A Threefold 'Thank You' to Los Angeles
Dear Los Angeles: I'm Thankful For...
-thumb-110x110-213475.jpg)
A Photo Gallery of the Things I am Grateful for This Year
I LOVE L.A.! My Thanksgiving Thanks
10 Random Albums To Be Thankful For
There's been controversy aplenty surrounding the date of the LA Marathon this year, and now, in preparation for next year's run, Greersoc.com founder and 15-time marathon runner Greer Wylder suggests in an LA Times editorial today that organizers also consider improving the route. Why? Because, to be blunt, it's really ugly.
Wylder wonders "why organizers have mapped out a course so visually deadening when we live in a city filled with iconic sights," and laments the 26.2 mile stretch of "nondescript houses, convenience stores, strip malls, office buildings, chain-link fences and car lots." Did the organizers perhaps forget that runners need something to look at as they move through our oftentimes breathtakingly beautiful city? "You get the impression that organizers drew the course based on how easily a street could be closed off, not taking into account the experience of the runner," notes Wylder.
So what routes could future marathons take?
Wylder offers the following:
To take in some of the city's more memorable sights, runners could start at Dodger Stadium, go through Chinatown, then up Sunset Boulevard to Hollywood, on to Beverly Hills and Westwood, and finishing at the beach in Santa Monica.Will Marathon organizers and City government consider a re-routing? It certainly would improve the vista for those pounding the pavement, and for those watching at home. Although making the run attractive isn't the point of the race, showing off our city couldn't hurt--and it couldn't hurt to help change a typical non-Angeleno's perspective of LA as being a charmless sprawl of concrete and cars.Or the route could capitalize on the city's entertainment cachet, sending runners through Hollywood, with a dash down Rodeo Drive and along Melrose Avenue before ending up near Staples Center.
How about a historical tour? Runners could kick off in Boyle Heights, zip through Union Station, circle the Watts Towers and conclude with a dramatic Coliseum finish. Or we could just keep it simple with 26 miles of coastline.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I have been toying with the idea of running the marathon but the current route seems rather boring as stated in the article. It doesn't even go through Hollywood anymore, and aren't we the "entertainment capital of the world?" The coastline idea sounds very pretty in theory and I have done a 26.2mile practice run along the coast, but would prefer different scenery. I loved running in the Chicago marathon since it was a beautiful run, and starting at Grant Park was awesome. Wylder's suggestion of starting at Dodger Stadium and ending in Santa Monica sounds awesome. They really need to move the marathon back a couple months, the runners were lucky it was not too hot.
Or how about they hold the marathon somewhere like Malibu, where the runners won't screw up traffic on major city streets? In a city like L.A., where the subway system is so limited, is is nonsensical to block off that much road for a marathon.
And I can't even imagine how congested and horrible it would be if they followed the suggested route starting at Dodger stadium. That whole area is a clusterfuck, as it is.
Let's just be realistic about this city and what a marathon does to the area. The runners should go where cars don't drive.
They're moving it back to Sunday. Exactly how badly do you need to drive anywhere on a Sunday?
More than you need to run on the street on a sunday, that's for sure.
when i ran the LA marathon back in the 90's, not only did we start and end in the shadow of the coliseum, but we ran through the ethnic neighborhoods of olvera street, little tokyo, and chinatown and were entertained by mariachi bands, taiko drummers, and lion dancers as we ran past. we also ran through hollywood and waved at the tourists as they waved back. the course was way more interesting then. so why did they change it? to "flatten out" the hills on the course so that faster times could be posted by the elite runners, making it more desirable among runners trying to post personal bests. so what are we left with now? running along sections of venice, pico, olympic, and wilshire boulevards. flat, yes, but utterly boring. honestly, if i were an out-of-towner running the LA marathon, i would think that LA's an ugly city with nothing interesting going for it.
i've run every incarnation of the course, hoping that each re-routing would be an improvement. but it just seems to be getting worse. there have been rumors about the course being changed yet again by the new owners. let's hope that the 2010 version -- moved back to march -- brings back the highlights of our fair city!
Marathoners like Greer Wylder can run long distances, but apparently have really short memories. The marathons run in 2007 and 2008 featured a unique A-to-B course that started in Universal City and ended downtown.
The loop route run this year was the same one done since 2003 if not further back, and was chosen in order to save money. Apparently the much more (air quotes) scenic point-to-point course is much more expensive to staff and maintain.
The 2007-2008 course was worse than the course I ran in 2005 and 2006, which was the same one run this year. I much preferred this loop course, which I didn't think was that ugly. Then again I actually love this city so I'm blinded by love. The best thing about it is running through Leimert Park and being supported by the residents there. The 2007-2008 course was run in a lot of desolate, industrial areas.
The point-to-point course in 2007-2008 ran through Hollywood in the beginning but in the end runners had to run through Skid Row. Even worse is the mental hurdle of catching sight of the finish line at mile 20 in downtown only to have to run out another six miles before actually finishing. The idea behind the course was good--utilize the Red Line to shuttle runners and spectators from downtown to Universal City but the rest of the course was just depressing.
Also, with regards to a point-to-point course from Dodger Stadium to Santa Monica, I love the idea, but realistically it's going to be a logistical challenge. Closing the streets is easy enough but the biggest problem is how to get runners and spectators into Dodger Stadium and then when they finish in Santa Monica how will they get back to where they need to go. Ideally there will be a shuttle service, but will the organizers be willing to foot the bill for that? If the organizers are keen on this course then I'm sure they can make it work. They only need to study the City of Angels half marathon, which manages to shuttle participants from downtown to Griffith Park. Participation is smaller at City of Angels, but it goes to show that it's doable.
Perhaps a bigger problem will be getting Santa Monica and Beverly Hills to sign off on the idea. Good luck with that.
I thought this route was chosen because it mostly burdens low income neighborhoods with the asinine day-long street closures?
What about copying the DipSea? Start up on Mulholland, run across the Westside and Santa Monica, then down the California Incline into the sand and water for a finish?
Speaking as someone who finds himself stuck in the donut hole of the marathon route almost every year, I sure wouldn't mind if the organizers decided to skip Windsor Square in the future.