|
|
|
|
|
|
by zubat
3353 days ago
|
|
|
All the distinctive elements of LA have been packaged and sold to you through Hollywood films, to the point where it's actually a bit shocking to see some of the landmarks in person for the first time, because you didn't think of them as actual places. On the ground, most parts of LA don't look like anywhere in particular because they're too low rise and you can't see the horizon either. But there are some tells in certain of the neighborhoods: besides highways and palm trees, many blocks have "courtyard apartment" construction. The landscape favors autos but not in the same way as a city like Atlanta, favoring a regular grid with sidewalks over cul-de-sac deadends. With so much of the development spanning a brief period in the 20th century(by the 70's laments for "old LA" were common) there isn't a great deal of history. San Francisco contrasts as a city that has had fires and reconstruction in its core, but if you go out to the western parts of town or a bit down the peninsula, it's all recognizable as being of the same generation as many of those LA suburbs. |
|
|
I vividly remember my first drive from LAX to campus when I started undergrad in the area. First time there in the flesh, but I recognized overpass after hillside mansion after chain link fence after palm tree boulevard... from GTA: San Andreas. Déjà vu is hardly a strong enough term.
I would have been more prepared to recognize things if it had been, say, Jerusalem or Rome and the game Assassin's Creed, since one thinks of those cities as exotic, iconic. But LA has made its particular brand of "lack of distinguishing features" the default in a huge swath of media, and that was when I realized it.