Los Angeles a Good City?

[Hipster Duck]

Downtown LA, while rougher than downtown Toronto, is no less vibrant:

It happens to be the de facto centre for the city's Latino population which is at least the same population as Greater Toronto.

 

[LAz]

LA sucks in my opinion. They had one of the best transit systems in the US, many trolley lines...


...then National City Lines came in and killed their system... backed by GM, Oil Companies, Tire Companies, they replaced the rail with buses and did their best to destroy mass transit, while fueling construction of the suburbs and new super-highways.




Heck, here, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2486235784907931000# , the start shows how miserable LA traffic is...

 

[Second_in_pie]

I don't think that anyone's arguing that LA doesn't have transportation issues. But I think that among it's huge sprawley urban fabric, horrible car-reliant transportation, and high crime, there's good points to LA. LA has the potential to be something very beautiful and unique, it's just in need of a tiny push towards grand urban renewal.

 

[doady]

LA was not the only city to lose its streetcar system and see a lot of freeway construction...

 

[Hipster Duck]

LA sucks in my opinion. They had one of the best transit systems in the US, many trolley lines...

The jury is still out on whether the Pacific Electric system was really one of the best transit systems. It really was a real estate development tool, and the quality of service (track quality, rolling stock, trip times) left a lot to be desired.

Besides the trunk lines of the PE system have more or less been retraced by modern light rail lines.

 

[that_girl_there]

As a Torontonian who recently visited LA, I wanted to chime in on this discussion. I definitely saw a lot of similarities between Toronto and LA. Both are very much cities of neighbourhoods. People who visit LA shouldn't just visit downtown, but need to go out and see Venice Beach, Beverly Hills, Hollywood, etc. People are more connected to their neighbourhood than to a bigger city picture. I see this all the time in Toronto. Although amalgamation happened over 10 years ago, I still feel Toronto divided into its former municipalities. And with the City of Toronto itself becoming so expensive, I've come to accept that people who live in surrounding cities (Richmond Hill, Markham, Mississauga, etc) are essentially a part of Toronto - the way Anaheim, Santa Monica and others feel part of LA.

I also find that both cities are very accepting and inviting. I was charmed to arrive in LA and find that you really can be anyone and fit in. I think Toronto, with its many quirky neighbourhoods, can rival Venice and other quirky LA hoods for being open to just about anyone.

Both cities also have a transit system that has failed to keep up with the reailty of its size. Yes, Toronto's system is great considering, but I lived in York Region for a while and found that the transit connections are very difficult as you get farther out. The same is true of LA - the subway system really need to be massively extended, and light rail should be used in place of heavily used bus lines.

But of course all these things take money. The point that I wanted to make (and which inspired me to create an account on these forums) is that Toronto and LA have a lot in common. Despite differences in weather

 

[King of Kensington]

I don't see much in common between central Toronto and central L.A. - Toronto is far more dense, compact, walkable, and transit-friendly, much more in common with Boston, Manhattan and San Francisco.

However I do see a similarity between the postwar suburbia of North York/Scarborough/Etobicoke and the San Fernando Valley in terms of density levels and diversity.

 

[kettal]

"Vienna surrounded by Los Angeles"

 

[Brandon716]

LA is one of the few American cities I've not been to. It doesn't seem like much of a comparison to Toronto in a textbook case or by viewing it on Google Maps and photos, but I can't say since my personal trips to California have been limited to northern Cali and SF Bay.

 

[Ladies Mile]

In the interests of fairness, according to maps, historic downtown LA is at least as large as Toronto's CBD and, it could be argued, is far better preserved in terms of historic early 20th century architecture. I am not a huge fan of most American Beaux Arts and Art Deco nonsense, but the stuff in LA such as the Eastern Building or the Public Library is certainly unique, geared towards its climate and culture and seems far more willing right from the start to take dramatic chances and go for "progressive" solutions. LA is the city that hosted Neutra and Schindler, is home to some of Wright's greatest commissions, is the home of Irving Gill, Green and Green and William Lautner, Ray & Charles Eames and nearly countless other early modernists, all while New York's ultra-rich erected vast classical piles on Park Avenue and dully "tasteful" suburbs full of constipated wealth.

LA need not apologize for any lack of architectural or historic significance.

Coherence? That might be a different story.

 

[that_girl_there]

To be fair, the fact that downtown LA hasn't had as much economic activity as, say, Manhatten or Toronto, is probably a reason why much of their original architecture is still standing.

But still, I like your analysis. I didn't "visit" downtown, as in walk around, but I did take several buses through it and it's certainly got some great buildings. The Disney Centre is just surreal - it's the type of cool, original architecture that Toronto always seems to mess up (ROM crystal just looks like some fungus growing on what was a beautiful building...)