Backpacking around L.A.

"Hallvard Tangeraas" wrote in message
. ..

On my round-the-world trip I'm thinking about stopping by Los Angeles
for a few days before I move on to visit a friend in Vancouver, and was
wondering what this would be like when backpacking...

Bear in mind that LA is a vast metropolis without a true center like, say,
New York or San Francisco. For some folks, that makes sigtseeing a
frustrating endeavor. But for adventurous souls, LA can be a wide tableau
of sights to choose from. I've lived here my whole life and I'm discovering
new things about the city every day.

My advice would be to pick specific regions of the city you'd like to see
and then plot your course using the MTA website: http://www.mta.net/

Finally, what's to see? I want to take in as much as possible if I can,
and what I already know about is of course the "Hollywood" sign, Sunset
Boulevard, the Chinese theater, the famous beach (Santa Monica beach?
Venice beach?).

Out of towners are often dissapointed by these tourist spots. LA's real
gems are neighborhoods like West Hollywood, Pasadena, Manhattan Beach,
Westwood (all accessible by bus if you're patient). And if you love film,
there's no city like LA for film festivals and special screenings (the
American Cinematheque and Silent Movie Theater for instance).

I'm sure there are other places I've missed out.
I won't be having a car, so I'll be relying on busses etc -is this a
problem in LA? I have an impression that you just can't get around in
the States without a car -I hope I'm wrong.

By "the states" do you mean the entire country or just the urban areas?
Most large urban areas have adequate (sometimes excellent) public
transportation. With reference to Los Angeles in particular, public
transportation is a bit of a fiasco only because it's the first modern city
to be born of a total reliance on the automobile. Everyone drives in LA --
car culture is part of the fabric of the city.

As a side note, I don't know if you're planning a trip to San Francisco, but
I suggest it. It's certainly more suited to backpackers than LA is. And
pretty to boot.

"Rita" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 07:29:42 GMT, "Hiloman" wrote:


"Hallvard Tangeraas" wrote in message
...


I'm sure there are other places I've missed out.
I won't be having a car, so I'll be relying on busses etc -is this a
problem in LA? I have an impression that you just can't get around in
the States without a car -I hope I'm wrong.

By "the states" do you mean the entire country or just the urban areas?
Most large urban areas have adequate (sometimes excellent) public
transportation. With reference to Los Angeles in particular, public
transportation is a bit of a fiasco only because it's the first modern
city
to be born of a total reliance on the automobile. Everyone drives in
LA --
car culture is part of the fabric of the city.

I think to say large urban areas have adequate transportation may
be stretching it. Aside from New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C.,
San Francisco, Boston public transport is usually very, very slow and
hard for the visitor to maneuver. Everyone seems to drive, not just in
L.A. but in the bulk of the U.S., and those taking buses seem to be
old people and the poor. For the tourist, who does not want to spend
half a day getting from point A to point B, public transport can be most
frustrating. When I have visited many cities, I've found car rental to be
the only "adequate" solution to exploring. It is difficult in many cities
to
even find out what buses exist and their schedules. You can't just ask
the "natives" because they don't take them.

I stand by the word "adequate" in my description. Granted, having a car
when traveling in U.S. cities is certainly an advantage (except in those few
cities where parking is at a premium like San Francisco, New York City).
But I balk at the notion that it's impossible (or simply too time-consuming)
to get around without a car. Los Angeles, for example, has the most
extensive bus system in the country and during the week you would never wait
more than twenty minutes for a bus to arrive along the majour routes. I
would also say that, for the tourist, the bus trip itself can be part of the
experience -- a window seat on the city.

"Rita" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 19:51:37 GMT, "Hiloman" wrote:


"Rita" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 07:29:42 GMT, "Hiloman" wrote:


"Hallvard Tangeraas" wrote in message
...


I'm sure there are other places I've missed out.
I won't be having a car, so I'll be relying on busses etc -is this a
problem in LA? I have an impression that you just can't get around
in
the States without a car -I hope I'm wrong.

By "the states" do you mean the entire country or just the urban
areas?
Most large urban areas have adequate (sometimes excellent) public
transportation. With reference to Los Angeles in particular, public
transportation is a bit of a fiasco only because it's the first modern
city
to be born of a total reliance on the automobile. Everyone drives in
LA --
car culture is part of the fabric of the city.

I think to say large urban areas have adequate transportation may
be stretching it. Aside from New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C.,
San Francisco, Boston public transport is usually very, very slow and
hard for the visitor to maneuver. Everyone seems to drive, not just in
L.A. but in the bulk of the U.S., and those taking buses seem to be
old people and the poor. For the tourist, who does not want to spend
half a day getting from point A to point B, public transport can be
most
frustrating. When I have visited many cities, I've found car rental to
be
the only "adequate" solution to exploring. It is difficult in many
cities
to
even find out what buses exist and their schedules. You can't just ask

the "natives" because they don't take them.

I stand by the word "adequate" in my description. Granted, having a car
when traveling in U.S. cities is certainly an advantage (except in those
few
cities where parking is at a premium like San Francisco, New York City).
But I balk at the notion that it's impossible (or simply too
time-consuming)
to get around without a car. Los Angeles, for example, has the most
extensive bus system in the country and during the week you would never
wait
more than twenty minutes for a bus to arrive along the majour routes. I
would also say that, for the tourist, the bus trip itself can be part of
the
experience -- a window seat on the city.

Buses indeed can be a good way to see a city, if the routes are extensive.
Even in NY with its speedy subways, riding the slow buses is a good way
to sightsee. But in many cities, routes are severely truncated and buses
do not arrive every 20 minutes. Traveling by bus in San Diego, for
example,
was frustrating to me. As I remember, routes did not cross connect across
the city and one had to go into the downtown to get another line. I found
renting a car there the only way to have some flexibility.

You're right that cities like San Diego, Miami, Atlanta, Houston, et al. are
always *easier* to navigate with a rental car. If that simply isn't an
option, however, it shouldn't preclude someone from visiting them.
Generally, I find that the areas within a given city where a tourist would
most likely go are served by some reasonably reliable form of public
transportation.

That being said, only a handful of American cities offer the sort of
extensive, reliable, and easily accessible public transit found in most
European cities. Therein lies a cultural difference that could explain
America's rather obsene levels of oil consumption. But perhaps that's a
debate left to a different newsgroup.

"Hallvard Tangeraas" wrote:

If travelling around without a car is such a pain I certainly don't want
to spend large amount of time doing that if I can see more in one place
by just walking around.
Which area around LA would be the best place to go if I want to see "the
sights"?

Sorry, there is no *one* place to see the sights of L.A..

Deciding what to see depends a lot on your personal taste. If you've got
your heart set on a "greatest hits" tour of the city, I would suggest a
touring outfit like http://www.la-tours.com (which would also solve your
transportation problem since that's included).

For some people, the idea of hopping on a tour bus is anathema -- but to
each his own. Some people are more than happy roaming the beach
communities. Others have stranger pursuits (I know a couple who came to LA
specifically to see celebrity gravesites at Forest Lawn).

Here's a personal favorite list of sights/attractions:

1. The Huntington Library and Gardens: http://www.huntington.org/ A
wonderful estate and gardens open to the public that features one of the
world's richest collections of ancient manuscripts and a couple of priceless
Gainsboroughs.

2. Norton Simon Museum: http://www.nortonsimon.org/ One of the best art
museums in the world. Yes, you heard me correctly. It is small in scale
(easily seen in a few hours), but the quality of the collection is
phenomenal (don't miss Rembrandt's portrait of his son -- arguably his best
painting).

3. Getty Museum: http://www.getty.edu/ This billion dollar museum sits on
top of a hill overlooking the Sepulveda pass and the city beyond. On a
clear day, the views are amazing. The modern structure isn't to everyone's
taste, but some find it sublime.

3. Griffith Park Observatory: http://www.griffithobs.org/ Quite possibly
the best view in L.A. is had from this mountain-top museum/planetarium.
Unfortunately, it's closed for a three year refurbishment.

4. Farmer's Market: http://www.farmersmarketla.com/ An L.A. original --
and a great place to grab a bite to eat and roam the shops.

5. Studio Tour:
http://www.studioaudiences.com/movie...erbrothers.asp Stay away
from Universal; it's more a theme park than a studio tour. If you're
interested in a behind the scenes look at where movies are made, try the
Warner Brothers tour instead.

6. Catch a sitcom/talk-show/game show taping:
http://www.studioaudiences.com/ Here's your opportunity to see a live
taping of your favorite TV shows. And it's free!

7. Disneyland: http://disneyland.disney.go.com/dlr/index Touristy, yes,
but an American icon.

This is a small sampling of what the city has to offer. Buy a guide book,
pick your spots. That's always the best solution.

I agree with Rita,I live in L.A. and Hollywood is a
dump,runnaways,drugs,hookers and crime. Spend a day in Venice Beach
than catch a flight to San Francisco.
Richard

On Thu, 18 Sep 2003 22:46:57 GMT, (Hallvard
Tangeraas) wrote:

Which area around LA would be the best place to go if I want to see "the
sights"?

I understand after reading replies to my initial question that LA is a
huge place, which confuses me even more -where should I go? What's the
"centre" of the city? Or is everything so spread over a large area that
it takes a lot of travelling to see it all?

L.A. is a huge place. The center would be of course downtown, which is
probably the most interesting part of the city. After living here for
11 years now (from Chicago), I can say that Los Angeles is one of the
most diverse and multi-cultural cities in the world. Every type of
terrain, architecture, peoples, culture, etc. can be found here. I
recommend taking the bus. It's not as convenient as a car (of course)
but it's good for sightseeing and, besides, life shouldn't always be
what is easy and convenient, right? There is a stigma to busses here in
that only Mexicans and blacks take them. White's generally look down
their nose at bus transport in L.A. Nevertheless, there ARE zillions
of bus routes, very freqeunt, and cheap ($1.35 one way).
Forget about places like Disneyland, Universal Studios, and all that
nonsense. Sounds like you are intelligent and such "theme" parks
generally appeal to the 70%+ morons that make up the U.S. population.

"richard" wrote in message
...

I agree with Rita,I live in L.A. and Hollywood is a
dump,runnaways,drugs,hookers and crime. Spend a day in Venice Beach
than catch a flight to San Francisco.
Richard

May I suggest a website, Richard? http://www.uhaul.com/

As a non L.A. resident but one who has visited the city, I'd stay in the
youth hostel in Santa Monica, which is first class, and near the beach
You could walk to Venice Beach, which is fun and a bit bizarre, and also
take city buses to parts of Los Angeles, although I found none that was
particularly great, but just to say I had seen them. Hollywood is a shabby
area, you might like a look at Beverly Hills and I really can't think of much
that is a must see.

Probably if you lived here and had a lot of time to explore it, you'd
feel otherwise. I can't think of a city which has a wider offering of
cultural activites than L.A. or a wider more diverse array of
neighborhoods. True, the neighborhoods don't scream at one like they do
in San Francisco or Chicago, rather one has to know a little background
for them to come to life.
But here your simplistic view of the world is showing. Perhaps you
would find Disneyland (down in Orange County) better suited to your
tastes. Occasionally the circus is in town which may interest you.

Hiloman wrote:
Los Angeles, for example, has the most extensive bus system in the country
and during the week you would never wait more than twenty minutes for a
bus to arrive along the majour routes.

20 minutes? I used to live way out Geary Boulevard in San Francisco. During
morning and evening commute buses (between the 38, 38L, and 38A) were
scheduled about one per minute. And they were still full.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Rita,,thats for sure,,,!!

On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:02:43 GMT, Rita
wrote:

I suppose one could "learn" L.A. in such a fashion, but for the visitor
with limited time and no car it would seem there are better places to go.