More on Angels name change to "Los Angeles"

[RickV]

Right or wrong I think Los Angeles/Los Angeles county has taken on the identity for the whole geographical area.

Yeah... unfortunately (for your analogy, that is) Anaheim isn't in the City of Los Angeles or Los Angeles County. It's a municipality of 328,014 people in Orange County. It's located 30-35 miles from dowtown Los Angeles. Despite Gothamite's constant drumbeat to the contrary, it's a self-sufficient city... not a suburb of Los Angeles. Hey... as I pointed out earlier in this thread, Los Angeles itself is "25 suburbs in search of a city". It doesn't need Anaheim to serve as its bedroom community.

I know it isnt in Los Angeles or LA County, it is in Orange County. You are missing my point, I think. I'm saying LA has taken on an identity for the WHOLE area, all the counties, municipalities, cities, etc. Look, its very obvious you feel very strongly that Anaheim is a separate entity from LA. I'm not disputing that, I'm just making the observation that many people think of LA as encompassing the whole Southern California/Valley area, including Newport Beach, Malibu, etc.

[Brian in Boston]

... I'm just making the observation that many people think of LA as encompassing the whole Southern California/Valley area, including Newport Beach, Malibu, etc.

Well, maybe those on the outside looking in. However, the folks that I know who call Orange County home are quick to point out that they're not "Los Angelenos". They prefer their lifestyle in Orange County just fine, thanks. That's not to say that they don't make the occassional foray into "LaLa Land" now and again. Still, their decision to live in Orange County - as opposed to Los Angeles - was a deliberate one. They don't regard themselves as being a neighborhood or suburb of LA, the way a Hollywood, Brentwood, Westwood, Studio City, Burbank, Sherman Oaks, Culver City, etc., would.

[RickV]

... I'm just making the observation that many people think of LA as encompassing the whole Southern California/Valley area, including Newport Beach, Malibu, etc.

Well, maybe those on the outside looking in. However, the folks that I know who call Orange County home are quick to point out that they're not "Los Angelenos". They prefer their lifestyle in Orange County just fine, thanks. That's not to say that they don't make the occassional foray into "LaLa Land" now and again. Still, their decision to live in Orange County - as opposed to Los Angeles - was a deliberate one. They don't regard themselves as being a neighborhood or suburb of LA, the way a Hollywood, Brentwood, Westwood, Studio City, Burbank, Sherman Oaks, Culver City, etc., would.

I agree, believe me. I'm married to a woman who grew up in Diamond Bar and she would NEVER identify herself as an Angelino, and I know the people there (in So Cal)

are fiecely independent. So I agree with you, on the outside looking in, all of So Cal may seem as "LA" but I've seen both sides of the fence, and I know that it isnt all the same city with a bunch of "suburbs".

[Brian in Boston]

So, how's your "SoCal" gal dealing with having been "dragged" to San Antonio?

[RickV]

LOL, she hates it.

[clyon81]

A few thoughts.....

If they want to have a broader base, why not go back to California? So that argument isnt realistic.

With all the emphasis on the name of the city, what about the team nickname deriving from the fact that its own nickname derives from the nickname of the city in which the owner would like to change it back to? Im always reading how there should be no Utah Jazz....would this same logic apply here as well?

If you can't accept LA Angels, then dont argue for NY Giants/Jets. I dont care how close they are, they dont even play in the same STATE as the city they represent, or do they represent the entire state? I think Buffalo has more of a case for New York then the Jersey giants/jets.

I understand you want to broaden your fanbase, but lets face it, winning gets you fans all over the country. There are alot of front runner fans out there, why bend over backwards for them.

In milwaukee, they took the city name off the jerseys during the last overhaul because they wanted more of a "state" team. But nobody is driving down from Green Bay to watch a brewers game if they only win 70 games.

If you want to take public funds for your private entity, your going to have to either pay back the city, or keep your end of the deal. I can't argue a change back to California, though I wouldnt recommend it. I always figured, maybe this is dumb, but some teams like to change their names to be at the top of the list.

Like Phoenix to Arizona cardinals. Just a thought.

[Brick]

Good point keynote--

As a further thought-- Baltimore and DC are nearly as close as Anaheim and LA, but of course nobody clamors for any of their teams to have the other's city name.  You just have Peter Angelos claiming Washington, DC as the Orioles' "territory".

( I know, I know, two separately-developed cities with different histories and all, but still....)

Baltimore is now marketing itself as an urban bedroom community for Washington.

[Gothamite]

I've lived all over in greater LA, from the Valley to Santa Monica to Hollywood to, yes, Orange County.

We've had this conversation before, but what the heck. I'm game:

People who don't live within the city limits of Los Angeles like to believe that they don't live in LA, but they still do.

It's like here in New York - the suburbs go out to Long Island, North Jersey, Westchester, even Connecticut has NYC suburbs, and that's 30 miles from Midtown (and in a different state).

It doesn't matter that there are people in Anaheim who don't go into LA proper much. My aunt doesn't go into Milwaukee much if at all, but that doesn't mean that Waukesha is no longer a suburb.

Large cities envelop the small ones outside of them. Smaller cities contiguous to large ones, where there is commuting and interchange between them, are suburbs, no matter how the small cities would like to view themselves.

[RickV]

I've lived all over in greater LA, from the Valley to Santa Monica to Hollywood to, yes, Orange County.

We've had this conversation before, but what the heck. I'm game:

People who don't live within the city limits of Los Angeles like to believe that they don't live in LA, but they still do.

It's like here in New York - the suburbs go out to Long Island, North Jersey, Westchester, even Connecticut has NYC suburbs, and that's 30 miles from Midtown (and in a different state).

It doesn't matter that there are people in Anaheim who don't go into LA proper much. My aunt doesn't go into Milwaukee much if at all, but that doesn't mean that Waukesha is no longer a suburb.

Large cities envelop the small ones outside of them. Smaller cities contiguous to large ones, where there is commuting and interchange between them, are suburbs, no matter how the small cities would like to view themselves.

OK, that settles it.

[Brian in Boston]

It's like here in New York - the suburbs go out to Long Island, North Jersey, Westchester, even Connecticut has NYC suburbs, and that's 30 miles from Midtown (and in a different state).

It doesn't matter that there are people in Anaheim who don't go into LA proper much. My aunt doesn't go into Milwaukee much if at all, but that doesn't mean that Waukesha is no longer a suburb.

Large cities envelop the small ones outside of them. Smaller cities contiguous to large ones, where there is commuting and interchange between them, are suburbs, no matter how the small cities would like to view themselves.

Los Angeles has not "enveloped" Anaheim, nor is Anaheim "contiguous" (abutting... in immediate contact... connected in space or time... sharing a common boundary... connecting without a break, etc.) to Los Angeles.

Oh, and talk about a meaningless analogy, when did Waukesha, Wisconsin hit 328,014 in population? How many of those Long Island, North Jersey, Westchester and Connecticut suburbs within 30-35 miles of New York City have populations of 328,014? I'll save you the time and research: none.

Bottom line? Anaheim is far more an independent city than any of the communities you seek to compare it to.

[OMMF]

It's like here in New York - the suburbs go out to Long Island, North Jersey, Westchester, even Connecticut has NYC suburbs, and that's 30 miles from Midtown (and in a different state).

It doesn't matter that there are people in Anaheim who don't go into LA proper much.  My aunt doesn't go into Milwaukee much if at all, but that doesn't mean that Waukesha is no longer a suburb.     

Large cities envelop the small ones outside of them.  Smaller cities contiguous to large ones, where there is commuting and interchange between them, are suburbs, no matter how the small cities would like to view themselves.

Los Angeles has not "enveloped" Anaheim, nor is Anaheim "contiguous" (abutting... in immediate contact... connected in space or time... sharing a common boundary... connecting without a break, etc.) to Los Angeles.

Oh, and talk about a meaningless analogy, when did Waukesha, Wisconsin hit 328,014 in population? How many of those Long Island, North Jersey, Westchester and Connecticut suburbs within 30-35 miles of New York City have populations of 328,014? I'll save you the time and research: none.

Bottom line? Anaheim is far more an independent city than any of the communities you seek to compare it to.

Don't forget too that Anaheim has it's own airport. You don't see that in too many "suburbs" of any city.

[Brian in Boston]

Actually, I believe the airport you are referring to is John Wayne Airport in nearby Santa Ana, California. It is an international airport serving Orange County.

[Gothamite]

Heck, if that's the logic, Newark has its own airport. Tell me THAT's not a suburb.

Los Angeles to Anaheim is one long sprawl of development. Any distinction between them might as well be arbitrarily drawn.

Anaheim does indeed have its own identity. So what? So does Santa Monica. So does Hollywood, which is actually part of LA. So does Greenwich, CT. So does Hoboken.

Anaheim is still a suburb. A lovely suburb, to be sure, but part of the LA megaplex. Even having lived there, I fail to see why so many people want to pretend otherwise.

And it's not just Anaheim - when I lived in Santa Monica, we pretended that we weren't Angelinos too. Don't know why that is.

[bosox]

It's like here in New York - the suburbs go out to Long Island, North Jersey, Westchester, even Connecticut has NYC suburbs, and that's 30 miles from Midtown (and in a different state).

It doesn't matter that there are people in Anaheim who don't go into LA proper much.  My aunt doesn't go into Milwaukee much if at all, but that doesn't mean that Waukesha is no longer a suburb.     

Large cities envelop the small ones outside of them.  Smaller cities contiguous to large ones, where there is commuting and interchange between them, are suburbs, no matter how the small cities would like to view themselves.

Los Angeles has not "enveloped" Anaheim, nor is Anaheim "contiguous" (abutting... in immediate contact... connected in space or time... sharing a common boundary... connecting without a break, etc.) to Los Angeles.

Oh, and talk about a meaningless analogy, when did Waukesha, Wisconsin hit 328,014 in population? How many of those Long Island, North Jersey, Westchester and Connecticut suburbs within 30-35 miles of New York City have populations of 328,014? I'll save you the time and research: none.

Bottom line? Anaheim is far more an independent city than any of the communities you seek to compare it to.

Well, you didn't save me any research or time

I was bored, and even though I agree that Anaheim its own, independent city, I found a document, which I saved and made into a picture, that shows that small towns on Long Island, do have over 300,000 population.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v189/bosox/population.png

[RickV]

What a spirited discussion!! Everyone makes good points, that pretty much explains why there will not be an easy solution to this problem. It will probably be hashed out by lawyers and accountants. I suspect in the end, there will be a team in Anaheim called the Los Angeles Angels. Brian in Boston please dont shoot me, I'm just the messenger with an opinion.

[Gothamite]

I think it'll come down to how much he wants to call the team "Los Angeles." He'll almost certainly have to buy Anaheim out of the contract, which is something like $30M.

If it's worth it to him, I don't see how they can stop him. If it isn't worth it to him, look for them to continue to downplay "Anaheim." Eventually, the only place you'll see the city name is in the standings.

[CubsFanBudMan]

I remember this discussion, too, with the same main characters. I also lived in L.A. and I fall on the "Anaheim is a suburb" side of the argument. Burbank has its own airport, too, BTW. I respect your opinion BiB, and you certainly have provoked some further thought on the subject for me, but I'm still of the belief that Anaheim is a suburb of L.A., 400,000 people or not.

This does not necessarily mean I favor a change to Los Angeles Angels. I think the right decision would have been to keep that name all along. Now that they've been Anaheim for a few years (a name I completely attribute to Disney ownership) -- and won a title with -- I'm not sure they need to revert to L.A. to better their marketing position -- they seem to have made quite a revival as Anaheim just fine (I say that with memories of games in 2000 fresh in my head -- an easy ticket back then -- compared to my return visit last year for a red-infested, rally-monkey-crazy game...what a difference!) I sometimes still refer to them as "California" especially after breaking out the RBI Baseball, so I could live with that again., but naming them L.A. would seem to right a wrong of long ago.

Bottom line -- not sure this can be settled here.

[Brian in Boston]

1) Los Angeles to Anaheim is one long sprawl of development. Any distinction between them might as well be arbitrarily drawn.

2) Anaheim does indeed have its own identity. So what? So does Santa Monica. So does Hollywood, which is actually part of LA. So does Greenwich, CT. So does Hoboken.

And it's not just Anaheim - when I lived in Santa Monica, we pretended that we weren't Angelinos too. Don't know why that is.

1) Ah, but the "distinction" between Los Angeles and Anaheim isn't just arbitrarily drawn... and there's the rub. Amongst the distinctions are the legally-established boundaries of several self-sufficient communities that render LA and Anaheim as two non-contiguous and wholly independent municipalities some 30 to 35 miles from one another.

2) Hmmm... How far is Santa Monica from downtown Los Angeles? Thirty miles? No, I didn't think so. Does Santa Monica's popultaion exceed 100,000 people? No. So, by process of elimination it's safe to say that it doesn't approach 328,014. How about Greenwich, Connecticut and Hoboken, New Jersey? Better than 300,000 people living in either of those communities? Again, the answer is no. And as for Hollywood, as you've noted, it's just a neighborhood in Los Angeles proper. So, they're are plenty of ways in which Anaheim's independence from Los Angeles is distinct from the relationship that Santa Monica or Hollywood enjoy with LA, or that Greenwich and Hoboken share with NYC.

3) You weren't pretending that you weren't Los Angelinos... technically, you weren't. You were Santa Monicans. Still, Santa Monica is much more a "suburb" or "bedroom community" of Los Angeles than Anaheim is. Why? Because the City of Santa Monica shares a border with the City of Los Angeles. Because the City of Santa Monica's population is 84,804 as opposed to Anaheim's 328,014. Because Santa Monica and Los Angeles are both in Los Angeles County.

The bottom line is that you're concluding that the smaller cities (or counties) that are included in a Metropolitan area are automatically "suburbs" of the largest city in said area. However, that's not necessarily the case. The US Census Bureau considers "Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County" a Metropolitan Area. By the same token, the likes of "Washington-Baltimore", "San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose", "Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City" and "Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint" are Metropolitan Areas. However, Anaheim is no more a "suburb" of Los Angeles than Baltimore is of Washington... than Oakland or San Jose are of San Francisco... than Wilmington or Atlantic City are of Philadelphia... than Ann Arbor or Flint are of Detroit.

[winghaz]

A few thoughts:

1. If people go to Anaheim for whatever (most likely Disneyland), they aren't saying they're going to Anaheim. They're going to Disneyland, or they're going to L.A.

2. Please, please, please, no return to the California Angels, not when there are so many other teams in California. A state name should only be applied when there is only one team in the state (with the exception of the Texas Rangers simply because of the historic Texas Rangers). In other words, the Florida Marlins should become the Miami Marlins. Etc., etc., etc.

3. If they do re-rename them the Los Angeles Angels, I hope they bring back the halo caps.

[LMU]

A few thoughts:

1. If people go to Anaheim for whatever (most likely Disneyland), they aren't saying they're going to Anaheim. They're going to Disneyland, or they're going to L.A.

2. Please, please, please, no return to the California Angels, not when there are so many other teams in California. A state name should only be applied when there is only one team in the state (with the exception of the Texas Rangers simply because of the historic Texas Rangers). In other words, the Florida Marlins should become the Miami Marlins. Etc., etc., etc.

3. If they do re-rename them the Los Angeles Angels, I hope they bring back the halo caps.

1-Agreed... I always say that I'm going to Disneyland; I only say I'm going to Anaheim if I'm going to a marching band competition in Anaheim.

2-Also agreed. I have a thing against teams taking on the state name if there's another team in the state (e.g. Tampa Bay Lightning and Florida Panthers, or Houston Astros and Texas Rangers).

3-I would LOVE to see the halo caps back!