Inferiority complex maybe.

I think it has gone well beyond being borderline rude.

Maybe it is borderline rude but imagine how boring it would be here if we left. :lol:

I'll tell you why I post on the LA forum:

The Chicago forum has like 5 people posting on it. I need to write something somewhere. So why not just come to the LA forum and humiliate Silverlake? It's fun and entertaining, so we mightas well :bash:

Maybe it is borderline rude but imagine how boring it would be here if we left. :lol:

Try us!

I may be in LA right now. Plus I have ties there, mostly in railcars being shipped across the country and boats in Long Beach harbour, and women crossing the US/Mexico border.

Inferiority complex maybe.

I think it has gone well beyond being borderline rude.

You could have saved this post. Anyway, the main poster here is Urban Politician who is from DC. Michigan Avenue is bad but he's our less-annoying version of Silverlake.

Silverlake! Silverlake's platitudes on LA. He's an original. They broke the mold when they made him. The capital letters! The 1000 exclamation marks. The huge fonts with LA plastered in them. The delicious indignation. The hurt look he gets when somebody suggests that LA isn't world class, or a city, or the center of the universe. I love the "LA's cool. LA's in. LA's a player. Let us into the club house. Let us be the alpha city in the clubhouse. Please. Pretty please. I'll hold my breathe and turn blue if you don't say LA and NY are the only great American cities" Hell, it's priceless. All that's missing is seeing Los Angeles renamed Silverlake.

It's Silverlake that draws us to the board. Silverlake's the man.

Inferiority complex maybe.

I think it has gone well beyond being borderline rude.


Qwerty, it has to do with some childish retailation of some kind that most of LA forumers don't care about or are unaware of, yet still have to bear the brunt of these bizzare and random attacks on our threads that we (formerly) were trying to enjoy. Frankly, I don't care what goes on in other forums, but it is really pathetic that some people feel the need to spread this idiocy, like a disease, to this forum or any other forum.

Where is Silverlake now?

One does have to wonder why NY vs Chicago or NY vs LA threads are oh so very rare

One does have to wonder why NY vs Chicago or NY vs LA threads are oh so very rare

Perhaps that might have to do with the maturity of New York. I've encountered so many New Yorkers in Chicago on business and here for pleasure. They uniformly praise Chicago and bring up some many positive comparisons between the two cities. My experience has been: they treat Chicago as a peer and not a rival.

So what does that say about New Yorkers? Could it be saying that they are so secure with NY's unquestionable stature and standing in the world that they don't feel it is necessary to put down another city. Through my experience, I'd have say "a resounding YES". New Yorkers know how special New York is and don't need to take part in the pecking order discussions. They realize that they're city is great enough that it is not diminished by the greatness of other cities.

Now Angelenos I have met through business situations are often equally complimentary of Chicago, but you can see on this board a defensiveness of many LA folks on their city's status and the need to create some kind of exclusive bond with New York at the exclusion of other cities. With additional maturity as a city, i see that being less of a factor for LA>

ive been reading the battles between the windy city and the city of angels ever since it started, and quite honestly its like watching a soap opera, some if it funny, some of it drama, but all 100% bullsh*t, i never posted anything, cause didnt want to get caught up in it all.. but i just wanted to say some things... as far as LA and Chicago, each are their own individual cities, each have their own way of doing things... both have ups both have their down... ive been to many major cities in America... do i think LA is a world class city... yes i do... but also no i dont... when i think of world class i think of levels of world class, LA posses world class qualities, that havent been harnest to there ability, but will it ever be a top notch class A, 5 star, 10 point destination, world class city.... of course...LA is not the greatest city in america or the world, but neither is chicago, or NYC, (yes ive been there many times, i have family there) i think every city is a good city, because they all posess something original, something they call their own, but to say that LA has no class at all, and say that it does no possess world class culture or qualities, just shows what kind of class your people in your city have, anyways thats just my opinion some may agree but many wont, and thats fine... im not trying to make friends, or enemies... just cause you've been here for a day or two or maybe even a week, spend some time here in Los Angeles it has more to offer than you would ever think...

-Bunker Hill

Now Angelenos I have met through business situations are often equally complimentary of Chicago, but you can see on this board a defensiveness of many LA folks on their city's status and the need to create some kind of exclusive bond with New York at the exclusion of other cities. With additional maturity as a city, i see that being less of a factor for LA>

This is not directed at you edsg25, but the reason Angelenos get defensive on this forum is because there are 5 times as many Chicagoans on this forum with no objective other than to bash the host city in the host city's forum.

It doesn't matter if its LA or any other city. When you have constant and randomly large mob attacks on this forum, it will make anyone a little peeved, to say the least. If that represents Los Angeles' lack of maturity as a city, you'd really have to question the reason why Chicago forumers are mostly the reason for this defensiveness, and being that Chicago is a much older city.

I'm sure most of it is just a reaction to Silverlake. That is no excuse for those who regularly post in Chicago forums to be taking it out on this forum and forcing everyone else on here to read through posts such as this:

In LA that is not the case because, well, just look at the friggin place. It's damn ugly! (other than weather, palm trees, and some of the older bungaloes)

bingo, savvysearch, it is silverlake. and i've been as guilty as other chicagoans on that issue.

why? i't hard to say, but i think i have a sense:

silverlake is not really trolling; nor is he excessively negative and insulting about other cities. i think, if that had been all that it was, a lot of what he says would be dismissed.

no, i think the part that gets people is his real sincerity on LA, the target he makes of himself if he preceives LA is bashed (or even midly criticized) and (perhaps the biggest) his sincere belief that there is some kind of weird hierarchy that includes NY and LA and excludes everyone else. Now his hierarchy is awfully flawed and way off base. It's strange. It's weird. But it attracts comment more, perhaps, than pure trolling, if nothing else than to poke holes in absurd argument.

Me? On a serious level. I, of course, take LA seriously. Is it world class? I would say so. Which city do I personally think is greater? IMHO, Chicago, by quite a lot. But that's my opinion and nothing more.

Personally I think LA has hurt itself over the years, particularly the post-WWII years, in the way that it has sprawled and not been centered around a downtown. A lot of that sprawl and spread made sense during the time that urban centers in the east and midwest were being hurt by urban decay and LA's roads were a lot less crowded.

The reality of today, where world class cities need a heavy concentration in one place is a detriment to LA, again IMHO.

I am also of the belief that LA and much of the West will struggle greatly with the issue of not enough water. LA's dependence on wateer to prevent the desert from reclaiming much of it is great. It is a scary prospect of what the city will do without a continuing flow of water.

Are these problems overcomeable? I don't know. As I said, LA is a great city, but a great city that has some mighty weighty problems that may be very hard, or impossible, to solve.

or at least that's the way i see it.

The problem with water is that Californians really don't drink that much. The problem is that 80% of it is for agriculture which only brings in 2% of California's money. Water is definitely a problem, but I don't see it as a problem as people make it out to be. If we have to conserve water, population growth won't be much affected but agriculture will be, being that it takes most of the water supply. But losing 2% of California's money in worst case scenario is not devastating.

For me, world city means that a city is well known and is known for a world dominating industry (for LA, it's film/television/music industry). Although concetrated areas are fun and easy to navigate for visitors, I don't agree with successful cities seriously needing a concentrated downtown. Cities such as Phoenix and Las Vegas demonstate this reality through really attaining success not through being concentrated, but as a result of spreading out. I think SF is starting to have that problem of being unable or unwilling to expand, so the surrounding areas around it like San Jose are taking advantage of SF's weaknesses and may eventually be the big money maker in the SF metropolitan area. This is pretty much true around the country where the trend is that spread out areas are taking most of the growth and businesses with it to the detriment of condensed downtown-centered neighbors. I think the real burden today is whether concentrated downtown cities can adapt and compete with expanding neighbors rather than the other way around.

I think SF is starting to have that problem of being unable or unwilling to expand, so the surrounding areas around it like San Jose are taking advantage of SF's weaknesses and may eventually be the big money maker in the SF metropolitan area.

How could SF expand? Three sides are water and no community across the city/county line in San Mateo County would want to join the city.

The Bay Area has problems with having a huge body of water in its middle and so much mountainous, undevelopable land. That said, the Bay Area also has been able to unite and coordinate its communities better than virtually all metro areas. I'm not so sure that high tech concentration in Sillicon Valley has hurt a city that is still such a major business and tourism center as SF.

Where is Silverlake now?

Every half phase of the moon, his parents have to put him in his cage for 3 days as a precaution. Something about a psychosis attached to the tides or something.

Every half phase of the moon, his parents have to put him in his cage for 3 days as a precaution. Something about a psychosis attached to the tides or something.

No!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Stop!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! "Cage" is a word that stands for LA!!! And "moon" was used only because you think LA is lunny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You know it!!!!! I know it!!!!! You guys just can't stop dissing the greatest city in the world and the universe's most magnificent metropolis. I'm sick of it!!!!!!! You guys pick on LA all the time!!!! No, LA does not have psychois or any other kind of skin infection. LA is the greatest!!!! It's a player!!!! It's a player with NYC!!!!!! LA and NYC are the two coastal book ends that keep this nation together!!!!!!!! Tides?????? Why tides? Because we're on the Pacific? New York has tides, too! Only worthless, non-coastal inland cities don't have tides!!!!! LA is the greatest city in the whole wide world no matter what your moon or psychosis or tides says!!!!!!!!!!!

I was going to add more, but my darned mother is making me go to bed!

^LOL

I can't stop "trolling" this thread. Okay, I'm addicted. But what can I say? It's so fun. I mean, arguing with LA people is like arguing with spoiled children. We have all the facts and statistics on our side, but they have all the arrogance. Every time a stupid remark from someone like Vice or Daortiz is made, I just have to point out to them how puny and insignificant LA's financial presence is compared to Chicago. Then, as always predicted, they come out with the "we're equal to NYC and we have Hollywood" nonsense that has no basis on anything real, and the retarded cycle repeats itself.

On the thread 'is LA a world class city' of the last 17 posts, which is the last page so far, 8 or around half are done by Chicagoans. That is sad. If you add in Urban Politician it comes to ten of the last 17.

Third City inferiority complex by Chicagoans. Face it guys Chicago is a has been city and LA is the future. Just look at which city is growing and which one isn't.

quote:
We have all the facts and statistics on our side In reference to, on the side of Chicago.
You have got to be kidding and actually you don't.

On the thread 'is LA a world class city' of the last 17 posts, which is the last page so far, 8 or around half are done by Chicagoans. That is sad. If you add in Urban Politician it comes to ten of the last 17.

Third City inferiority complex by Chicagoans. Face it guys Chicago is a has been city and LA is the future. Just look at which city is growing and which one isn't.

quote:
We have all the facts and statistics on our side In reference to, on the side of Chicago.
You have got to be kidding and actually you don't.

^In what way is Chicago a has-been? Is Millennium Park, Trump Tower, Waterview Tower, BP Amoco's subsidiary, Boeing, etc all manifestations of a "has been" town? Did those companies move to or did those enormous developments (and tons more) take place in LA? And in what way are the facts that we all have mentioned not been true? Chicago is growing, too. It just had the unfortunate situation of losing population to the suburbs--but the metro has continued to grow, and now the city is growing again. I just find it amazing that LA, now a city of nearly double the metro size of Chicago, still has a much weaker corporate/financial presence than Chicago does. So Qwerty, where am I kidding and where am I making this stuff up?

Mexico City has a greater population than NYC. Does that mean it's a more important city?

Sorry, Qwerty, I know you're trying to patch things up and be "cool" with the LA people, but I must admit, I am not at all following your logic.

I think that Los Angels is growing faster, just LA Live and Grand Avenue together are much more than those Chicago projects listed. I mean in total, there are like 20 + high rise towers planned for downtown LA... that's crazy! And there are other project with towers which have not yet been announced, so there is no question that Los Angeles and its center core is and will be growing much faster than Chicago. Besides, downtwon LA doesn't have to grow that much more to catch up to Chicago's skyline (in terms of density) as opposed to New York. To catch up to New York, it takes something like Hong Kong, Chicago is nowhere near NYC, and LA is further away.

^ I just find it amazing that LA, now a city of nearly double the metro size of Chicago, still has a much weaker corporate/financial presence than Chicago does. .

What exactly are you talking about? Metro Chicago (or Chicagoland as you guys call it) is around 4000 sq miles. I highly doubt the city of LA spans 8000 square miles. :| And I should add that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I can easily turn the tables and say that for a city the size of Chicago, it hasn't produced the fraction of world media attention/contribution that LA has. But that would just demonstrate apples vs. oranges. Urban Politician, it seems that you booster Chicago's attributes, and then say, "oh, well the stuff that LA is better at doesn't matter." It's hard for many here to take your comments seriously when you just pick and choose so randomly like that.

I think that Los Angels is growing faster, just LA Live and Grand Avenue together are much more than those Chicago projects listed. I mean in total, there are like 20 + high rise towers planned for downtown LA... that's crazy! And there are other project with towers which have not yet been announced, so there is no question that Los Angeles and its center core is and will be growing much faster than Chicago. Besides, downtwon LA doesn't have to grow that much more to catch up to Chicago's skyline (in terms of density) as opposed to New York. To catch up to New York, it takes something like Hong Kong, Chicago is nowhere near NYC, and LA is further away.

vicecityguy, is this a race to the sky? if LA somehow passes Chicago or even NYC in the height of its skyline, will that automatically make for an inviting downtown? Isn't height-for-the-sake-of-height a detriment? It seems to me that the only cities building to go through the stratosphere right now are Asian cities that view the height of their skyscrapers as status symbols. And many of those Asian cities will have skylines that will dawrf NY, Chgo, HK in the future....and still nobody will know their names. I know LA is on the Pacific Rim, but does it really want to be one of those cities?

Super tall buildings lose their practicality when height translates into unmanageable elevator space. At that point, the buildings become trophies. If the race to the sky you describe ever becomes a reality, LA will easily win. You'll have an ally: the city of Chicago. It will do everything possible to keep heights from rising too high and putting up tall buildings for the sake of putting up tall buildings. That's been its record up to this point. Architecture carries far more wieght that height.

Case in point: Trump Tower Chicago: the city made Trump do loops (and Loops?) to get this one off the ground. It wasn't going anywhere if Trump didn't make sure it was designed right. Chicago was willing to say to Trump, "F-off and drag your sorry ass back to NY" if he didn't do things right.

Personally I take pride in the fact that in downtown Chicago's few places are generating the excitement of Millennium Park, with no buildings per se, but a lot of great art work and green space.

vicecityguy, is this a race to the sky? if LA somehow passes Chicago or even NYC in the height of its skyline, will that automatically make for an inviting downtown? Isn't height-for-the-sake-of-height a detriment? It seems to me that the only cities building to go through the stratosphere right now are Asian cities that view the height of their skyscrapers as status symbols. And many of those Asian cities will have skylines that will dawrf NY, Chgo, HK in the future....and still nobody will know their names. I know LA is on the Pacific Rim, but does it really want to be one of those cities?

Super tall buildings lose their practicality when height translates into unmanageable elevator space. At that point, the buildings become trophies. If the race to the sky you describe ever becomes a reality, LA will easily win. You'll have an ally: the city of Chicago. It will do everything possible to keep heights from rising too high and putting up tall buildings for the sake of putting up tall buildings. That's been its record up to this point. Architecture carries far more wieght that height.

Case in point: Trump Tower Chicago: the city made Trump do loops (and Loops?) to get this one off the ground. It wasn't going anywhere if Trump didn't make sure it was designed right. Chicago was willing to say to Trump, "F-off and drag your sorry ass back to NY" if he didn't do things right.

Personally I take pride in the fact that in downtown Chicago's few places are generating the excitement of Millennium Park, with no buildings per se, but a lot of great art work and green space.

I also don't really don't understand the height arguement. If San Francisco, argueably most beautiful city in the US, somehow diminished because it doesn't have tall buildings? Or Paris? Will tall building somehow give them more charm? God no! It isn't a coincidence that those two cities both known for their beauty don't have such high verticality.

I also don't really don't understand the height arguement. If San Francisco, argueably most beautiful city in the US, somehow diminished because it doesn't have tall buildings? Or Paris? Will tall building somehow give them more charm? God no! It isn't a coincidence that those two cities both known for their beauty don't have such high verticality.

savvysearch, I doubt that it will be too far into the future that the whole density-for-the-sake-of-density thing will be discredited. Particularly in the US. I, for one, am more than happy to conced to Asia the race to the sky championship. It is far more about image than substance and ironically the effect on the landscape is negative, not positive.

At a mere 800+ feet, the Transamerica Pyramid will remain as high as the SF skyline will ever go. And no San Franciscans, at least from my vantage point, will lament that fact.

On the thread 'is LA a world class city' of the last 17 posts, which is the last page so far, 8 or around half are done by Chicagoans. That is sad. If you add in Urban Politician it comes to ten of the last 17.

Third City inferiority complex by Chicagoans. Face it guys Chicago is a has been city and LA is the future. Just look at which city is growing and which one isn't.

quote:
We have all the facts and statistics on our side In reference to, on the side of Chicago.
You have got to be kidding and actually you don't.

It's quite pathetic that you would post a thread like this. I'm quite disappointed in you.

I think that Los Angels is growing faster, just LA Live and Grand Avenue together are much more than those Chicago projects listed. I mean in total, there are like 20 + high rise towers planned for downtown LA... that's crazy! And there are other project with towers which have not yet been announced, so there is no question that Los Angeles and its center core is and will be growing much faster than Chicago. Besides, downtwon LA doesn't have to grow that much more to catch up to Chicago's skyline (in terms of density) as opposed to New York. To catch up to New York, it takes something like Hong Kong, Chicago is nowhere near NYC, and LA is further away.


I'm sorry, but there's no way Los Angeles has the sort of highrise construction goin on as Chicago. Despite what you think, Chicago's skyline is much, much larger than LA's. Not only statistically, but visually as well. I've seen LA's skyline with my own two eyes and it's nowhere near as large as Chicago's. The difference in size between LA and Chicago is far larger than the difference between Chicago and New York in terms of skyline.

As for the city of LA, it would not have grown by a single person if not for Mexican immigration. In fact, neither would Chicago.

What exactly are you talking about? Metro Chicago (or Chicagoland as you guys call it) is around 4000 sq miles. I highly doubt the city of LA spans 8000 square miles. :| And I should add that those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. I can easily turn the tables and say that for a city the size of Chicago, it hasn't produced the fraction of world media attention/contribution that LA has. But that would just demonstrate apples vs. oranges. Urban Politician, it seems that you booster Chicago's attributes, and then say, "oh, well the stuff that LA is better at doesn't matter." It's hard for many here to take your comments seriously when you just pick and choose so randomly like that.

^I'm not talking about the size in geographic area, I"m talking about population. Yes, you could turn the tables around, Savvy, and Chicago's lack of media attention is a big weakness. There is no doubt about it.
But at the end of the day, it's really all about Hollywood, and that's LA's big stake to fame. Indeed, Savvy, do you honestly think more filming occurs in LA because it's a better city, or do you think so because all of the major studios are there and it is much more convenient and cheaper?

There is not one major industry, if lost, that would cripple Chicago's economy and world-class status. But if LA lost the movie industry, LA's whole identity would change, and its status as a globally important city would surely come under question.

Interestingly, LA stole the film industry from Chicago in the 1930's. The original "Hollywood" was actually Uptown in Chicago. A lesson to learn: prosperity in 1 industry does not last forever. Chicago is a city that has always had to adapt to losing its top status in a particular industry. It has ALWAYS turned the corner and always becomes a top city in something else,only to have the cycle repeat itself. What came out of it? Not a dissappointed, burned-out rust belt town. But an enormously diversified economy, a major world business center, and a place for executives to run global companies. If LA suffered the same blow (loss of the film industry), how would it have fared? Perhaps we may never know

And there are other project with towers which have not yet been announced, so there is no question that Los Angeles and its center core is and will be growing much faster than Chicago.

^I proposed a truce, but nevermind.
To address Vice City, I will use simple facts and statistics, as usual. LA won't catch up to Chicago because, simply put, even now Chicago has more skyscrapers actively under construction and in the planning stages than LA. So LA can build 'em, but Chicago's building more.

Secondly, it's how the skyscrapers relate to eachother that creates a cohesive downtown, not just their presence. I've been to downtown LA--some parts are good and are getting better, but I still found the layout noncohesive and very much "Tower separated by highways", which surely should change over time. You guys in LA have completely discounted Chicago and what its downtown can offer in helping you rebuild yours. It's a common mistake among LA people--too arrogant and unwilling to learn from others, or bother with historical lessons. It reflects on your cityscape

It's quite pathetic that you would post a thread like this. I'm quite disappointed in you.
Do you realize that this morning there are more posts made by Chicago forumers in the LA section than the Chicago section.

Do you realize that this morning there are more Chicago posts in the LA section than the Chicago section.

Amazing, People from Chicago love LA, and we love Chicago

Do you realize that this morning there are more posts made by Chicago forumers in the LA section than the Chicago section.

Doesn't change the fact that you created a lame, confrontational post. Also, you're adding to the post count by creating this thread. You should not have posted it here in the LA forum, jackass.

I wonder why Qwerty would criticize Chicago forumers for posting here and then go on to creat a new thread? Is this guy on dope?

Moderator, please move this to the Chicago forum or close it!

Do you realize that this morning there are more posts made by Chicago forumers in the LA section than the Chicago section.

I believe that is because most of us Chicagoans really do like LA. I mean, I do. To the following I've given a lot of thought. I've always felt certain things, some original and frankly creative thoughts I've had about Los Angeles such as the fact that LA's fine. The sun shines. Most of the time. And the feeling is laid back. The rents are low. Palm trees grow.

Thank you for letting me share. I've been holding these thoughts in my head for a long time, trying to phrase them in just the right way. I hope this has been helpful in truly understanding LA.

Doesn't change the fact that you created a lame, confrontational post. Also, you're adding to the post count by creating this thread. You should not have posted it here in the LA forum, jackass.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/bawling.gif

^I'm not talking about the size in geographic area, I"m talking about population. Yes, you could turn the tables around, Savvy, and Chicago's lack of media attention is a big weakness. There is no doubt about it.
But at the end of the day, it's really all about Hollywood, and that's LA's big stake to fame. Indeed, Savvy, do you honestly think more filming occurs in LA because it's a better city, or do you think so because all of the major studios are there and it is much more convenient and cheaper?

There is not one major industry, if lost, that would cripple Chicago's economy and world-class status. But if LA lost the movie industry, LA's whole identity would change, and its status as a globally important city would surely come under question.

Interestingly, LA stole the film industry from Chicago in the 1930's. The original "Hollywood" was actually Uptown in Chicago. A lesson to learn: prosperity in 1 industry does not last forever. Chicago is a city that has always had to adapt to losing its top status in a particular industry. It has ALWAYS turned the corner and always becomes a top city in something else,only to have the cycle repeat itself. What came out of it? Not a dissappointed, burned-out rust belt town. But an enormously diversified economy, a major world business center, and a place for executives to run global companies. If LA suffered the same blow (loss of the film industry), how would it have fared? Perhaps we may never know

It still falls flat either way. Chicagoland is 9 million people. City of LA definitely doesn't have 18 million in the city limits.
Stole the film industry? Now that's just sour grapes. The truth is that the film industry was never a huge business as is it now. And didn't become huge until LA got it. And a lot of the early film industry wasn't in Chicago, but evenly distributed around the world including NY, Sweden, Germany, Russia etc, so it was never considered a top industry in Chicago.

And filming occurs in LA because it allows the conditions for the industry to exist here. How is that due to luck or somehow diminishing ? That is a basic fact with every industry. A city dominates an industry because it provides the conditions for that industry to exist there. And for LA, those conditions includes LA's most famous attribute: weather, which means filming year round. As well as geography: snow, desert, forest, beach, mountains, lakes etc and lots of open space. If the film industry wasn't in LA, of course it's status would be questioned. But of course you also have the music industry, television industry, manufacturing industry, and just within the last couple of years is now the dominant porting industry. Oil was the hugest moneymaker in the 20s, Aerospace for a decade surpassed film in the 80s. It hasn't exactly rested on film throughout its existance. So the one industry arguement for LA also falls flat.

But then again, apples and orange. Chicago is multi-industried like LA, but really its finance that dominates Chicago's landscape. There would be a HUGE questioning of its status if finance were to fall. But this scenario and the arguement you brought up is silly. "What if, should of, could of " really has no basis in anything. It's equivalent to saying "We'll you wouldnt be a great violinist if you didn't have private lessons." Yeah, and I wouldn't be using the internet if I didn't have hands. And Jim and Jane wouldn't be married if they didn't meet. Hypothetical arguments can only induce eye rolls.

vicecityguy, is this a race to the sky? if LA somehow passes Chicago or even NYC in the height of its skyline, will that automatically make for an inviting downtown? Isn't height-for-the-sake-of-height a detriment? It seems to me that the only cities building to go through the stratosphere right now are Asian cities that view the height of their skyscrapers as status symbols. And many of those Asian cities will have skylines that will dawrf NY, Chgo, HK in the future....and still nobody will know their names. I know LA is on the Pacific Rim, but does it really want to be one of those cities?

Super tall buildings lose their practicality when height translates into unmanageable elevator space. At that point, the buildings become trophies. If the race to the sky you describe ever becomes a reality, LA will easily win. You'll have an ally: the city of Chicago. It will do everything possible to keep heights from rising too high and putting up tall buildings for the sake of putting up tall buildings. That's been its record up to this point. Architecture carries far more wieght that height.

Case in point: Trump Tower Chicago: the city made Trump do loops (and Loops?) to get this one off the ground. It wasn't going anywhere if Trump didn't make sure it was designed right. Chicago was willing to say to Trump, "F-off and drag your sorry ass back to NY" if he didn't do things right.

Personally I take pride in the fact that in downtown Chicago's few places are generating the excitement of Millennium Park, with no buildings per se, but a lot of great art work and green space.


Um, you didn't get my point... its not a race to the sky, its not even a race. I just indicated that chicago is not growing as fast as LA.

I'm sorry, but there's no way Los Angeles has the sort of highrise construction goin on as Chicago. Despite what you think, Chicago's skyline is much, much larger than LA's. Not only statistically, but visually as well. I've seen LA's skyline with my own two eyes and it's nowhere near as large as Chicago's. The difference in size between LA and Chicago is far larger than the difference between Chicago and New York in terms of skyline.

As for the city of LA, it would not have grown by a single person if not for Mexican immigration. In fact, neither would Chicago.


My poor ignorant friend... I never said that LA's current highrise construction is more than Chicago... but it will. Also, I agree that difference in size between LA and Chicago is far larger than the difference between Chicago and New York in terms of skyline, LA has more to offer.

With regard to the most ignorant post of them all.... "As for the city of LA, it would not have grown by a single person if not for Mexican immigration. In fact, neither would Chicago" this is by far the lames post on Earth! Now I realize the level of your inteligence. Truly sad. No need to argue this one, as it speaks for itself. :pet:

^I proposed a truce, but nevermind.
To address Vice City, I will use simple facts and statistics, as usual. LA won't catch up to Chicago because, simply put, even now Chicago has more skyscrapers actively under construction and in the planning stages than LA. So LA can build 'em, but Chicago's building more.

Secondly, it's how the skyscrapers relate to eachother that creates a cohesive downtown, not just their presence. I've been to downtown LA--some parts are good and are getting better, but I still found the layout noncohesive and very much "Tower separated by highways", which surely should change over time. You guys in LA have completely discounted Chicago and what its downtown can offer in helping you rebuild yours. It's a common mistake among LA people--too arrogant and unwilling to learn from others, or bother with historical lessons. It reflects on your cityscape

LOL, the first paragraph of your post contradicts the second. Why argue the first if the second applies or vice versa? :bash:

Doesn't change the fact that you created a lame, confrontational post. Also, you're adding to the post count by creating this thread. You should not have posted it here in the LA forum, jackass.

Those who use profanity can't think of better words to express themselves, its sad and childish... then again what else would you expect from Dampyre. :down:

My poor ignorant friend... I never said that LA's current highrise construction is more than Chicago... but it will. Also, I agree that difference in size between LA and Chicago is far larger than the difference between Chicago and New York in terms of skyline, LA has more to offer.

With regard to the most ignorant post of them all.... "As for the city of LA, it would not have grown by a single person if not for Mexican immigration. In fact, neither would Chicago" this is by far the lames post on Earth! Now I realize the level of your inteligence. Truly sad. No need to argue this one, as it speaks for itself. :pet:

I don't feel the need to compare Los Angeles with Chicago as they are two very different cities. As for LA's highrise contruction matching Chicago's it may happen but you will witness it from the next life.

As for the rest, :sleepy:

LA didn't "steal" the movie industry from Chicago. That's absurd.


Moreover, to me, Chicago's "importance" as a financial center doesn't have shit to do with what I enjoy about it.

I don't feel the need to compare Los Angeles with Chicago as they are two very different cities. As for LA's highrise contruction matching Chicago's it may happen but you will witness it from the next life.

As for the rest, :sleepy:


As for the rest, I rest my case. :cheers:

As for the rest, I rest my case. :cheers:

You never had one in the first place. That's the funny part.

You never had one in the first place. That's the funny part.

Funny how you keep responding to me? I thought I had reduced you to "yes dear" ha ha ha! I guess I do own you.

Zip it people.

Zip it people.

Will you get rid of this thread?