West LA and my favorite Mexican food is in Eagle Rock and my favorite mediterranean food is in Orange County...
That's the perfect California response and it contains significant cultural wisdom that answers many confusions in this thread.
Commuting from Redmond to Tacoma during rush hour is a 2 hour drive as well. During other times it's a 45-minute drive.
I don't mind an occasional 2 hour train ride into NYC for the weekend, but hell if I'd do it in my car regularly.
In most of the US, an hour drive is a long way[1]. You're talking about a 40+ mile trip since few cities experience the hours-long traffic of LA (in LA, it's easy to spend an hour driving 5 to 15 miles, if you have to go at the wrong time). The flip side is that LA is far denser than most of the US, so you don't generally have to drive nearly as far... but relationships and commuting to work can get you, and that's where you get the time-consuming drives in soul-crushing traffic.
[1] In most of the US, public transport isn't an option, and even in LA taking the bus generally adds a fair bit of time over driving direct, and the train coverage is only slowly improving.
There are people who commute for an hour, and who select a place to live knowing they'll have to commute for an hour, despite having options within 5-10 minutes. I can't even begin to fathom why someone would do that, and waste 10 hours of their life every week for years.
(There's a bit of an exception for commuting by public transit with minimal transfers, since at least then you can spend the time productively rather than behind a wheel. Even then, I wouldn't want to regularly spend an hour on a train, but it's slightly less terrible.)
I am from Perth, Australia and people voluntarily driving for upwards of 30 minutes each way is extremely common with 1 hour not being all that unusual so people will happily buy a home that is distant from where they work.
Although Perth isn't huge in terms of population (~2 million) it is extremely spread out due to its very low population density. 310/km2 Vs 5354/km2 for London for example. Australian cities generally have a low density, Melbourne is 430/km2, but Perth is at the low end of the low end.
Most Perth people have never lived anywhere else so they grow up assuming that being in the car for 20-40 minutes to get anywhere is common and that a 1 hour drive to work isn't particularly bad. At a company I worked at there was someone who had a 2 hour commute. That is very definitely at the very high end and he actually lived outside of the city and drove in every day but let that sink in a little. 4 hours a day in the car.
This is, in my opinion, part of the reason why Perth people who experience living elsewhere rarely return to live in Perth. Some return after some time elsewhere but typically they leave for good after another year or two. Once you have acclimatized to having a <20 minute commute, especially if its by public transport or walking, the notion of paying a bunch of money to buy a car so you can sit in traffic for 20-60 minute each way every day is profoundly unattractive.
Commuting in LA is rougher than Perth due to the traffic but Perth's low density means that people often travel further to find the same variety of amenities.
That's common in the US too... The average commute to work in the US is 25 minutes each way. And 1 in 12 people spend 1 hour or more each way.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/03/05/c...
At one point, I drove about 80 minutes to my University and about 60 minutes back to work, which was by my home. If I got lucky and there was no traffic (rare), it was 45 minutes. You get used to it, but it's not something one should get used to.
Even now, I live 2 minutes from work. In traffic, it's 15 minutes. You can't avoid traffic in LA. There needs to be a better public option.
If the economy has any rightness in it at all, it has shown us that California is valuable. People put up with all manner of hardship just to carry out their lives in that location.
Traffic is an effect of that value. Of course, people are not perfectly mobile, and many things tie people to particular geographies and commutes; but in general people still move to California and prioritize the value of the location over commute time.
But when you are driving in that stop go traffic that feels comparable to walking speed, with the same cars around you, and no particular visible progress, the brain really hates it.
These highways are in what you would consider urban areas, but there are walls on either side to alleviate the noise for residents. Consequently there isn't that much to see along stretches other than stop and go cars going into the distance.
I was shocked on one trip to LA driving at 1am, in a two lane wide car pool lane, and experiencing traffic almost as dense as rush in the Bay Area!
Then again the non-highway streets seem to have a traffic light system geared to no movement. It is beyond annoying sitting at lights where nobody is moving.
So you spend 3hrs a day just traveling, and you consider that ok?
Six years later I was living in Glendale, and 22 years after that I left, having fallen deeply in love with LA. It's a terrific place, but it demands practice and patience. Finding the good parts of LA isn't easy. But once you find them, LA is deeply rewarding.
Yes, Skid Row and the surrounding area still has the largest concentration of homeless people in the US. Just a block east of Skid Row is The Arts District, which is in terms of real estate prices, the hottest neighborhood in Los Angeles right now. It's where all the trendy cafes (Blue Bottle, Stumptown, Urth Cafe, etc.) have decided to open up shop in Los Angeles. Traditionally the area had attracted artists because of the large, cheap commercial and loft style spaces available, but in the last 3-4 years it's become unrecognizable. Back in the 90's it was an extension of Skid Row. Today, it's filled with yuppies who can afford to pay $3,000 a month for a 1,000 square foot studio. It's the only neighborhood on the Eastside where rental prices are comparable to Venice/Santa Monica. The homeless population continues to hang on to control of an ever-rapidly gentrifying neighborhood. It's an eerie feeling watching a hopeless residents of Skid Row slowly push a shopping cart down a busy intersection like a living dead man, as Teslas and Benzes swerve to avoid him.
Just one block west of Stumptown coffee, there are boarded up commercial buildings on 7th street. It's the southern border of the Arts District, and even though most of the foot traffic is homeless people, the landlords are asking $12,000 a month for a storefront of under 2,000 square feet.
In Los Angeles, Hollywood is the cultural capital, downtown is financial capital, and the SM/Venice is the tech capital. But East LA is the soul of the city IMO. Not just the city of East LA, but everything east of downtown all the way to Rowland Heights. Of course Boyle Heights and the neighboring cities are the Mexican cultural centers. Remnants what LA used to be before the mass migration west and before the US government deported millions of US citizens of Mexican heritage [1]. I live here now and I love it, even though living here means that you're more car dependent than most other places in Los Angeles. A few miles east and you're in Monterrey Park, the city with the highest concentration of Chinese residents of any city in the US. Walk into a popular restaurant around here and the sights, sounds, and smells will be almost identical to Hong Kong. And then there's everything South of the 10, which the author didn't really get in to either. The point being, Los Angeles is much more than Santa Monica east to Los Feliz, and people who are considering moving here ought to look beyond those boundaries if they want to get a better understanding of the city.
The transformation of the Arts District has been truly incredible. Virtually unrecognizable from what it was 5 years ago. It's interesting how the original anchor location for that transformation, The Brewery, has been more or less ignored as development focused on the area just east of 2nd and Alameda. As restaurants like Wurstkuche, Zip, R23, and Church & State became popular, the housing developments around the area sprang up virtually overnight. It would be interesting to do a visualization of that based on liquor permit applications and construction permits, since I can't say for certain which happened first. Certainly the currently under construction aircraft carrier sized white condo complex on the edge of the river is in response to the restaurant/bar scene that has developed.
I'm not an LA native but I've grown to love it and hope to see more tech develop here.
Actually, most of the Chinese in LA are Mandarin speakers from places like Beijing and Shanghai. If you want Hong Kong you have to come to the Bay Area or Sacramento. :)
It's available for streaming on Netflix instant.
I saw it at a screening many years ago and was never able to see it again. The movie clips made releasing it too difficult.
I see now it was released in October 2014 -- ten years after it was finished!
Very worth watching, even if (like me) you've never been to LA.
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?
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
(Though havig acquaintances who know places and the internet helps a lot too.)
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.
blue is being extended next year, then purple:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_Rail_%28Los_Angeles_Count...
Maybe if they took that diagram and put the entire thing in Santa Monica, you can probably make Santa Monica like NYC.
I am also talking about public transit coverage. I meant to get to NYC levels of public transportation and convenience LA needs to be more dense.
> that's the whole point of LA. they built it on the west coast to get away from the east coast.
Other way around. They built NYC because LA was too far west, the traffic was too shitty, and they wanted more variety in the weather.
This article made me so happy I almost teared up because I sometimes forget how engaged and comforting this city is.
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.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Walt_Disn...
But as you say: less well-known.
How can we convince 320 million people that there's no scientific basis for the existence of races in the human species?