Full of the stereotypical things the NY media likes to print about LA. Hollywood openings? Check. Advice to New Yorkers headed to LA? Check. Comparisons of any LA phenomenon with NY analog? Check. Lacking perspective on the city as a whole, beyond Hollywood, downtown, and the west side? Check.
Sigh. Yet, some truisms sprinkled among the retreads.
Author's about page: A New Yorker at heart (and by area code), I’m currently based in Los Angeles.
Most transit users in L.A. take the bus rather than rail, and there's a lot denser bus network. Weekday ridership numbers are about 1m for Metro Bus, 300k for Metro Rail (subway / light rail), and 40k for Metrolink (commuter rail).
Yes, you are right, rail service is (still) sparse in LA -- despite the new lines.
But that's not my point. My point is: Why do I have to read anecdotes about New Yorkers transplanting to LA when I'm reading an article supposedly about the new LA Metro line? It's lazy on the part of the author.
> "The work is sometimes referred to as A Parochial New Yorker's View of the World or A New Yorker's View of the World because it depicts a map of the world as seen by self-absorbed New Yorkers."
They have a market of potentially millions of potential readers who are interested in the parochial New York world view. Why produce articles for a more general national or international market where there is more competition and less ability to distinguish oneself?
It seems a little silly to equate a tongue-in-cheek New Yorker cover with the audience of the New Yorker. The vast bulk of the New Yorker is not written by, or intended for 'people interested in the parochial New York View'.
One would hope that their cosmopolitan and well-educated audience would tire of repeated regional stereotypes. I have apparently overestimated the aim of their editors.
That's why I subscribe to NY Review -- which can be parochial, but is more adventurous.
I can assure you there's a large audience of cosmopolitan and well-educated people who also want regional flavor. Nearly everyone wants to feel special, and many do not want the homogeneous world you seem to desire.
I used to subscribe to the "Santa Fean", which is "an art, culture, dining, history and lifestyle magazine in Santa Fe, New Mexico." If a city of 60K inhabitants can have its own city-centered publication, then a city of millions can certainly have its own.
I now live in Sweden, which has a smaller population that the NYC area. When Swedes cover international news, they often describe it with a Swedish viewpoint, or how it affects Swedes. Do you think Swedes are using "repeated regional stereotypes"? Or that Swedes are not a "cosmopolitan and well-educated audience"?
To wire it _back_ with rail, you mean. What is now the Expo line from Downtown to Santa Monica was, in 1875, the Los Angeles and Independence Railroad.
And in some cases it really doesn't make that much sense. I think there is definitely some urban vanity at play with the huge investment in train spending. Would personally love to see more bus rapid transit lines.
Commuter from Seattle here. BRT is an improvement here (I'm on it now) but vastly inferior to rail. Downtown to UW is 10 minutes on rail. My similar distanced BRT commute is 25-60 minutes.
Grade separated rail makes a gigantic difference and moves leagues more humans faster than BRT could dream of.
Unless BRT gets dedicated lanes it's no better than any other bus, except it stops is fewer places more often.
I thought, and wikipedia agrees, that BRT implies dedicated lanes, for at least the majority of the route.
There's lots of little improvements that could be made to bus transport, for similar money to trains, I think a big part of it is just wanting to be responsible for big construction, whether to get kickbacks or to just a more straightforward ego boost.
Apart from the relatively few places accessible by train, bus coverage is pretty extensive. If you live anywhere near a rapid bus stop (along Sunset, Wilshire, or Santa Monica for example) you'll be fine. Also, since Metro publishes real time arrival data, there is a healthy collection of apps that give you to-the-minute arrival times for the next bus.
source: I have lived in East Hollywood / Silverlake / Echo Park for the last 8 years, never with a car. I bike, walk, bus, train, lyft/uber (in that order).
With the disclosure that my girlfriend had a car, I did pretty well in Santa Monica without one for years (pre Uber). There were enough bus lines that went through there that it wasn't a big problem. However anytime you needed to get somewhere that required a transfer it really extended the trip.
Speaking from experience, you can easily get by without a car in DTLA, Santa Monica, Echo Park, Highland Park, Chinatown, Koreatown, and Venice (west of Lincoln Blvd). You could probably get away with it in Hollywood/Silver Lake/Los Feliz too.
I went carless in Pasadena and I could get around town, to downtown LA and to places on the northeast side OK using the Gold Line (5 minute walk from my apartment). Unfortunately many of the Pasadena stations are in less-than walkable areas. Making it to social events outside of the Gold Line's coverage area was hard (connecting through DTLA sucks, will be improved when the regional connector is built). I'm sure things would have been better with a bike and had Uber been around when I was doing that.
Good list. Pasadena, Silver Lake, Echo Park. I'm sure it works in Venice and SM too, although I don't have personal experience with it. K-town or mid-Wilshire might be OK too.
My experience was that buses in LA smelled like piss and were in disrepair. The two times I tried to give the buses a chance in Hollywood seemed to confirm this. Can you elaborate on the quality of bus transit?
You live in a different LA than I do, it seems. LA residents drive all over the frigging place all the time. It's not like the 405 is evidence of judicious use of private transportation.
Sure, you can choose one neighborhood - except your friends chose another one, your employer a third, culture happens elsewhere, and your doctor is always at the other side of the moon. You can make a no-car household work, but you're much more restrained in what you can do, compared to a city with even semi-decent public transport, like Chicago.
Yes, you can take public transport. Pre-expo-line, the 8 miles from my home to work were a 120-150 minute ride. One way. Now, with the expo line, I can do 8 miles in an hour. Whee.
LA residents unfortunately need a car for many instances, because that's the only way to get anywhere without spending a day.
you have the power to improve your own living conditions. you are not a victim of the city you live in. give it a shot, buddy. i'm rooting for you. i believe in you!
Uh, sure. I'll go fix public transit in L.A. Not going to happen in the near term. Plenty of people are trying to improve this, but it's a very slow process. L.A. will, for the foreseeable future, stay a car culture.
But continue rooting. Not that boundless enthusiasm without any plan does anything to change reality, but it's such an L.A. mindset, it's endearing.
Yup. When I lived in Venice I went to great efforts not to cross the 405 for errands unless absolutely necessary (and even then, tried to batch trips if possible). If Expo II had been around I might've taken that across the 405 instead of driving.
By the same token, if you move to the Westside from pretty much anywhere else in LA, you'll get tons of shit from your friends who now have to go over the river and through the woods to see you.
It's not worth it to cross the 405 much. If you stay west it's pretty easy to get around.
The ocean breeze is hard to leave and friends will come visit you all the time if you have adequate parking, live near the beach, and have decent space to hang out.
I rarely visit my buddy because he only has 1 of those things in Venice and I have friends drive upwards of an hour almost every weekend to hang out at my place.
Sigh. Yet, some truisms sprinkled among the retreads.
Author's about page: A New Yorker at heart (and by area code), I’m currently based in Los Angeles.