What is the appeal of the west side? (Glendale, Pasadena: apartments, houses)

[Spikett]

I work over there and have friends who live over there, but I just don't like it. I prefer the Glendale/LF/Bubank area (really, I prefer the foothills around Pasadena, La Canada, Sierra Madre but that'd be a commute from hell). The west is flat, high density and, with the exception of the beach cities, is, IMHO, ugly. Don't mean to insult anyone - I know it's all personal taste. If you like the area - why? If not, why not?

[Tex?Il?]

I actually love Pasadena, its I think my favorite LA area towns, I also like the other neighborhoods north of downtown, I like the hills in Eagle Rock, etc.

I live in Palms, (Palms is the nabe between the 10, the 405, and Venice) which is a great balance of being close to everything but also quiet too. Its dense, but mostly residential

For me its all about central location. I'm five miles from the beach, about five miles to the hiking trails at Temescal/Will Rogers, Franklin Canyon, etc. (almost within walking distance is Baldwin Hills) a mile or so to downtown Culver, where I can also take the Expo line to downtown.

Being close to the 405, outside major traffic times, I can get to the Valley or the South Bay in 15-20 minutes, Griffith Park/Hollywood or even Pasadena in 30 minutes, the San Gabriels in an hour.

My job actually involves working on projects/travelling across greater LA, and I will be teaching some classes at this upcoming year at community colleges (as they have a bit more money to add sections now) and I want to have the max number of schools within a certain radius.

Like I said though, Palms is urban, but yet safe and quiet. Mostly apartments, some houses, some cool ethnic food along Venice.

Having said that, I think I will ultimately migrate up to Pasadena. But if you're new to the LA area like I was and still sort of am, the Palms/Mar Vista/Culver City, little Osaka/Rancho Park area is a great base to start off in.

[taydigga]

I don't consider much of any of LA to be flat. I'm a runner and can vouch for the hills. I mean the Santa Monica Mountains are here for heaven's sake. I'm with TX I loooove Pasadena. My wife and have a new tradition on Xmas eve, of having dinner at a nice little Argentian restaurant over there on Green St. and we just drive around dreaming of one day moving over there BUT, I'd keep a lil' house near the beach for the summers because I love the water and the coolness of the westside. I love how urban the westside is and how there's different elements to it. To each his own though, you don't have to love it, stick to what you like homie.

[disgruntled la native]

-It's safe. I know other parts of LA county are just as if not safer, but it's still safe and you're not in the middle of nowhere like Burbank

-Conveniently located, certain parts of the westside like Beverly Hills, Westwood, and Palms are close to nearly everything in LA

-Milder climate and better air

-Quiet but still easily accessible to anywhere you need to be

-Always easy access to the beach if not actually on it

-Great public transportation mainly due to the Big Blue Bus and the Culver City bus. The rest of LA relies on Metro.

-There is more greenery and trees in the Westside

-In recent years all the trendy interesting stuff (ethnic cuisine, atlernative lifestyles, art and music) you could only get East has now moved to the Westside, leadingmany to never justify leaving

-Better roads and city services esp. in Santa Monica and Beverly Hills

-Wealthy? Pro and con but I'd rather live in a wealthy area than not.

[Spikett]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

I actually love Pasadena, its I think my favorite LA area towns, I also like the other neighborhoods north of downtown, I like the hills in Eagle Rock, etc.

I live in Palms, (Palms is the nabe between the 10, the 405, and Venice) which is a great balance of being close to everything but also quiet too. Its dense, but mostly residential

For me its all about central location. I'm five miles from the beach, about five miles to the hiking trails at Temescal/Will Rogers, Franklin Canyon, etc. (almost within walking distance is Baldwin Hills) a mile or so to downtown Culver, where I can also take the Expo line to downtown.

Being close to the 405, outside major traffic times, I can get to the Valley or the South Bay in 15-20 minutes, Griffith Park/Hollywood or even Pasadena in 30 minutes, the San Gabriels in an hour.

My job actually involves working on projects/travelling across greater LA, and I will be teaching some classes at this upcoming year at community colleges (as they have a bit more money to add sections now) and I want to have the max number of schools within a certain radius.

Like I said though, Palms is urban, but yet safe and quiet. Mostly apartments, some houses, some cool ethnic food along Venice.

Having said that, I think I will ultimately migrate up to Pasadena. But if you're new to the LA area like I was and still sort of am, the Palms/Mar Vista/Culver City, little Osaka/Rancho Park area is a great base to start off in.

No, I've been in LA for 18 years. Lived in Atwater most of that time and really like it over there. When I top the hill on LF Blvd and see the mountains, the drive is worth if for me. I generally shop/eat/etc in Glendale, Burbank, etc. but if I want to go downtown the 5 is right there.

[Spikett]

Originally Posted by taydigga

I don't consider much of any of LA to be flat. I'm a runner and can vouch for the hills. I mean the Santa Monica Mountains are here for heaven's sake. I'm with TX I loooove Pasadena. My wife and have a new tradition on Xmas eve, of having dinner at a nice little Argentian restaurant over there on Green St. and we just drive around dreaming of one day moving over there BUT, I'd keep a lil' house near the beach for the summers because I love the water and the coolness of the westside. I love how urban the westside is and how there's different elements to it. To each his own though, you don't have to love it, stick to what you like homie.

I know a lot of folks wouldn't live anywhere else. I've tried to like it and wish I did as it's where I work. No, I know it's not pancake flat and the SM Mtns are there (I'm really talking about the street areas around the 405/Olympic that seems to flat and high density to me). For some reason I just prefer the NE area. I love the mountains and the desert - can go to Angeles Nat'l Forest, the Mojave high desert area in the Antelope Valley, etc... all very convenient. I like the village area of Burbank and parts of Glendale too. It is cooler on the westside, I'll give you that. I do love old downtown and I can just hop on the 5 and be there - or cut through Chavez Ravine.

When I first moved out here 18 years ago from landlocked TN I thought I'd go to the beach all the time. Maybe I'm just getting old but it's such a hassle with traffic on PCH, parking, etc... I almost never go.

[Jonah1979]

Originally Posted by disgruntled la native

-It's safe. I know other parts of LA county are just as if not safer, but it's still safe and you're not in the middle of nowhere like Burbank

-Conveniently located, certain parts of the westside like Beverly Hills, Westwood, and Palms are close to nearly everything in LA

-Milder climate and better air

-Quiet but still easily accessible to anywhere you need to be

-Always easy access to the beach if not actually on it

-Great public transportation mainly due to the Big Blue Bus and the Culver City bus. The rest of LA relies on Metro.

-There is more greenery and trees in the Westside

-In recent years all the trendy interesting stuff (ethnic cuisine, atlernative lifestyles, art and music) you could only get East has now moved to the Westside, leadingmany to never justify leaving

-Better roads and city services esp. in Santa Monica and Beverly Hills

-Wealthy? Pro and con but I'd rather live in a wealthy area than not.

Middle of nowhere like Burbank? I can tell you've never lived in a rural area. Ha!

[Spikett]

Originally Posted by Jonah1979

Middle of nowhere like Burbank? I can tell you've never lived in a rural area. Ha!

Yeah, I was thinking that myself.

[bpeeps]

Originally Posted by Jonah1979

Middle of nowhere like Burbank? I can tell you've never lived in a rural area. Ha!

Burbank is pretty far out / not central to the rest of LA. Although I wouldn't consider it the middle of nowhere. I'd consider it still pretty far from centrally located. Add traffic into the equation, and yeah it can be far. Rural? No. That's not what's being discussed here. I lived in Los Feliz and driving to work in Beverly Hills, visiting friends in Venice, Westwood, and Santa Monica was just not fun. Loved Los Feliz though. That's why I moved somewhere central to all the places I need to go.

[Spikett]

Originally Posted by bpeeps

Burbank is pretty far out / not central to the rest of LA. Although I wouldn't consider it the middle of nowhere. I'd consider it still pretty far from centrally located. Add traffic into the equation, and yeah it can be far. Rural? No. That's not what's being discussed here. I lived in Los Feliz and driving to work in Beverly Hills, visiting friends in Venice, Westwood, and Santa Monica was just not fun. Loved Los Feliz though. That's why I moved somewhere central to all the places I need to go.

Where you go has a lot to do with it. I seriously considered moving to the westside since I work over there - but I just don't want to live there. Yeah, I'd be home a lot sooner - but I'd be somewhere I didn't like. Woohoo. I'd rather make the drive. I've lived in real rural areas and don't care for them. That being said, the westside is too urban for me in a lot of ways. Not enough open space. I live near Griffith Park, plus there is the open space of Forest Lawn, the backdrop of the foothills, etc... and the downtown skyline is still right there. But as I've said, I know a lot of people wouldn't want to live anywhere but the westside.