Quote:
Originally Posted by alki
You consistently set up this dynamic where you play devil's advocate when it comes to LA's lovability. Its surprising because I don't think you are new to the city but you seem oblivious to the notion that LA has never been universally loved like a SF or Vancouver or Portland or Paris or Prague.
|
alki, by saying "devil's advocate" you make it sound like I rarely or never encounter ppl's comments that run counter to my own. I wish that were the case. I'm not creating a false discontent towards LA. It's other ppl who I've encountered who express a
pov. For instance, I see some snotty povs about LA----esp from a person in baltimore, of all places
----in the letters sections in this webpage.....
NY Times forum on LA
Ppl may not have the same negative reaction to portland or vancouver, or where you live right now, as they do to LA, but I find LA to be a far more interesting, complete city. I'll take it any day over a boutique city. but ymmv.
However, there are certain cities like some of the best ones in europe that are both interesting, complete
AND attractive. So are american cities like LA always going to have to make do with only 1 of those 3 options or only 2 of them, at best? I guess we can't have our cake & eat it too?
I don't want this post to seem too OT, so I'll relate all of this to the question of
why do so many businesses still not want to move to dtla. It's 2012 & the amt of empty office space in the hood remains quite high, as high as it was yrs & yrs ago. Is that possibly cuz ppl who own companies----& choose where their offices will be located----also have a
impression of LA, cuz when they drive towards dt, they see so much that looks
to them?
Quote:
|
At times it seems very facile and shallow......without substance. And that makes sense......its most famous industry is all about glitter and surface beauty. It takes a while to overcome that image and drill down to what is real..........to learn that the city is more substantive than its image. And it looks to me like its always going to be that way.
|
the irony is that hollywood----the actual hood in LA, & both the symbol & original physical heart of showbiz----has long been known to be unattractive & anything but glamorous. So a lack of enough superficial gloss ironically enough has made visitors go
or
when trying to take in the real city. but maybe it's impossible for any city to live up to hollywood hype? btw, I think Hollywood----the place----is better today than it was during its really dark moments several yrs ago. But there still is lots of room for improvement. for instance, getting rid of the big deadzone where the 6200blvd proj is supposed to go up near Hollywood & vine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DistrictDirt
It doesn't necessitate you posting Google Street View photos to illustrate the obvious over, and over, and over... p
|
fwiw, the pic I posted was not from google but from sopas ej. It was from a posting he keyed in here several wks ago, but that I don't think I ever responded to. He said he took pics of LA that purposefully featured sightlines that he thinks don't make the city look all that bad to him. After dealing with the friends I described in my last posting----& being forced again to realize something ain't right in dodge city----I went hmmmm, & thought I'd review sopas's pics.
I've wondered through the yrs why it takes so long to clean up LA. a lack of enough $$? Lack of interest? Lack of time? maybe too many ppl responding to criticism like this....
^ Do ppl react that way when this thread, for the
1 millionth time, is talking about how too many ppl in LA prefer cars to transit? Or would rather drive than walk? Or that our transit lines still aren't very good. Or that some new devlpt doesn't have pritzker prize winning architecture. Or that some new proj has too much parking. or some new proj has stucco instead of granite. Or some new proj doesn't have retail space on the first level. or some new devlpt is more burban than urban?
Prev
about relocating their offices to dt? 
Linear Mode
