The Los Angeles Times recently did something very courageous and gutsy for a newspaper. No, I don't mean they pointed out an error by a public official. That gutsy, they aren't. But they decided to try and define the communities that make up Los Angeles. We have all these little fiefdoms with names like "Westwood" and "Cheviot Hills" that have no official boundaries. Most people more or less know where they are but not precisely where they start and stop.
The borders can be quite fuzzy…and I would imagine we have realtors to thank for that. If you can claim that the house you're selling is in "Bel-Air," you do, even though someone might argue that Bel-Air is confined to the other side of Sunset. There are also many areas where no commonly-used name seems to apply and the folks who live in those areas usually shrug when asked and say, "I live in Los Angeles," which is accurate but not useful in pinpointing where in Los Angeles.
It's brave for the Times to undertake the task because a lot of people disagree with their decisions…and before I forget, here's the link to what the Times staff came up with. A lot of folks are outraged or baffled or startled by the assertion that their homes aren't where they thought they were and that, for example, there is such a place as Chinatown but Little Tokyo seems to have disappeared. The areas where I grew up and where I now live seem properly designated to me…but the apartment where I lived in-between is assigned to a neighborhood name I would never have used to describe that location.
A lot of local blogs are dissenting and some are so vituperative that I doubt the Times map is going to settle the matter of where, say, West Hollywood stops and starts. But maybe it's a starting place.