dooorrrrrrrff

[garote]

Finalized the mail server upgrade at work today. Burned some backups, had some meetings. Decided to walk home. On the way I endeavored to greet everyone I passed. The majority pretended I wasn't even there, but continued stolidly on, grim-faced or suddenly interested in their accessories.

Then, 30 yards from my house, I finally understood the pattern. The older the person, the more likely they were to greet a stranger on the road. No other factor - not sex, not dress, not even mood - came close to mattering. This proves to me more than anything else, more than the SUVs, more than the voting trends, more than the iron railings welded over the planter boxes to keep tourists from sitting down, that Los Angeles is spreading north, and the hard-edged materialism that it champions is coming with it.

I'm not sure I'd want to raise children here any more. I'm not sure I'd want to send them to these schools, to play with the kids of this community. Not while I have other options.

We may move north.

Comments

[thegoodreverend.livejournal.com]

I'm confused by your personification of "Los Angeles" and your fear of it intruding on you. "Los Angeles" is a city of millions, but also a region of many millions more, with no set culutre, no one mood, and no specific character traits. It's always growing and changing (the land and the people). It's much more diverse any any points north of it, and I frankly don't think it's the cause of any sort of unfriendliness problem in Santa Cruz.

[garote]

I'm using "Los Angeles" as a blanket label, for the conditions that seem to become more prevalent, the closer I get to that area. It's those conditions that disturb me. And to be fair, Los Angeles definitely doesn't hold a monopoly on things like urban sprawl, materialism, violence, cynicism, and pollution. (There's a nice little market for those in Sacramento, for example.) It does however provide an epicenter from which those things are radiating, as the population grows, and in it's role as one of the most influential cities and cultures in the state, and arguably the entire country, the world, and in history.

LA's urbanization is not much different from Chicago, or Dallas, or Miami, or Las Vegas, or any other large city. And you're right of course, LA is much more diverse than any of these, with a greature mix of cultures, lifestyles, and pursuits. But I'm speaking from the perspective of a Northern Californian, who is seeing his local environment become, as it grows, more and more afflicted with the problems that he first got a real eyeful of in Southern California. So from where I stand, those problems are spreading north. The only solution that I can think of, as a mere individual, is to stay ahead of the wave. My relatively brief experiences in Oregon, B.C., the Yukon, and Alaska reminded me of how the local community used to be when I was growing up here.

Perhaps I just fell in with exactly the wrong crowd when I moved south, and exactly the right one when I went north...

[mirabilevisu.livejournal.com]

hippie

[garote]

Yep. that's me!

[akki.livejournal.com]

Not meant as an argument to stay where you are, but...

The problems you bring up happen in every large american metropolitan area (haven't spent enough time in other countries to know if they have similar shit going on). While Portland doesn't have a place quite like Melrose, there are definetely materialistic traits. The SUVs are looming, hip clothes matter, the city funds things to make Portland look "pretty and upscale" instead of buying books for schools, yuppie scum, etc. You could move somewhere smaller and more isolated, but then you could end up in an environment so bland and so very "middle class" that you won't get to experience diversity. And there still will be materialism. Maybe it won't come in the form of $200 jeans, but rather in the form of how many kids they have and the giant behemoth of a car to cart them all over town or how many guns they own. Every place has their faults. Your kids will play with your neighbor's kids whether you like it or not.

[garote]

As I explained to Mike, I have no illusions about the existence of materialistic traits everywhere I go. As you said, my kids will play with my neighbor's kids. So shouldn't I do my best to select an area where there is relatively less of what I don't like?

[akki.livejournal.com]

But my question is, what's the difference between materialism in LA as opposed to, say, Eugene OR? Is it worse to be materialistic about exclusive $200 jeans or having one of those new mini crotch rocket motorcycles? I guess my point is that there is no escaping materialism - not even a lessening of it because no matter where you go, people always want and show off what they have. I would argue that there isn't relatively less materialism in one area than in another. It's just over different things.

[garote]

Er ... it's worse to be materialistic about $200 jeans. Don't you think? A low-riders vs. hip-riders? ;)

But seriously, even if I accept that materialism is at the same level everywhere I go (which I can't, after my vacation this year) , I would much rather live in an area where most people obsess over, say, books, kayaks, computers, bicycles, and cookware, than say, makeup, jeans, jewelry, lawn ornaments, and muscle cars. (That's a hypothetical example - I don't really know of any place where most people are obsessive over books - but I'd move there in a second!)

Ultimately these are just my personal preferences at work, and with the diversity of people, it's bound to be a somewhat mixed bag anywhere I go. But that doesn't mean I shouldn't try and influence the odds.

Also, there's a pattern to my preferences. I like it when people are materialistic more about tools than they are about props. Things that they can use, versus things that they can just have. An image-obsessed culture blurs the line between those things.

You will find this everywhere.

[(Anonymous)]

I have had similar experiences to yours all over California, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wisconsin. I don't believe that it is urbanization at all. I believe that we are raising our kids to be spoiled, vapid, adults with no sense of morals or etiquette. Even back in 1990 when I lived in Wisconsin, I noticed that children were changing. Now when I go to Los Angeles, where I have spent most of my life, I see the kids being rude and uncontrollable. Perhaps the loss of punishment with the rise of Dr. Spock and timeouts in the corner? Perhaps because parents don't spend as much time with their children as they should? I think your observation that the older your sample group was, the friendlier they are is valid and quite telling. And one last note on Santa Cruz. I realize that I was only there for 5 years while you spent most of your life there. But -- people were just as unfriendly there as I have seen anywhere. Believing the people of Northern California to be gentle, kind "hippies" is a stereotype that I have witnessed again and again. I believe the apparent ambivalence toward each other reaches there but is disguised by the feeling that you "should" act a certain way. No, Northern Californians can be just as unfriendly, prejudiced, and immoral as your standard Angelino...only difference is we are honest about our feelings.

Re: You will find this everywhere.

[garote]

An interesting angle. But I do not believe we are raising terrible kids. I think we are, on an increasing level, not really raising our kids at all. They raise themselves while we are at work. And in the process, are exposed to the ideas of every John Q. Marketing Pro who can cram his product into their face and win their disposable income and brand loyalty, without the counterweight of our presence to balance it.

Since this has been going on for 25 years at least, we now see adults affected the same way. Their opinions about all the people they don't know, are created from their opinions of the media surrounding those people. (A quick example: People see an ad for a posh car, aimed at the wealthy, and they infer that all the wealthy care about is posh cars.)

I'm not going to try and filter everything my kids are exposed to -- I have faith that they'll be smart and figure things out in due time. But I also feel that my presence, as an example, will influence the way they go about their explorations.

And, (as I've already had to point out twice,) I don't expect to find an area where there is none of what I dislike. I expect to find an area where there is less of it. The Northern California versus Southern California debate is a hot one, but it's moot as far as I'm concerned, because the major centers that represent these regions are all going to the dogs.