I'm glad someone else is saying it; I've been at it for years. The recent but astute L.A. (City) transplant has it. The Atwater Village Nerd Posts that places called "best in L.A." should actually BE in Los Angeles. Notice the first installments of "225 Ways to Celebrate LA" are limited to things in or related to the City of L.A. Thanks for calling it out, AV Nerd!
Friday, May 05, 2006
Atwater Nerd is right!
I'm glad someone else is saying it; I've been at it for years. The recent but astute L.A. (City) transplant has it. The Atwater Village Nerd Posts that places called "best in L.A." should actually BE in Los Angeles. Notice the first installments of "225 Ways to Celebrate LA" are limited to things in or related to the City of L.A. Thanks for calling it out, AV Nerd!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
It seems like a city of 3-point-whatever million offers enough variety to keep these lists within city limits.
Let Malibu come up with its own Top Twos. I mean, Top Tens.
I agree, but then again, what's considered "LA" anymore? Or, for that matter, ever? Are we talking about anything that has a 900-- zip code, or is merely unincorporated? Because you're still all over the map on that one, no?
Los Angeles isn't like other cities where you're either within its confines or not. And that is okay.
I tend to disagree that it is "ok". It gives people the false sense that LA is only slighty smaller than, let's say, Australia. In fact it is a medium sized city somewhere in the 465 sq mile range, by the Houston, Tx mammoths it with over 600 sq miles and Jacksonville, FL at over 1000!! As a transplant this is a pet peeve of mine and makes me think that either people living here who spew the idea of the Los Angeles version of Pangea are either not connected to this city or are just geographically benign.
And meanwhile the Valley, while part of L.A., is usually left off these lists. But that's another issue for another time...
Post a Comment