Do you guys think the LA skyline would be more appreciated if it was built on the ocean instead of the middle of the city. I really like the skyline how it is..but it would look so much more impressive if it was on the ocean.

I think it's perfect where it is. It's awesome with the mountain backdrop. Just think, no Venice Beach or Santa Monica if it were placed there.

No, it's fine where it is. I mean, think about it . . .

How many cities can claim both semi-distant views of the ocean and mountains? LA thus has two backdrops for it's skyline.
Would you have it any other way?

Didn't think so. :)

I like its situation in the middle of the mountains and the ocean.

I understand what you're saying, it looks nice now, but picture it built against the ocean. It would be even more impressive.

^The skyline is great where it is! Downtown is basically where Los Angeles originated and its the heart of the metropolitan area, thats where the central bussiness district should be located. Plus the Sta Monica, Culver City, Long Beach, & LAX skylines are near the Pacific shoreline. Having the skyline there is good because it brings opportunity and investment to inland areas of the megalopolis. And when a tsunami hits? I'll be glad those buildings are inland!

Its not even really that far from the water so that isnt a very big deal and using it as a decoration really wouldnt be all that impressive because unlike a river you cant go to the other side and view the skyline with water in the foreground. On a personal note I hate cities that ruin their waterfronts with giant buildings :(

This is a perfect time for me to post my favorite LA pic. This is the only pic that I've seen that shows both downtown and the ocean. I believe it was taken from Palos Verdes, but I'm not sure, maybe someone from LA can confirm?

Can a city kick any more ass than this?

http://img98.exs.cx/img98/6066/dsc1047c0xl.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

this is only a guess, but that is probably from the penninsula (Palos Verdes). thats my Favorite Pic of all time. I wish they had a poster of that.

Oh and we need to see that angle when there is snow on the mountains, then it will be unreal.

Oh and we need to see that angle when there is snow on the mountains, then it will be unreal.

That's exactly what I was thinking. Sunshine, beaches, palm trees, downtown, and snow capped mountains. It's not unreal, it's LA on a clear winter day!

You can probably guess what my computer desktop looks like:

http://img99.exs.cx/img99/4211/18eg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

Nice. i might do that too

I just tried it, and looks great. The mountains are a good background. SOme new towers in LA wont hurt.

^The skyline is great where it is! Downtown is basically where Los Angeles originated and its the heart of the metropolitan area, thats where the central bussiness district should be located. Plus the Sta Monica, Culver City, Long Beach, & LAX skylines are near the Pacific shoreline. Having the skyline there is good because it brings opportunity and investment to inland areas of the megalopolis. And when a tsunami hits? I'll be glad those buildings are inland!

I understand the points you guys are saying, and I agree with them. I wasn't looking deep into the question by Redd because I think he's speaking of simple visual terms. Of course the LA scenery is amazing, each element compliments each other.

But on terms of simply looking at the buildings in the downtown themselves (and the area in close proximity), it would be really interesting to see those towers built near a large body of water. This isn't saying the skyline doesn't look good now, it's a simple statement that it would trippy if it was very near to a body of water as well...

I just tried it, and looks great. The mountains are a good background. SOme new towers in LA wont hurt.


They are on their way. Breaking news today that the LA Live Hotel might be the tallest building west of the Mississippi, beating the Library Tower, so that would mean a new 1000+ for LA. There are conflicting reports that its either going to be the tallest building or tallest hotel, which would make it the 3rd tallest in LA. Also, there are at least 10 towers taller than 40 stories planned for LA, from the 2 Sci arc towers at 50+ each, the LA Live Toer, the Grand Ave Project with at least 5 or 6 towers ranging from 30 - 65 stories, the metropolis project adjacent to LA Live with 3 towers at 53, 47 and 38 and a bunch of towers in the 30 story range (at least 7). A lot of these are breaking ground this year or next, in fact all most all of them are, so Downtown LA Is definitley BOOMING!! the Skyline will look totally different and better in 5 years.

This is a perfect time for me to post my favorite LA pic. This is the only pic that I've seen that shows both downtown and the ocean. I believe it was taken from Palos Verdes, but I'm not sure, maybe someone from LA can confirm?

Can a city kick any more ass than this?

http://img98.exs.cx/img98/6066/dsc1047c0xl.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)
Wow, LA is gorgeous!

I understand the points you guys are saying, and I agree with them. I wasn't looking deep into the question by Redd because I think he's speaking of simple visual terms. Of course the LA scenery is amazing, each element compliments each other.

But on terms of simply looking at the buildings in the downtown themselves (and the area in close proximity), it would be really interesting to see those towers built near a large body of water. This isn't saying the skyline doesn't look good now, it's a simple statement that it would trippy if it was very near to a body of water as well...

yup thats exactly what I was tryin to get at Eastsider. You guys are thinking too seriously on this..I was just wondering if you think that the LA skyline would look more impresive being on the water. Would many of you agree that a skyline based on some body of water (Chicago, NYC, Hong Kong, Sydney, San Fran) looks much better than an inland skyline (Minneapolis, Calgary, Denver, Paris-La Defense etc.)?? Being on water makes it look much cooler in my opinion. For instance, Milwaukee has a so-so skyline in alot of your opinions.--but what makes look impressive is when its seen from Lake Michigan. If Milwaukee were an inland city--I could easily say the skyline would look boring. I think it would look really cool to be quite honest...but it looks fine where its at.

all i can say to this one is... :eek2:

http://img14.imgspot.com/u/05/100/13/60657.jpg

if only it was bigger :wallbash:

I agree with you guys about those pictures. Those pictures are sweet. People have too many misconceptions about LA (it's an endless concrete wasteland) and California in general. Awesome pictures like this should keep them quiet.

And yeah, I can see where Redd's coming from. Take any skyline and put it by the water, and it'll look nicer.

I think the city would have looked beter on the Ocean. I really never undersod why it was built were it was.

^ Now that AI thought about it, LA might have turned out like Chicago, with highrise buildings right next to the beach.

All I know that the ocean (or bay) helps out San Diego's skyline A LOT.

Great cities play against geographical features: Chicago has the lake; San Francisco the bay; New York the Hudson and East Rivers; Seattle, Puget Sound; etc.

And LA? A dry concrete ditch, and maybe some distant mountains on the rare days the air is clear. Had LA's downtown been on the ocean, think Sydney, Melbourne, Barcelona, Rio, Miami, Hong Kong, Singapore. You can't beat an ocean or sea for a dramatic setting.

yeah those pics make LA look like the coolest place. I love the place but come on. Downtown is about 40 minutes of driving on a typical day with trafffic from the ocean. The view of the mountains is cool, but again referring back to the typical day, the city creates all the smog that flows east. So the view is blocked by a grey/brown fog. Disgusting. On the perfect day, LA and its backdrop from mountain to the ocean is drop dead gorgeous and can compete with anyone. On a typical day it is horrible. The beaches of LA are good the way they are, and if the city actually had a river instead of the concrete crap, it would be cooler still.

You can probably guess what my computer desktop looks like:

http://img99.exs.cx/img99/4211/18eg.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

I give up, what does it look like? ;)

I like it the way it is but i wouldnt doubt that it would have looked much nicer by the pacific or even better in the Rancho Palos Verde Peninsula, with its high cliffs but that didnt happen
so im sattisfied as it is.

Do you guys think the LA skyline would be more appreciated if it was built on the ocean instead of the middle of the city. I really like the skyline how it is..but it would look so much more impressive if it was on the ocean.

i wouldnt mind if the skyline was in Long Beach, because LB already has a pretty decent skyline, it would be better if it was in LB, but its fine where it is

Do you guys think the LA skyline would be more appreciated if it was built on the ocean instead of the middle of the city. I really like the skyline how it is..but it would look so much more impressive if it was on the ocean.


it looks alright where it is, but downtown would be more popular by the sea.

i wouldnt mind if the skyline was in Long Beach, because LB already has a pretty decent skyline, it would be better if it was in LB, but its fine where it is

downtown la is fine where it is, it plays nicely with the mountains (when u can see them of course)

i just wish long beach had a bigger skyline

one for the mountains, one for the water :)

We already have too many cities with their skylines by a body of water... LA is an alternative to that and it does it beautifully with the San Gabriel mountains as a backdrop.

There should be a rule to not bump 2 year old threads.

I guess so... blame Robert for that... it seems like he's been doing that quite often lately.

^ I've been trying to tell you guys that Robert is an odd one...:Hilarious:

They should have built LA's downtown in outer space.

on another forum i read bumping old threads is a long running joke between the OG's as the noobies try to respond to them with serious answers. hilarious

whatever. i dont see why this discussion two years ago isnt relevant today. this place is about the sharing of ideas - i have better things to do than try to find ways to make fun of people - lame

btw, i joined before robert and just after worldwide

Can a city kick any more ass than this?

http://img98.exs.cx/img98/6066/dsc1047c0xl.jpg (http://www.imageshack.us)

No doubt it's amazing, but unfortunately LA rarely looks like that.

Downtown never looks that large from the Southbay.

No doubt it's amazing, but unfortunately LA rarely looks like that.

Usually you can see the skyline and the mountains from that vantage point, even with the high smog levels.

Usually you can see the skyline and the mountains from that vantage point, even with the high smog levels.

Westsidelife is correct, I worked in the south bay for numerous years off and on thoughout my adult life since the early 80's. More days than not thoughtout the year you can see the downtown skyline from there. I was able to see it from my office, and from the freeway.

Here are a few photos I took back in January when a few forumers from Ohio, and Chicago came out to visit for a few days. We took them from the same vantage point of the photo anti-cheesehead posted. BTW is was very clear, but as you can see in some of the photos where I zoomed in the photos are a bit more hazy. Its not because it was any smog, but from the zoom on the camera that made it look that way. Just notice the other photos how clear the air was. It was also rather windy and very cold (by southern california standards). Actually even the mid-western forumers found LA during their visit much colder than they thought it would be. Yes LA can get a bit chilly, and enough to even make a snowbird scream its cold (lol).

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/442/020zo5.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/1050/023bg9.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/7920/012lt2.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2211/013go6.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/3315/014lk2.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2449/015pv2.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/3480/016hc2.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/8072/018ne9.jpg

http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/8451/019cz5.jpg

Awesome pics Chris!

Could you tell me the specific location from which you took those shots?

Awesome pics Chris!

Could you tell me the specific location from which you took those shots?


Westsidelife, sorry for the late reply, but I had to get my map out of my car to look up the street name.

The best way to go would be from Redondo Beach along Route 1 PCH south. Now this is where it get a little tricky beause PCH curves around, but from what I see on the map, you should be able to make a right and get on Palos Verdes Blvd. Once you're on Palos Verdes Blvd, just continue up the hills into PV. As you drive up, you'll see views of the city, but just keep driving and don't stop at the first sight of the city as there will be plenty of areas along the route with even better view, such as those I posted. Once you get up in the hills you'll reconize from the views and about the height we were at. So its pretty easy to determine where you like to stop. Anyway I hope this helps. :)

I realize it's probably been asked and answered before, but does anyone know if there are any supertalls either planned or proposed for L.A.

LA's skyline's problem is not its location, its just a random collection of skyscrapers (and not very many at that). To me, it doesn't have any visual appeal at all, not dense enough and tiny for a city like LA.

:|

I agree, I love Los Angeles (frequently go there for vacations) but its skyline is wayyy too small for its size, its rather pathetic.

Here's a little somethin' I whipped up in my spare time. This is what the Los Angeles skyline will look like once Park Fifth, LA Live, Concerto (tower one), Hanover (wasn't topped off in the original photo), and LA Central are completed. The heights are a bit off, but the overall impact on the skyline is more or less the same.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h125/MBenzLover/LosAngelesFutureSkyline.jpg

I agree, I love Los Angeles (frequently go there for vacations) but its skyline is wayyy too small for its size, its rather pathetic.


... but isn't that interesting that LA didn't need a dense skyline or one at all to become what it is?

the rendering above gives me a good feeling about the future of the skyline. It'll look a little more balanced on the sides.

Here's a little somethin' I whipped up in my spare time. This is what the Los Angeles skyline will look like once Park Fifth, LA Live, Concerto (tower one), Hanover (wasn't topped off in the original photo), and LA Central are completed. The heights are a bit off, but the overall impact on the skyline is more or less the same.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h125/MBenzLover/LosAngelesFutureSkyline.jpg

That pic makes me want to:puke:. This angle makes LA look like it is all very old looking architecture, kinda like NYC. LA looks much better at night I must say. I love LA, just not the downtown.

... but isn't that interesting that LA didn't need a dense skyline or one at all to become what it is?

A skyline doesn't build a city, a city builds a skyline (obviously, Dubai doesn't think so :)). You're saying that a city needs a skyline to become great, which is not true. Rather it should be a great city that builds a great skyline. A skyline exists because of the city, not the other way around.

No one is saying that LA is crap, just that its skyline is very disappointing, especially because of the drop off in density (kind of like that Houston picture when you have a highway dividing 30 story skyscrapers and 1 story homes), which makes it feel as though some one just popped a few skyscrapers there.

That's a lie right there. The density does not die once you leave downtown. The Westside is extremely dense especially West Hollywood which is the densest area in the US outside of Manhattan Island.

Also, you must remember that not all of LA's skyscrapers are centered downtown. There is Century City, Glendale (which has a skyline which can compete with most small metropolises), Burbank, El Segundo, Long Beach, Westwood, Brentwood, etc. Then there's Wilshire Blvd., and I assume that everyone here knows about that.

So there goes the myth of the "endless suburb" that is Los Angeles.

Here's some pictures of the other areas of Los Angeles.

Century City
http://www.alisonwinston.com/profilepics/centurycity/cc_aerialview.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Century_City_from_Getty_Center.jpg/800px-Century_City_from_Getty_Center.jpg

Glendale
http://schiff.house.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F84A3DF1-1DED-417E-8462-0F3E70DE577F/0/DowntownGlendale121290R112.jpg
http://www.valleyofthestars.org/1999-2000/images/night_scape.jpg

Long Beach
http://www.longbeachhomesguide.com/img/long-beach1.jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/b/ba/Long_Beach,_CA_at_night.jpg

Wilshire Blvd.
http://www.condospecialist.com/images/wilshire.jpg
http://www.wildnatureimages.com/images%202/060308-105..jpg
http://www.goodapartment.com/photos/0efc7910ee7338e92614df16edf81040.jpeg
http://siggy.chem.ucla.edu/Around_UCLA/DSCF0279.JPG

Old picture of Wilshire Blvd.
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/original/Wilshire--large-msg-116303816811.jpg

A skyline doesn't build a city, a city builds a skyline (obviously, Dubai doesn't think so :)). You're saying that a city needs a skyline to become great, which is not true. Rather it should be a great city that builds a great skyline. A skyline exists because of the city, not the other way around.

No one is saying that LA is crap, just that its skyline is very disappointing, especially because of the drop off in density (kind of like that Houston picture when you have a highway dividing 30 story skyscrapers and 1 story homes), which makes it feel as though some one just popped a few skyscrapers there.

Actually it wasn't my intent to say that... but my post was aimed to people that think that great skylines defines great cities. No LA hasn't built a great skyline however still a great city. Great Cities don't necessarily build great skylines. There are tons of cities out there with greater skylines than LA but without being as great.

That's a lie right there. The density does not die once you leave downtown. The Westside is extremely dense especially West Hollywood which is the densest area in the US outside of Manhattan Island.

Also, you must remember that not all of LA's skyscrapers are centered downtown. There is Century City, Glendale (which has a skyline which can compete with most small metropolises), Burbank, El Segundo, Long Beach, Westwood, Brentwood, etc. Then there's Wilshire Blvd., and I assume that everyone here knows about that.

So there goes the myth of the "endless suburb" that is Los Angeles.

Perhaps I didnt get my point across correctly.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1131/644650783_ad354674dd.jpg

This image shows what I was trying to describe. You can see the 10-15 HUGE buildings (relatively) propping up in the middle of the downtown core, and then all around are buildings that are significantly smaller, which gives the illusion and visual impact of a dramatic drop off in density. The contrast is just too great. And this is the skyline in a relatively good angle.

There's a worse picture of the buildings all separated by huge gaps of space sort of like how Market street splits San Francisco in half, except for there are many more of them. I'll say that this is in no way as bad as that picture of Houston (?) that has a freeway dividing skyscrapers and two story homes, but like others have said before me, this is quite bad considering the size of the city.

No one is questioning the density or that there are other highrises in the area. All I was describing was the letdown the skyline and its visual impact is, especially considering LA is one of the biggest metros in the world. The mere size of the city can make the city FEEL like one huge suburb because of the wide expanses the city covers. A huge area covered in low to medium density development.

Actually it wasn't my intent to say that... but my post was aimed to people that think that great skylines defines great cities. No LA hasn't built a great skyline however still a great city. Great Cities don't necessarily build great skylines. There are tons of cities out there with greater skylines than LA but without being as great.

Without a doubt :) There aren't that many cities in the WORLD that can top LA as a city.

Seriously...
I don't think I would visit a city because of it's skyline like how most of these ssc forumers would.

There are skyscrapers of varying heights in the LA skyline.

no city i have been to offers the variety of options LA has. Beaches, city, ethnic diversity, mountains, snow (45 min drive), history....This has nothing to do with how the city looks, it is a matter of versatility.

I beg your pardon, but Seattle (by the way is also much wealthier. It's in the top 10 wealthiest counties in America) has all of what you mentioned above, minus your high crime rate, plus a much better skyline sitting on the water's edge, and 40 towers going up now or just about to begin. Also a daily workforce of 300,000 with 30,000 downtown residents, 20,000 more planned, and is mobbed with tourists. It's 24 hour city which downtown LA is certainly not. I'm not knocking LA, but get real.

^ LMFAO. You are a troll.

no city i have been to offers the variety of options LA has. Beaches, city, ethnic diversity, mountains, snow (45 min drive), history....This has nothing to do with how the city looks, it is a matter of versatility.

Couldn't agree more.

I beg your pardon, but Seattle (by the way is also much wealthier. It's in the top 10 wealthiest counties in America) has all of what you mentioned above, minus your high crime rate, plus a much better skyline sitting on the water's edge, and 40 towers going up now or just about to begin. Also a daily workforce of 300,000 with 30,000 downtown residents, 20,000 more planned, and is mobbed with tourists. It's 24 hour city which downtown LA is certainly not. I'm not knocking LA, but get real.

Are you trying to prove that Seattle is better than Los Angeles because of these things? :ohno: Wow, you do not know what makes a city great.

Btw, you are knocking LA. Just because you say you aren't doesn't make it true.

Perhaps I didnt get my point across correctly.

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1131/644650783_ad354674dd.jpg

This image shows what I was trying to describe. You can see the 10-15 HUGE buildings (relatively) propping up in the middle of the downtown core, and then all around are buildings that are significantly smaller, which gives the illusion and visual impact of a dramatic drop off in density. The contrast is just too great. And this is the skyline in a relatively good angle.

There's a worse picture of the buildings all separated by huge gaps of space sort of like how Market street splits San Francisco in half, except for there are many more of them. I'll say that this is in no way as bad as that picture of Houston (?) that has a freeway dividing skyscrapers and two story homes, but like others have said before me, this is quite bad considering the size of the city.

No one is questioning the density or that there are other highrises in the area. All I was describing was the letdown the skyline and its visual impact is, especially considering LA is one of the biggest metros in the world. The mere size of the city can make the city FEEL like one huge suburb because of the wide expanses the city covers. A huge area covered in low to medium density development.

Actually that drop off that you dislike is very attractive to me. Downtown LA rises very dramatically from its surroundings looking much like the "Emerald City" (apologies to Seattle).

http://www.wizardrealm.com/wizards/emerald.jpg


Anyone else notice the resemblance? This makes the LA skyline very magical to me especially when I see it from the distance in West LA, as I drive down the yellow brick road/Wilshire Blvd.

Yea, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I like a gradual buildup, some people like that city in the middle type of thing

I respect that :)

"Downtown Los Angeles Gets a $10 Billion Remake
Development Boom Is Seen Reviving City Core

By John Pomfret
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 2, 2006; Page A03

LOS ANGELES -- They say Los Angeles is 100 suburbs looking for a city. With any luck, they are finding one.

A development boom worth $10 billion is remaking the face of downtown Los Angeles, leading boosters to predict a renaissance in what used to be the desolate center of the capital of sprawl. From concert halls to condos, developers have built or are planning hundreds of projects that they say will end the sense of Los Angeles as a rudderless megalopolis with a rotten..."

This portion of the article shown above appeared in the1/2/06 issue of the Washington Post...any one here knows if this planned development is still alive?

They say Los Angeles is 100 suburbs looking for a city.
Cold-weather snobs are the authority now?

I don't think that they were talking about one project but instead the many projects that are currently proposed, under construction, or recently completed in downtown LA.

If Los Angeles had more skyscrapers, and was on the ocean, it'd look similar to Miami. In Miami's case, Downtown, the port, bay, ocean, and beaches all blend really nice, which give it a unique look. For Los Angeles, I think the fact that it has the mountain panorama gives it its unique look, even if it has only a few buildings.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2351/2148051608_590381c5b9_o.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2413/2141881926_3f05609ee3_o.jpg
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/4258/miamifp8.jpg

If Los Angeles had more skyscrapers, and was on the ocean, it'd look similar to Miami. In Miami's case, Downtown, the port, bay, ocean, and beaches all blend really nice, which give it a unique look. For Los Angeles, I think the fact that it has the mountain panorama gives it its unique look...

That's right...I think we all agree with you...:yes:

the skyline of LA has no many buildings, however is special for it form

certainly, all those mexicans live in california?

LA's skyline is way too tiny for such a big city.

L.A. has a pretty cool skyline but it's just too gapped if you know what I mean!!! :nuts: NO city on the West Coast is messing with a East Coast skyline though (just playing, even though its the truth)!!!


WEST COAST TEAM
L.A.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2245/2256399193_94d32ecac2_o.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3203/2715851023_a0e6552432_b.jpg
Seattle (Bellevue included, BTW Seattle has the tallest building on the West Coast in floor's)
http://www.seattleluxury.com/realestate/imgs/regular/SeattleSkylineFromWest.jpg
http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c316/ACN425/bellevue021.jpg
Portland (no offense but it lacks a skyline to me)
http://www.dreamlimooforegon.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/portland.jpg
San Fransisco (my favorite west coast skyline)
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/san_francisco/SF_skyline.jpg
San Diego (IDK)
http://i.pbase.com/o4/75/47975/1/53682708.SanDiegoSkylineAtNight_24135.jpg
East Coast Team

Boston (In my opinion it would have the 2nd best skyline if it were on the West Coast)
http://recruiter.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/boston-skyline.jpg
New York (If you play GTA 4 it heavily resembles this)
http://www.wirednewyork.com/manhattan/skyline/new_york_skyline1.jpg
Jersey City (you guy's should a shamed of yourselves :lol: )
http://jclist.com/modules/xcgal/albums/userpics/14037/normal_Jersey%20City%20Downtown.JPG
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/49/109693265_f41033bee8_o.jpg
Philadelphia
http://cache.virtualtourist.com/2474784-Skyline_from_the_river_2004-Philadelphia.jpg
Baltimore (We are working on two new skylines that will include towers up to 65 levels)
http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo170/DELsoul99/work2-6-09077.jpg
http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo170/DELsoul99/ValenyineSkyline.jpg
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb146/vvlevin/skyscrapercity/fromabove.jpg
http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo170/DELsoul99/3-02-09/3-2-09006.jpg
Arlington (Sorry D.C. :lol: It has 5 skylines itself)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Crystalcity23432.jpg/200px-Crystalcity23432.jpg
http://images.inmagine.com/img/photodisc/mi500/mi500012.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Ballston153351.jpg/200px-Ballston153351.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/53/Ballston4355454.jpg/186px-Ballston4355454.jpg

Charlotte
http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/7052/img5081aeu8.jpg
Atlanta
http://www.russell57.com/Atlanta%20Skyline%203435.jpg
Miami (AKA "The City of Skylines")
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h272/katt1430/Scenery/digitalpictures047.jpg

I'M NOT GOING TO SAY HOUSTON is a East Coast City BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE EAST COAST!!! :lol:

Houston
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3511/3212272612_3a5cd5d49a_b.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/101/255727575_9313e06461_o.jpg

I believe it has a wonderful skyline!!!!

COME VISIT THIS THREAD TO REPRESENT LA!!!

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=715840&page=19

I realize it's probably been asked and answered before, but does anyone know if there are any supertalls either planned or proposed for L.A.

LA has the tallest skyscraper on the west coast. at 1,018ft.
currently there is another one in the planning stages, (over 1200ft) but i doubt it will ever get off the ground.

1200 FT IN L.A. WOULD BE AMAZING!!!!! LA already has the height but the buildings are spread out to much!!!

So this 1200 ft. tower...any news on it, anywhere where I can find info on it? Anything it all?

Also, how come the Wilshire skyline is only right on the road there? How come they don't start building behind the road? Granted there are houses there but that shouldn't stop them from trying to build a little denser.

^^ the plots of land that line Wilshire are zoned for medium density commercial. while the area behind is zoned for low density residential. you will not see any much more density in that area until there is an upgrade to the infrastructure around the area, whether its a subway or somewhere along those lines, you have to remember that this is the most congested area of the country. so not only do you have residents arguing that more density will create more congestion, the area literally cannot support it.

That makes sense. We should all move there and try to change the zoning laws.

Here's some pictures of the other areas of Los Angeles.

Century City
http://www.alisonwinston.com/profilepics/centurycity/cc_aerialview.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/01/Century_City_from_Getty_Center.jpg/800px-Century_City_from_Getty_Center.jpg

Glendale
http://schiff.house.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F84A3DF1-1DED-417E-8462-0F3E70DE577F/0/DowntownGlendale121290R112.jpg
http://www.valleyofthestars.org/1999-2000/images/night_scape.jpg

Long Beach
http://www.longbeachhomesguide.com/img/long-beach1.jpg
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/b/ba/Long_Beach,_CA_at_night.jpg

Wilshire Blvd.
http://www.condospecialist.com/images/wilshire.jpg
http://www.wildnatureimages.com/images%202/060308-105..jpg
http://www.goodapartment.com/photos/0efc7910ee7338e92614df16edf81040.jpeg
http://siggy.chem.ucla.edu/Around_UCLA/DSCF0279.JPG

Old picture of Wilshire Blvd.
http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlLA/original/Wilshire--large-msg-116303816811.jpg

the picture of century city is a view from the getty center?? im have the correct answer??:p

Only in an LA thread do you get people who feel the need to compare Los Angeles to other cities with pictures included. What is it about LA that provokes people to always be so critical of the place? Surely every city can be criticized but I really doubt that if this were a Chicago, NYC or even a Mumbai thread would you have folks providing pics of cities that may have taller buildings but in no way even come close to the sheer strength, size of economy or influence that LA does. No other city that has been compared to LA in this thread has done as much as LA has in a mere 100 years, from ranchos and orange groves to Alpha City status and an economy larger than many countries. If you want to make an LA bash thread then make one but why come into a thread that is obviously meant to praise the city and attempt to tear it down? Why are those cities that (need not be named but we all know who they are) become so insecure when LA is mentioned?

It's a trend to pick on Los Angeles

Wonder why? And of course this is nothing new. For as long as there has been a Los Angeles it has been criticized or always thought to be on the brink of some major disaster that would wipe it out. Even when it was smaller than Chicago in sq miles before acquiring the San Fernando Valley and even when it had the largest mass transit system in the world......it was still criticized....but yet it has pressed on, grown and to this day continues to defy the odds, with both warts and radiance.

Everything and people of every type are here, that's why

Their are every type of people in lots of cities........it seems to be some sort of insecurity on the part of some cities needing to compare themselves with LA.

(pictures form forumer phattonez)

Wilshire Blvd.
http://www.condospecialist.com/images/wilshire.jpg
http://www.wildnatureimages.com/images%202/060308-105..jpg


the first two of wilshire look a little like Mexico City, except better organized. I just mean the way little clusters of buildings are set apart all over the city.

^^ once the subways finished the density will increase on and around wilshire

Took these whilst on vacation from the UK...

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa188/pparry/USA%202009/IMG_7753.jpg

http://i203.photobucket.com/albums/aa188/pparry/USA%202009/IMG_7750.jpg