▲ 68 points
back
90 comments
Born and raised in Los Angeles. Lived in Downtown Los Angeles, Venice Beach, Hollywood, Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades, Marina Del Rey, Playa Del Rey. Lived on a boat, in apartments, in houses. Commuted 2 hours one way, 1 hour the other, and then 10 minutes max each way.
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.
I grew up both close enough and far enough that I always hated LA—hated going there, hated the traffic, the city busy-ness, the randomness and amorphousness that was both easy and difficult to describe.
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.
Your comment and the parent comment are exactly how I feel.
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.
checking out a book from each decade going back to 1930
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.
Aldous Huxley's essays on Los Angeles are easily the best pieces that still ring true to this day.
[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...
Do you have any recommendations for an overview of the architectural history of LA? Moving there this summer...every time I move to a new city I like to understand the how and why of the way it looks. I especially enjoyed this[0] piece that popped up on HN a few months ago.
City of Quartz by Mike Davis. Probably the best social history of Los Angeles, and a major influence on the film this article takes its title from.
Thought that this was going to be about this movie (which I thought was a great watch as an LA transplant): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Plays_Itself
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.]
About midway through the article, the author mentions the titular film.
It gets to it eventually.
>She refers to their relationship as long-distance. It takes her an hour to get to where he lives, so she stays for three days at a time, then comes home for one or two.
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?
Depends on your sensibilities and what you're used to, but personally, I consider an hour exceptionally long. For me, it takes roughly 20 minutes to get into the nearest major metropolitan area by car, or 30 to an international airport. Almost anywhere we'd regularly travel to or run an errand to is within 5-10 minutes; more unusual destinations are within 15-20. An hour is what it would take to drive to the ocean or mountains from here; while it's possible to do that and return within a day, that almost doesn't seem worth it, and finding somewhere to sleep for the night and stay multiple days seems preferable, to amortize the travel time.
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.)
>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.
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.
I'm that person. For me it's all about cost.
I rent a room in a house in the suburbs for $400mo where if I wanted to live in the city where I work it would cost me around $1k. I don't make a lot of money so even though my time is valuable, it isn't helping my bank account. Until I get a better job it just isn't an option to move into the city.
Some people don't have great options about where they work. I personally would not move close to downtown LA if I worked there. I'm more comfortable in a safe suburb, but the good jobs are in Santa Monica.
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.
I am a Brit who now lives in the Bay Area (~400 miles, 5 hours drive north of LA). What really chews your soul is sitting in stop and go traffic. Journeys with lots of motion seem to pass by quicker as you are actually doing something and the scenery, cars etc around you are constantly changing.
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 born in the bay, I now live in LA. What you experience for traffic in the bay is heaven compared to LA
I can't stand those high walls around the freeway South of San Francisco. Absolutely soul-draining and claustrophobic.
It depends on the individual. Plenty of people in Southern California (greater LA, etc) have daily work commutes in excess of an hour each way. But if you don't live that daily lifestyle, I suppose an hour drive may seem excessive.
Is that an hour by car or an hour by public transport? Being an American, and never having been around good, reliable public transport except when visiting Europe, I wonder what the tolerance for time/distance is for active vs. passive transportation. I never seemed to mind a longer amount of time spent on transport if I was sitting around on a bus an S/U-Bahn, but at home I consider anything outside of a 20-30 minute drive a hassle.
An hour by public transport, which I realize makes a big difference as I usually spend that time on my kindle. If your journey involves central London (as mine usually do), using a car doesn't even seem like an option - that's why I don't even have a licence.
I had a friend in Santa Monica ask me a few years back if i wanted to get a burrito, so we get in her car, get on the 10, the 405, and another freeway towards downtown. After driving 40 minutes, i ask her, "are we getting close?", she says, "of course, don't be so impatient"
West LA has lots of plenty of legit Mexican food, you shouldn't be driving for it. I suggest Tacos Por Favor next time you want some in Santa Monica.
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...
That's why people deal with traffic in LA. People there really do value time differently. Just living is pretty darn good—your time doesn't have to be for something, it is what it is, and you enjoy it. Stereotypically, 'going with the flow' is not too far off.
That's the perfect California response and it contains significant cultural wisdom that answers many confusions in this thread.
Hate it to break it to you but you drove by at least 30 equally good burrito shops on your way there. If there is one thing I see no point in driving long distances for in Southern California, it's Mexican food.
Others have observed this is a little odd, given that in LA there's almost always decent tacos or burritos close at hand.
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...
It's pretty typical. Maybe this explains some of why car culture caught on so much in the US... growing up in suburban America, you don't expect to have to travel for an hour very often. Rush hour doesn't last for long, and after that the highway will take you wherever you want to go.
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.
I bus from Seattle to a nearby city. Part of my commute is a 2 mile walk. Including freeway traffic for the bus, my travel time is 1.3 hours to work, and 2 hours home.
Commuting from Redmond to Tacoma during rush hour is a 2 hour drive as well. During other times it's a 45-minute drive.
Is than an hour of driving, or an hour of transit? Being able to read or work for some of the trip makes it a lot more bearable.
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.
Ok, so are you going to spend an hour going somewhere? Are you going to go to work (1hr), go to drinks after work (1hr), and then go home (1hr)??
So you spend 3hrs a day just traveling, and you consider that ok?
As an American, I also find that weird. An hour is (as I had to once deal with in a previous job) "long daily commute" for me, not "long distance".
One problem is that what may be a 1 hour drive normally could stretch to 3 or 4 hours at random. It makes planning difficult.
I vividly remember the first time I saw LA: it was 1982. I drove in from Santa Barbara, and when I got to Van Nuys I looked around and thought, what a horrible place, I'd hate to have to live here.
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.
This is written by someone who has little knowledge of Los Angeles, especially east of Los Feliz. Her descriptions of downtown are outdated.
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.
I completely concur with you on her knowledge of Los Angeles, I think she is basing her entire opinion of the downtown corridor on a ten minute long drive.
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.
> Walk into a popular restaurant around here and the sights, sounds, and smells will be almost identical to Hong Kong.
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. :)
Downtown is slowly becoming the capital for creatives and tech as well. Not surprised if the Arts District takes the lead here.
As a NYC resident, 1000 square foot studios made me both smile and cry a little.
The movie is absolutely worth watching, mainly due to sheer force of Thom Andersen's intellect. Unfortunately he misses a few things that the average HN reader might find obvious. For example he spends quite a bit of time talking about Blade Runner but seems completely flummoxed as far as understanding what the movie was about.
It's available for streaming on Netflix instant.
Oh, that is fantastic.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Kept reading the article, waiting for Venice to come up - this strange weird place... And some words on Abbott Kinney, the canals, mother's beach...
> “Latino” is an ethnic, as opposed to a racial, category
How can we convince 320 million people that there's no scientific basis for the existence of races in the human species?