ABSTRACT
Introduction LA is important to the urban imaginary, for both the positive images and the negative ones it evokes. From its description in the 1940s as ‘a land of magical improvisation’ emphasising the tendency to recreate history (McWilliams, 1973 [1946], p. 21) to becoming a barometer of either the ‘magical urbanism’ inherent in globalisation’s transnational social practices as cities are re-urbanised by immigrants (Davis, 2000) or the ‘ “off worlds” advertised in the apocalyptic skies of Blade Runner ’s Los Angeles’ (Davis & Monk, 2007, p. xiv), the emergence of Los Angeles as a global megacity ‘gives it a special place in the history and geography of city building’ (Soja & Scott, 1996, p. 1). Each of these stories, and many more not only about LA but also about other cities around the world, provides a sense of place through mobility/immobility. Whether this is better, how, and better for whom, however, remains an empirical question (e.g. Cinar & Bender, 2007; Hayden, 1995; Massey, 2005; Prakash & Kruse, 2008; Riposa & Andranovich, 1988; Zukin, 1991). As a two-time (1932, 1984) Olympic host city, with aspirations for a third experience motivating the city’s 2024 bid, Los Angeles is presented by some as the Olympic city because of its legacies hosting the Olympic Games (e.g. Xth Olympiad Committee, 1933, photo on p. 32; Dyreson, 2013; Dyreson & Llewellyn, 2008; Wilson, 2015).
