I am headed down to L.A. to catch up with my old roommate from Chicago and my old roommate from college (and potentially another one of my other bfs from college!?) in mid-March and being the slightly anal-retentive person that I am I'd like to have a basic itinerary sketched out so that maximum fun will be achieved.
So one can imagine my surprise and delight when two of my favorite publications Esquire and GQ both published articles on not only the most important meal of the day, but also great places to grab a bite in the City of Angels.
I'm also a DIY kind of girl when it comes to food, but I will shell out my hard-earned bucks for some greasy bacon, eggs over hard, and a waitress that calls you "hun," as in "What can I do ya for, hun?" ***Sigh***, though that may be limited to the Midwest, especially at George's Grill, the Milwaukee equivalent of a Waffle House.
However, though I probably won't have a waitress who looks like she could drop an engine in a built-from-the-garage-floor-up hot rod, my waitress will probably look like she is about to drop dead from self-inflicted starvation in hopes of a movie producer just happening to discover her, L.A. is apparently the best breakfast city. Or so says Devin Friedman in his (-?) article with the same name in GQ's March 2009 issue, page 202.
"To visit L.A. is to act like you wear $300 chinos and drive a black Range Rover and wear sunglasses that would otherwise embarrass you. And to wake up in L.A. is to pretend that you don't have a job and eat breakfast at 10 a.m. L.A. is a breakfast town. Breakfast at ten in Cleveland or Houston is a lonely affair, where you'll meet the kind of people who steal Sweet'N Low and talk to their lottery tickets. In L.A. though, if you eat a scramblette at Toast or some raspberry and lemon pancakes at Griddle Cafe, you'll be surrounded by people who seem famous even if they're not. Plus- there's the food- killer coffee at Kings Road (see page 203 [Kings Road Cafe 8361 Beverly Blvd., corner of Kings Road and Beverly 323-655-9044] omelets with caramelized onions at the Chateau Marmont, huevos rancheros basically everywhere, and all that great produce (never have breakfast in L.A. without at least one avocado). It's a breakfast town where people actually eat breakfast, at restaurants, every day of the week, where there are dedicated breakfast spots instead of lame brunch places. And it's one of the few locations where there' no shame in ordering the egg-white omelet with veggie bacon. Because L.A. is a place where, in general, there is no shame."
We haven't decided where we shall be dining, but a review to come.
Possibilities include:
Griddle Cafe, 7916 W Sunset Blvd., (btwn N. Fairfax & N. Hayworth Ave) Los Angeles, 323-874-0377
John O'Groats 1056 Pico Blvd., (at Patricia Ave.) West Los Angeles, 310-204-0692 ogroats-restaurant.com (very positive review at menupages.com and I love me some gentrification)
http://losangeles.menupages.com/restaurantdetails?restaurantid=25415
Kings Road Cafe, 8361 Beverly Blvd. (at the corner of Kings Road and Beverly), Los Angeles, 323-655-9044 (GQ's Editor in Chief Jim Nelson's pick)
Nate 'N Al, 414 N. Beverly Dr., Beverly Hills, 310-274-0101, natenal.com
Toast, 8221 W 3rd St., (Btwn S Harper Ave & S La Jolla Ave) Los Angeles, 323-655-5018
or some hole in the wall place that serves huevos rancheros
Oh, and if you're in the South, stop in at a Waffle House, it ain't exactly Le Bernardin, but it's a definite slice of life. There are 3 of them, I kid you not in a 5 minute driving range in Augusta, GA.
Showing posts with label Alexander Garvin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alexander Garvin. Show all posts
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Let's Get (Reluctantly) Political
I am probably the least political person I know. While we were waiting for the Bush administration to wrap up I tried to ignore the accusatory headlines, the celebrity finger pointing/Bush bashing that was more fashion than politically motivated for a lot of the participants, and the general state of dissatisfaction that ran rampant. I always say, and this is just me talkin, but unless you think you can do better and are willing to put your money where your mouth is, it's best to keep such thoughts to yourself.
I applaud our new elected leader's courageous decision to want to fix this sorry state of affairs, but that doesn't mean that I'm so filled with political inspiration that I'm going to run for office too.
However, politics are intrinsically connected with planning. In a perfect world, urban planners would construct and design urban, suburban, and rural utopias that would spring forth from the ground using only sustainable, earth-friendly materials with everyone agreeing that whatever changes implemented are exactly what the location needs, money would flow freely, and politicians would provide ardent and unfailing support. I imagine that such world also rain gum drops and have organic unicorns as the preferred mode of transit as well.
However, in the real world, planners must rely on politicians to champion their projects and obtain city funding when applicable and align their projects with politicians' own agendas. This point was brought up in Alexander Garvin's work, the American City: What Works, What Doesn't (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, Ne Delhi, San Juan, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Toronoto: McGraw-Hill, (c) 2002) Mr. Garvin talks about "a new approach to planning," which "explicitly deals with both public action and the probable private market reaction." [emphasis author's own] (Garvin, 8)
Mr. Garvin goes on to say,
"Such change-oriented planning requires general acceptance of the idea that while planners are in the change business, others will actually effect the changes: civic leaders, interest groups, community organizations, property owners, developers, bankers, lawyers, architects, engineers, elected and appointed public officials- the list is endless.
Being entirely dependent on these other players, planners must focus on increasing the chances that everybody else's agenda will be successful. They may choose to do so by targeting public investment in infrastructure and community facilities, or by shaping the regulatory system, or by introducing incentives that will encourage market activity. But whatever they select, their role must be to initiate and shepherd often-controversial expenditures and legislation. More important, the public will be able to hold them accountable by evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the private market reaction to their programs." (Garvin, 8)
I realized that I am a certifiable dork when I noticed that Mr. Garvin's American City is the size and weight of the average college textbook, yet I found the material fascinating. This isn't a slam against Mr. Garvin, his writing style is informative and engaging. But that doesn't change the fact that I read textbooks for fun.
I recall talking about the strange bedfellow relationship between planners and politicians during my summer internship with the city of Visalia and discussing this subject with the incredibly generous and experienced Andy Chamberlain, one of the senior planners.
Andy told me, and this cobbled from my hastily scratched notes, nothing was recorded and he was not on record, that "Planning is ultimately about politics, it shouldn't be, but it is." He went on to say that politics means both political politics and people's personal/business agendas. "Planning needs to focus on the long-term good for everybody, but how to achieve this with everyone coming in with diametrically different goals and having everyone walk away with a sense that compromise was reached as far as possible." (paraphrase)
Andy knows what he's talking about as he has diffused many a potentially tense, or even volatile site plan review meeting with a firm but empathetic manner. Even when the developers or architects would come in with a my-way-or-the-highway attitude, regardless of the city's set mandates, Andy made sure that everyone had a chance to air their grievances, but that did not also mean surrender on the city's part.
Andy not only is an excellent planner, but he also has an unintentional Socratic method built into his conversations, sparking me to think broader and farther about a topic. For example, I stopped by his office to talk about my research on the e-waste zoning amendment project on which I was working and during our discussion he wondered out loud about other underutilized applications such as solar panels on top of buildings which set Thanks again Andy, for everything.
I applaud our new elected leader's courageous decision to want to fix this sorry state of affairs, but that doesn't mean that I'm so filled with political inspiration that I'm going to run for office too.
However, politics are intrinsically connected with planning. In a perfect world, urban planners would construct and design urban, suburban, and rural utopias that would spring forth from the ground using only sustainable, earth-friendly materials with everyone agreeing that whatever changes implemented are exactly what the location needs, money would flow freely, and politicians would provide ardent and unfailing support. I imagine that such world also rain gum drops and have organic unicorns as the preferred mode of transit as well.
However, in the real world, planners must rely on politicians to champion their projects and obtain city funding when applicable and align their projects with politicians' own agendas. This point was brought up in Alexander Garvin's work, the American City: What Works, What Doesn't (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Lisbon, London, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, Ne Delhi, San Juan, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Toronoto: McGraw-Hill, (c) 2002) Mr. Garvin talks about "a new approach to planning," which "explicitly deals with both public action and the probable private market reaction." [emphasis author's own] (Garvin, 8)
Mr. Garvin goes on to say,
"Such change-oriented planning requires general acceptance of the idea that while planners are in the change business, others will actually effect the changes: civic leaders, interest groups, community organizations, property owners, developers, bankers, lawyers, architects, engineers, elected and appointed public officials- the list is endless.
Being entirely dependent on these other players, planners must focus on increasing the chances that everybody else's agenda will be successful. They may choose to do so by targeting public investment in infrastructure and community facilities, or by shaping the regulatory system, or by introducing incentives that will encourage market activity. But whatever they select, their role must be to initiate and shepherd often-controversial expenditures and legislation. More important, the public will be able to hold them accountable by evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the private market reaction to their programs." (Garvin, 8)
I realized that I am a certifiable dork when I noticed that Mr. Garvin's American City is the size and weight of the average college textbook, yet I found the material fascinating. This isn't a slam against Mr. Garvin, his writing style is informative and engaging. But that doesn't change the fact that I read textbooks for fun.
I recall talking about the strange bedfellow relationship between planners and politicians during my summer internship with the city of Visalia and discussing this subject with the incredibly generous and experienced Andy Chamberlain, one of the senior planners.
Andy told me, and this cobbled from my hastily scratched notes, nothing was recorded and he was not on record, that "Planning is ultimately about politics, it shouldn't be, but it is." He went on to say that politics means both political politics and people's personal/business agendas. "Planning needs to focus on the long-term good for everybody, but how to achieve this with everyone coming in with diametrically different goals and having everyone walk away with a sense that compromise was reached as far as possible." (paraphrase)
Andy knows what he's talking about as he has diffused many a potentially tense, or even volatile site plan review meeting with a firm but empathetic manner. Even when the developers or architects would come in with a my-way-or-the-highway attitude, regardless of the city's set mandates, Andy made sure that everyone had a chance to air their grievances, but that did not also mean surrender on the city's part.
Andy not only is an excellent planner, but he also has an unintentional Socratic method built into his conversations, sparking me to think broader and farther about a topic. For example, I stopped by his office to talk about my research on the e-waste zoning amendment project on which I was working and during our discussion he wondered out loud about other underutilized applications such as solar panels on top of buildings which set Thanks again Andy, for everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)