ABSTRACT
For many, it seems, Los Angeles is the end of the urban line. Condemnations of L.A. are commonplace in the contemporary literature on cities, as it has become a synonym for sprawl and the desperate state of the urban itself. The verdict of historian Jon C. Teaford in his The Twentieth-Century American City is typical: “By the close of the twentieth century, the ‘Los Angelesization’ of America was well advanced. The city was lost, and an increasing number of Americans were not even searching for it.” 1 But if Los Angeles’ influence is pervasive, is it still synonymous with undifferentiated sprawl? Is Los Angeles really the end of the city? Might there still be urban order lurking in the grid?
