Quote:
Originally Posted by alki
Eventually I came to realize that LA is a very unique city in this country with its own very distinctive style.
......It was why I moved to a city that more fit my vision. I finally conceded that LA was not about to change in a direction that I wanted. It was going to do it its way and that would not make me happy.
|
not sure where you now live, although for some reason I think of you as being in portland or seattle. maybe SF.
In terms of whether the grass is greener on the side of the hill----& sometimes it is-----there was a person who several wks ago posted pics of the civic ctr of SF. Lots of beaux arts or neo classical bldgs, which really impressed me. I thought "WOW"! & was so taken by it, I went to google street view to get a better, closer look. although I've been in sf before, I never looked really closely at that part of sf & what was in those pics.
So when moving google's cam through SF's civic ctr, I was astounded, but not in a way I'd thought I'd be. When looking at the imposing bldgs of sf's civic ctr from more than a narrow, front angle view, I was struck by how things didn't seem quite so WOW! The hood as viewed from more of a 3 dimensional, front & back standpoint didn't seem quite as good as I'd thought it would be. Ex: SF's bldg used for classical music----their version of disney hall----even has a fugly little surface parking lot notched right into the corner of the block it's on. I saw that and went, um, oh oh!
the scale of everything also seemed kind of small townish. that's not necessarily a bad thing, but it just seemed kind of oddly rinky dink. I was wondering if that was just due to some strange aspect of google streetview---or that maybe I was looking at things in a jaded way----so I then switched to google's shots of parts of dtla around 1st & grand, towards LA sts. The scale was exactly as I've always known it to be, more fitting for a major city. iow, such a difference doesn't have to be considered better---or worse---but it's one difference that's noticeable in one, not so noticeable in the other.
another thing: boutique cities may be friendlier, cozier, nicer & without as much of the fugliness as LA, which it does have too much of. But that doesn't mean those boutique type of cities are more interesting or multi layered.
which leads to....
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobcat
Go read what they say on tourist forums and you'll find people raving about Times Square, the Grove, the Las Vegas Strip, and every other similarly tacky locale you can think of. And they LOVE what LA Live has done to that area of DTLA.
|
SSPers in his thread may get very analytical----possibly over analytical----about urban design & the pros & cons of places. But when all is said & done, ppl determine what succeeds or fails in the way they spend their time & money.
I think boutique cities, in the PNW or a town like boston, can be overly one dimensional & less interesting than LA, but many other ppl would disagree.
some ppl may say the proposed metropolis proj between 8th & 9th Sts is too burban, too short, too small, too boring, too whatever. but I bet far more ppl won't be bothered by those things as much as they'll be turned off by what's there right now: a huge fugly parking lot.
when it comes to the devlpr of the metropolis, they aren't going to be shaped by what we think here. they'll be shaped by whether big box stores will want to join with them, & whether banks will want to give them $$$. That's the only thing that matters right now, & unfortunately that may mean the big deadzone there today will still be a deadzone several yrs from today. of course, I hope I'm wrong.
Prev
Linear Mode
