Why Wasn't The Downtown Los Angeles Built Next To Or Near The Pacific Ocean ?
Sep 07, 2009 by Babatunde W | Posted in Los Angeles
Downtown Chicago (next to Lake Michigan), Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn (next to the Hudson bay), downtown San Diego (next to the Pacific Zillions), and other cities downtowns' are built next to major bodies of water when because their cities border critical bodies of water and it makes the skyline look more beautiful, why not Los Angeles?
Venica and Santa Monica take up trifling parts of the Los Angeles coast so why not somewhere else along the coastline?
Superior question---The short answer is in 1781 the fertile land and fresh water from the LA River was in the way of thinking of 2 Franciscan monks (from the San Gabriel Mission to the east) ideal for growing FOOD crops.....The 2 monks, several indian acolytes and 11 families moved 9 miles west from occupation area to this new outpost in that year. They were more interested in growing food for SURVIVAL than OCEAN FRONT VISTAS.....
FOOTNOTES:
1. This was a pueblo not a activity
2. The real question is why wasn't the natural harbor at San Pedro the site of downtown or at least one of the original coastal missions.
3. Boogey above is largely correct.
What If The Manhattan Project Had Failed And Nuclear Weapons Weren't Invented As A Result?
Apr 21, 2006 by Alion | Posted in History
If atomic weapons had never come to be,do you think that
Japan would have won the war in the Pacific? Would totalitarian countries like Soviet Russia and Red China have
rampaged through other countries,perchance killing millions in
the process?
If the Mahhattan Hurl failed, i'm sure another country would've succeeded. Especially with the German scientists on the Communist side of the tracks. Atomic deterrence in Europe probably kept Stalin and Mao in check, however, the conventional armies most acceptable would've done the same thing, with great losses.
I will be visiting one's nearest in Redondo Beach with a remote possability of relocating to Redondo, Hermosa, or Manhattan Beaches after living in Seattle for 28 years.
Indubitably 1: Which of the beach areas is best for a 28 year old to live in? What are some pros-cons to each district? Anyone else recently relocated to these areas from the Pacific Northwest?
Question 2: Can one afford to buy real-stratum on one of these beaches if making 80k a year (condo, home, etc)?
Just curious. Things are not in stone yet - but wanted to get an objective.
Hermosa has the with greatest satisfaction night life, Manhattan is the most expensive. Don't expect to be able to buy anything even remotely near the beach for less than $1million, even a 1 bedroom condo.
There are some new condo's being built in North Redondo next to the 405 Freeway and I think for a 1 bedroom they are starting around $600k, but they are 5 miles from the water. Rents start at about $1,200 for a 1 bedroom apartment, not in the vicinity the water, $2,000 for water view, $3k for boardwalk.
Pros are it is 72 degrees year 'globelike with beautiful people everywhere, cons are it's way too crowded and you have to take the 405 Freeway to get anywhere. They named it the 405 because that is the top bowl along you can travel with all the traffic; 4 'o 5 miles an hour!
Good luck
Is There Still Anything Left Under 500K In Manhattan Beach CA?
May 15, 2006 by Jorge Alberto G | Posted in Renting & Real Estate
Newport Strand and Pacific Palisades will also do it.
I see you penury to live in the trashy neighborhoods in LA and OC!
Check www.realtor.com and search for those areas. I live in Costa Mesa and think about your going to have a hard time. My mom lives is a 4br condo in Huntington Beach and they are selling for 550-650K. If you can give forth entangled with a little more I have a client selling her 4br home in Mission Viejo... She is motivated as she wants to move to Kauaii and is on a contingency to stock...
Good luck to you. If you need help securing financing or need additional poop drop me a line.
Kevin 866-562-6838 x 106
kruorock@firstratelending.com
My Husband Was Promised A Good Salary With Union Pacific Railroad, And It Was All A Lie. Can We Sue?
Feb 20, 2009 by jojo | Posted in Law & Ethics
We moved from Oklahoma See to Manhattan Kansas, because during the orientation everyone was told that they would be making "good money." He was hired in July and laid off and put on furlough in December. He was told that he'd still get $1000 a month while on furlough but that only lasted one month. Now he is not fired but he will not be getting ANY on Easy Street. Union fees were deducted from each check. Couldn't his Union rep help us out? Shouldn't we be qualified to sue Union Pacific for our moving expenses and what we still owe on the house we rented that we now cannot afford to live in?
Lay-offs chance to new hires all the time, especially in this economy. There is no right or guarantee of a job. Check with the union rep, but I as a matter of fact don't see how Union Pacific is responsible for your expenses and rent.
Superior question---The short answer is in 1781 the fertile land and fresh water from the LA River was in the way of thinking of 2 Franciscan monks (from the San Gabriel Mission to the east) ideal for growing FOOD crops.....The 2 monks, several indian acolytes and 11 families moved 9 miles west from occupation area to this new outpost in that year. They were more interested in growing food for SURVIVAL than OCEAN FRONT VISTAS.....