or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › California Appreciation Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

California Appreciation Thread - Page 24

post #346 of 391
80% of it is horrible strip malls and forgettable housing, let's be honest.
post #347 of 391
Is ironic appreciation allowed?

P82797000.jpg
post #348 of 391
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

80% of it is horrible strip malls and forgettable housing, let's be honest.

80% of it is actually undeveloped open space, water, and the Angeles Forest but don't let that stop you from being a tendentious New Yorker. I'm sorry the McMansions ruin it for you. Also, 80% of Republicans are Tea Party birthers who eat freedom fries.
post #349 of 391
I have heard military people tell me that whenever they had to move secret cargo of nuclear materials, they always tried to route it through a "nuclear free zone" just for the private giggles. Can't confirm, though.
post #350 of 391
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordecai View Post

80% of it is actually undeveloped open space, water, and the Angeles Forest but don't let that stop you from being a tendentious New Yorker.
80% of LA city? get real. That's not even true of LA county, but at least that claim would be less preposterous
post #351 of 391
Thread Starter 
oops, you're right, I said city on the last page. It was the NPR thread that I said county in. Anyways, you are still wrong about the beauty. Despite the ugly houses.
post #352 of 391
LA has, IMO, actually gotten worse as so many of the austere but nice old California bungalows have been replaced by horrible faux-classic McMansions.

Beverly Hills was a lot more attractive in the 1980s than it is now. But leave aside the high end, so many middle class neighborhoods are being wrecked with money-minus-taste.
post #353 of 391
I found an article on this ordinance. Words fail me.

http://www.berkeleyside.com/2011/10/11/can-berkeley-live-with-not-being-nuclear-free/
Quote:
The law prohibits Berkeley from doing any business with corporations involved in nuclear energy unless the city passes a special exemption. This has proven onerous and even ridiculous at times, said Wozniak. For example, a few years ago the city wanted to hire Dan Kammen, a UC Berkeley professor, to consult about energy issues. But the city could not legally hire him since his employer, UC, manages Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, which designs nuclear weapons (Kammen is currently the World Bank’s chief technical specialist on renewable energy). It holds true for any UC professor the city wants to work with.

In 2009, Berkeley Public Library wanted to sign a contract with 3M to service its self-check out book scanners, but had to seek a dispensation  since the company refused to sign a nuclear-free disclosure form required by the law. The Peace and Justice Commission denied the waiver, and the library had to appeal to the city council.

...

The law also means that Berkeley can’t buy short- or long-term Treasury Bonds from the federal government, which hampers the city’s investment possibilities. But the city can accept funds from the federal government for housing, block grants, transportation and other measures. Wozniak thinks that is hypocritical.

...

“Everything is controversial in Berkeley,” he said. “The more obscure it is and the more irrelevant it is to everyday life, the more controversial.”
post #354 of 391
The funniest part is that there is actually a nuclear reactor in the Berkeley Hills ...
post #355 of 391
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post

LA has, IMO, actually gotten worse as so many of the austere but nice old California bungalows have been replaced by horrible faux-classic McMansions.
Beverly Hills was a lot more attractive in the 1980s than it is now. But leave aside the high end, so many middle class neighborhoods are being wrecked with money-minus-taste.

The McMansion phenomenon is not widespread enough to debeautify the city. That is absurd.
post #356 of 391
to my eye, the west side increasingly looks hell. Hancock Park, Los Feliz, mid-Wilshire and points east still look like "old LA" to me. Which I like, at least visually. Not sure I would want to live there.
post #357 of 391
did you eat at Bouchon?
post #358 of 391
Thread Starter 
There is a lot of awful architecture on the west side, though the ugliness of the buildings is somewhat made up for by the increasing attractiveness of the women. Much becomes prettier as you get closer to the ocean and Brentwood is gorgeous.
post #359 of 391
pro tip marbear: whenever you find yourself having to defend LA to someone, just stop. they're never going to get it. i thought that was a really beautiful video.
post #360 of 391
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by foodguy View Post

pro tip marbear: whenever you find yourself having to defend LA to someone, just stop. they're never going to get it. i thought that was a really beautiful video.

Someone needs to put this into philosophical terms for him. I'm not smart or educated enough to do it, but there is an aesthetic reason for example that some of the most beautiful popular music in history has come from this place that isn't diminished by the shitty buildings it was conceived in.
Reyner Banham had the right idea, but his reasoning isn't logical enough.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › California Appreciation Thread