bossman- I didn't mean where is it, physically. I meant where is it *on the list*...
And there's an In-N-Out on Venice Blvd. in Culver City, at the intersection of Washington and Lincoln in Marina Del Rey, and on Sepulveda just north of the airport. I love 'em all!
i'm curious as to what part of rabbit's post was so offensive as to
deserve your response...i don't think it takes a pompous, opinionated
asshole to point out that communities that exclude any others,
are made up of people that are highly affluent, lack diversity
and have similarly bland tastes can be dull and uninteresting
..i don't think he was
saying that people shouldn't live in such communities...just that
he/she found those communities to be stultifyingly boring and that
he/she didn't want to live there...
"Its a free fu**ng country" and you forgot an asterix in fu***ng
#74 MERIDIAN, IDAHO
is basically farmland being taken over by suburban sprawl.
about 9 miles out of boise, which is why the amenities make it look mildly pleasing.
a lot the projects i work on are for the meridian school district.
Its offensive to those of us wearing kahki's. I wonder if the repetitive attacks on America's upper middle class on this forum are masked feelings of resentment that a lot of us will never achieve that status on our current courses.
evil- you have a point, but you're focused on the 'status' part of it- money, successful career, big house, nice car. Those of us who don't like these sorts of places are focused on the fact that they are built to exclude people on basis of race, and that many of them actively try to thwart any innovative design. We don't think there's anything wrong with these towns *existing*, but we have every right to laugh when someone (or group of someones) tries to say that they are the best places in to live in America.
rationalist - I personally dont care for these towns personally either and do not live in anything resembling them however, they are not designed to exclude. They are designed by demand. We have to recognize this. No one chooses to live there in order to exclude a certain group - they choose to live there to live among their group, be it moral value, family life types, income etc. There is no conspiracy against design. People tend to clump into groups, hence this forum for a group of architects - its not designed to exclude online auctioneers, online-daters, etc. I just see this hate the world as it is thread in a lot of the posts on this site and its bothersome.
What was the criteria of this list. I see what YA'LL are talking about, Just about everyplace on that list is te epitome of sprawl-town, or bores-ville.
I think maybe we should evaluate another, more credible list. My criteria for best places to live would probably have every selection located in California, Hawaii, or Alaska....of course, my criteria only includes places with great scenery and extremely high cost-of-living.
evil- there IS a conspiracy against design. It's called a Home Owner's Association. Even many suburbs that do not have them have EXTREMELY strict planning codes. I've had to deal with planning boards that said everything built must be in the 'Meditteranean' style, and codes that said that at least 50% of the elevation of the building must be wood clapboard siding. How is that not a conspiracy against original design?
BOTS - That best countries list is interesting. By what criteria did they come up with that. Actually I'm surprised to see the USA so high.
I've seen a number of those lists and it always gets me how the best countries to live are relative small countries. Norway has a population smaller than my native Minnesota. The entire country of Sweden is about the size of the Chicago area in population. Even Canada isn't a large country population wise. Big countries have different issues to deal with than small ones. That's just reality of the world.
I just don't think you can judge any place to live against another with a very fair set of deciding principles. For one person Norway might be the best. I know people there that would probably say otherwise.
Wooo, Norway #1. Homo marriage, hot chicks, awesome puiblic transportation, amazing cheese, great thrift stores, federalized health care, cheap flights, swanky youth hostels, fjords. Man, Norway ROCKS.
NIT-PICKING:
There is actually no such thing as "reverse racism", in fact, the notion of "reverse racism" is essentially a racist one. It assumes that the person who is "racist" posses "no race" (aka is "white". Which is largely seen as being a non-racialized group) or posess race as only an unmarked feature. To believe that white people have the monopoly on racism and criticising white hegemony somehow requires it's own term ("reverse racism") is amazingly misguided.
It's too dull to live in a tract house. Too embarrassing to live in a loft. Much too scary to live in a tower. Too depressing to live in a brownstone. So it's Los Angeles for its plethora of mid-century modernist homes. Otherwise Laguna Beach.
this list is total bullshit, for cali they have mill valley, yorba linda!, coronado, saratoga, aptos, santa barbara, newbury park!, benicia, petaluma and lincoln!; and for michigan they have (near ann arbor) saline! -- if there was ever an east bumfuck this is the list for all of them
somehow the fact that this list includes a lot of burgeoning strip cities in former greenfields doesn't suprise me. they haven't posted their selection criteria on this front page, but it's not like this is the rand mcnally best places to live. it's cnn money's list, i.e., the list of places to make a quick buck by raping the landscape and the locals, throwing up a big box, selling lots of gas and burgers, and moving on to the next unsuspecting crossroads town.
Best Places to Live
i don't know about where you live, but baja fresh is not so fresh here. go to a real mexican restaurant instead.
in-and-out everywhere in LA? isn't there one off the 101 on sunset, and another one all the over in like culver city or westwood?
bossman- I didn't mean where is it, physically. I meant where is it *on the list*...
And there's an In-N-Out on Venice Blvd. in Culver City, at the intersection of Washington and Lincoln in Marina Del Rey, and on Sepulveda just north of the airport. I love 'em all!
It's good to see Archtiects agree on something: In-N-Out.
i lived in vienna, va. now i'm in portland, or.
there is absolutely no comparison. suburbia blows compared to living in a vibrant town.
Evil platypus...
i'm curious as to what part of rabbit's post was so offensive as to
deserve your response...i don't think it takes a pompous, opinionated
asshole to point out that communities that exclude any others,
are made up of people that are highly affluent, lack diversity
and have similarly bland tastes can be dull and uninteresting
..i don't think he was
saying that people shouldn't live in such communities...just that
he/she found those communities to be stultifyingly boring and that
he/she didn't want to live there...
"Its a free fu**ng country" and you forgot an asterix in fu***ng
I think we need to widen this discussion from the US bubble
Best Countries to Live
I think the UK has a bit of ground to make but it all depends which list you look at.
link
link
bots what's wales like? can it be summed up in a few sentances on archinect? it seems rather beautiful, green, and mountainous.
#74 MERIDIAN, IDAHO
is basically farmland being taken over by suburban sprawl.
about 9 miles out of boise, which is why the amenities make it look mildly pleasing.
a lot the projects i work on are for the meridian school district.
i can't believe saline, MI is on this list.
they seem to be rated by 'nearest city'
Wales=hills, sheep, rugby, castles
lars -
Its offensive to those of us wearing kahki's. I wonder if the repetitive attacks on America's upper middle class on this forum are masked feelings of resentment that a lot of us will never achieve that status on our current courses.
evil- you have a point, but you're focused on the 'status' part of it- money, successful career, big house, nice car. Those of us who don't like these sorts of places are focused on the fact that they are built to exclude people on basis of race, and that many of them actively try to thwart any innovative design. We don't think there's anything wrong with these towns *existing*, but we have every right to laugh when someone (or group of someones) tries to say that they are the best places in to live in America.
The ranking system is based upon any given cultural/social bias.
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Benjamin Disraeli
British politician (1804 - 1881)
rationalist - I personally dont care for these towns personally either and do not live in anything resembling them however, they are not designed to exclude. They are designed by demand. We have to recognize this. No one chooses to live there in order to exclude a certain group - they choose to live there to live among their group, be it moral value, family life types, income etc. There is no conspiracy against design. People tend to clump into groups, hence this forum for a group of architects - its not designed to exclude online auctioneers, online-daters, etc. I just see this hate the world as it is thread in a lot of the posts on this site and its bothersome.
What was the criteria of this list. I see what YA'LL are talking about, Just about everyplace on that list is te epitome of sprawl-town, or bores-ville.
I think maybe we should evaluate another, more credible list. My criteria for best places to live would probably have every selection located in California, Hawaii, or Alaska....of course, my criteria only includes places with great scenery and extremely high cost-of-living.
evil- there IS a conspiracy against design. It's called a Home Owner's Association. Even many suburbs that do not have them have EXTREMELY strict planning codes. I've had to deal with planning boards that said everything built must be in the 'Meditteranean' style, and codes that said that at least 50% of the elevation of the building must be wood clapboard siding. How is that not a conspiracy against original design?
BOTS - That best countries list is interesting. By what criteria did they come up with that. Actually I'm surprised to see the USA so high.
I've seen a number of those lists and it always gets me how the best countries to live are relative small countries. Norway has a population smaller than my native Minnesota. The entire country of Sweden is about the size of the Chicago area in population. Even Canada isn't a large country population wise. Big countries have different issues to deal with than small ones. That's just reality of the world.
I just don't think you can judge any place to live against another with a very fair set of deciding principles. For one person Norway might be the best. I know people there that would probably say otherwise.
BOTS-
Wooo, Norway #1. Homo marriage, hot chicks, awesome puiblic transportation, amazing cheese, great thrift stores, federalized health care, cheap flights, swanky youth hostels, fjords. Man, Norway ROCKS.
NIT-PICKING:
There is actually no such thing as "reverse racism", in fact, the notion of "reverse racism" is essentially a racist one. It assumes that the person who is "racist" posses "no race" (aka is "white". Which is largely seen as being a non-racialized group) or posess race as only an unmarked feature. To believe that white people have the monopoly on racism and criticising white hegemony somehow requires it's own term ("reverse racism") is amazingly misguided.
LA
It's too dull to live in a tract house. Too embarrassing to live in a loft. Much too scary to live in a tower. Too depressing to live in a brownstone. So it's Los Angeles for its plethora of mid-century modernist homes. Otherwise Laguna Beach.
go back to caollege rabbits.
Oh BUUURN!
"BOTS - That best countries list is interesting. By what criteria did they come up with that. Actually I'm surprised to see the USA so high."
Yeah me too, I always though it was a shit hole!
hahahaha lol
although I've never been there I have this thing in my head about Northern California
anybody disillusion me?
it's probably a malignant tumor, don't worry.
so that's it... thanks
evidently, #38 doesnt technically exist
I think that's a sign of how little thought was put into the list...
this list is total bullshit, for cali they have mill valley, yorba linda!, coronado, saratoga, aptos, santa barbara, newbury park!, benicia, petaluma and lincoln!; and for michigan they have (near ann arbor) saline! -- if there was ever an east bumfuck this is the list for all of them
somehow the fact that this list includes a lot of burgeoning strip cities in former greenfields doesn't suprise me. they haven't posted their selection criteria on this front page, but it's not like this is the rand mcnally best places to live. it's cnn money's list, i.e., the list of places to make a quick buck by raping the landscape and the locals, throwing up a big box, selling lots of gas and burgers, and moving on to the next unsuspecting crossroads town.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.