I've said this time and time again, LA is a beautiful mess but all "great cities" are and have been. We never spare criticism on our world renowned metropolis(like those other cities)which is why 'if you can't hate your city, it probably aint that great'.

What Makes A City Great?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From TIME Magazine Friday, Nov. 14, 1969

WHAT MAKES A CITY GREAT?
IT is difficult to speak adequately or justly of London," wrote Henry James in 1881. "It is not a pleasant place; it is not agreeable, or cheerful, or easy, or exempt from reproach. It is only magnificent." Were he alive today, James, a connoisseur of cities, might easily say the same thing about New York or Paris or Tokyo, for the great city is one of the paradoxes of history. In countless different ways, it has almost always been an unpleasant, disagreeable, cheerless, uneasy and reproachful place; in the end, it can only be described as magnificent. Babylon, for example, was the first great city of the ancient world; according to the Bible, it was "the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth." Ancient Athens, for all its architectural and intellectual glory, was scarcely more than an overgrown slum;(overgrown suburb, anyone?) the grandeur of Rome was overshadowed by its ramshackle ghettos, crime rate and traffic jams.(sounds familiar?) Sanitation was so bad in the Paris of Louis XIV that two miles from the city's gates a traveler's nose would tell him that he was drawing near. Scarcely anyone today needs to be told about how awful life is in nerve-jangling New York City, which resembles a mismanaged ant heap rather than a community fit for human habitation.

Indeed, the poet Juvenal's complaint about ancient Rome might be made against almost any modern city:

No matter how I hurry, I'm hampered by the crowds
Who almost crush my ribs from front and back; this one
Strikes me with his arm, another with a heavy board;
My head is brushed by a beam, then I have an encounter
With an oil-barrel. Mud clings to my legs in heavy clods,
Large feet step on mine, and my toes get painfully
Acquainted with a soldier's nailed boots.

Yet despite everything, including itself, the truly great city is the stuff of legends and stories and a place with an ineradicable fascination. After cataloging the horrors of life in imperial Rome, Urban Historian Lewis Mumford adds, almost reluctantly, that "when the worst has been said about urban Rome, one further word must be added: to the end, men loved her."

Uncomfortable and Unbeautiful
What inspires such love and pulls people to the great cities? What indeed is a great city? It is almost easier to say what it is not. Except for its wealthy elites, great cities do not always provide easy or gracious living; lesser communities are almost always more comfortable. Juvenal could have walked peacefully in any number of attractive provincial cities. The average resident of one of Britain's planned new towns lives better than his counterpart in London. Yet London, notes Robert Ardrey, author of The Territorial Imperative, was a great city "even when the food was terrible, and you couldn't get a hot bath." Stockholm, Geneva and Johannesburg, by contrast, are three of the most comfortable cities in the world, but not one of them has even a shadowy claim to greatness.

The great city is not necessarily beautiful or well-planned:lol: :lol: :lol: . Venice and Florence are delights to the eye; yet neither has been a great city since the Renaissance. Brasilia, one of the most elaborately designed of modern cities, is also one of the deadliest. An impressive physical setting is essential to a city's greatness, but by itself that is not enough. Take Pittsburgh: its natural setting, at the junction of two rivers, is magnificent. Man botched the job of doing anything with it.

Grand avenues and impressive architecture, though necessary to a great city, do not satisfy the equation. If the Third Reich had lasted another ten years, Berlin, which Hitler planned to rename Germania, would have become the world's most monumental city. It also would have been the most monumentally dull. In fact, it became second-rate on Jan. 30, 1933, when Hitler took power. A city cannot be both great and regimented. Blessed with culture, history and size, Moscow, Shanghai and Peking ought to be great cities, but they are not. They all lack the most important element: spontaneity of free human exchange. Without that, a city is as sterile as Aristophanes' Nephelococcygia, which was to be suspended between heaven and earth—and ruled by the birds.

Diversity and Growth
A city governed by birds might be more comfortable than a city governed by men. But it would not be human, nor would it be great; a city is great only in its human associations, confusing as they may be. The ancient Athenians, true urbanites, delighted in the everyday drama of human encounter. For them, the city was the supreme instrument of civilization, the tool that gave men common traditions and goals, even as it encouraged their diversity and growth. "The men who dwell in the city are my teachers," said Socrates in Plato's Phaedrus, "and not the trees or the country." In turn, the city transformed them into something they had not been previously ard could not have become without it—men who within a few generations produced more thought and works of beauty and value than the race had ever seen before.

Athens is a living memory of the Western world. Its great militaristic rival, Sparta, is all but forgotten as a center of human culture—and with reason. It is hard to classify as great a city that limits human contact, either through political repression, like Moscow, or through distance, like Los Angeles. (This was written nearly 40 years ago now metro LA is the densest area in the US)It is also hard to imagine a city that is great only during the day. If too many of its occupants retreat to the suburbs to eat and sleep each evening, the place is, in fact, not so much a city as a collection of buildings—the unhappy truth about most American cities.

When nations were smaller than they are today, Athens could be great with 100,000 people, Renaissance Florence with 60,000, Alexandria with 700,000 and ancient Rome with something like 1,000,000—no more than live in metropolitan Indianapolis now. To represent all the diverse elements of much more populous societies—diversity is one essential of greatness—the city must now have a population of several millions. Cincinnati and Phoenix, to cite two typical American provincial cities, may be agreeable places to live in, but they are simply not large enough to contain, as does New York, the wide variety of types and temperaments that form the American character. Americans and foreigners alike call New York the least American of cities. In fact, it is the most American, reflecting as does no other all aspects of national life. Still, great is not synonymous with big. Calcutta and Bombay have more than enough people, but too many of them live in misery for the cities to be considered great.

It is doubtful that any one nation can claim more than one great city at any given time—great, after all, is a word that implies uniqueness. It is doubtful, too, that the world itself can contain more than half a dozen great cities at once. Indeed, a great city cannot exist in an unimportant country, which is why Urban Planner John Friedmann of U.C.L.A. prefers to call great cities "imperial cities." London and Paris are still great cities, but they lost some of their luster when world politics shifted to Washington, Moscow and Peking—all of which lack at least one ingredient of greatness. Washington may be the political center of the nation, but, except for its superb galleries, cultural life there is as provincial as that of Des Moines or Butte, Mont. Both Mexico City and Rio de Janeiro have an effervescent vitality that suggests the potential of great cities. They may yet fulfill that potential as Mexico and Brazil grow in wealth and influence. After Tokyo, an undeniably great city despite its pedestrian architecture, Hong Kong is the most vibrant metropolis in Asia. It is, however, a city without a country—and therefore lacks greatness. Cairo is the capital of the Moslem world; but it lacks vitality.

Whatever else it may possess or lack, a great city cannot be dull. It must have a sense of place and a feeling all its own, and its citizens must be different from and more vital than those who live elsewhere. The difference does not even have to be in their favor. The native Parisian, for instance, is born with an ineradicable hauteur that others define as rudeness, and the native New Yorker knows the meaning of avarice before he can spell the word. So strong is the trait that a century ago, Anthony Trollope waspishly noted that every New Yorker "worships the dollar and is down before his shrine from morning to night." To preserve the spirit of the place, he suggested, every man walking down Fifth Avenue should have affixed to his forehead a label declaring his net worth. No such label is really needed: a Parisian is a Parisian and a New Yorker a New Yorker, with no mistake possible. But a man who lives in Detroit or Cleveland is not necessarily identifiable as a Detroiter or a Clevelander.

First Wild Promise
The city was a place of worship before it was a fortress or trading center, with a magical attraction for men who had always lived in wandering groups or in villages. Prudence might have dictated other sites, but men returned, again and again, to the cities they remembered. Troy was destroyed and rebuilt so many times that archaeologists classify their discoveries as Troy I through IX; Troy VIIA was the "Ilios, city of magnificent houses," as Homer called it, that fell to the duplicity of Greeks. Leveled by the Romans, Carthage returned to life to become the third city of the Empire; in the Middle Ages, Frederick Barbarossa poured salt on the blackened ruins of Milan, but neither fire nor salt could stop the city's resurgence.

The great city retains the ancient magic even today. Men do not always love it; often, indeed, they hate it. More often still, they hate it and love it by turns. Yet once caught by it, they cannot forget or long leave it. "If you are lucky enough to have lived in Paris as a young man," wrote Ernest Hemingway, who did love Paris, "then wherever you go for the rest of your life, it stays with you, for Paris is a moveable feast." New York, wrote Thomas Wolfe, who did not always love it, "lays hand upon a man's bowels; he grows drunk with ecstasy; he grows young and full of glory; he feels that he can never die."

Like all magic, the attraction of the great city is, in the end, beyond analysis and beyond definition. Marshall McLuhan and the late Frank Lloyd Wright may have been right in arguing that the city should be replaced by smaller communities. But men, alas and thank God, are never strictly practical. Until people are known by numbers alone, the great city will continue to exist. F. Scott Fitzgerald was speaking of Manhattan, but he might just as well have been talking of London or Paris—or Nebuchadnezzar's Babylon or Justinian's Constantinople. Looking at it from afar, he said, was always to see it "in its first wild promise of all the mystery and beauty in the world."

Almost by definition, a city can be great only at the expense of other cities that are less than great. If the power, money and creativity that are now centered in London were divided with Birmingham, Birmingham would not become great, but London would be irretrievably lessened. A delight to live in and a joy to behold, Rome has certain qualities of greatness. It is redolent with tradition; it is the center of a universal religion; it has a people with character and a lively sense of politics. But it does not quite make the first rank of cities today, if only because Milan—cold but confident—controls too much of Italy's wealth and industrial power. The U.S., which is rich in both money and people, ought to be able to support two great cities, perhaps one on either coast, but it does not. A half-century ago, San Francisco looked as if it might become the great city of the West. Instead, it has remained a charming, eccentric and physically beguiling minor metropolis. Los Angeles, in the unlikely event that it ever should overcome its centrifugal forces, may yet become the Western colossus. Though it has many parts of greatness, Chicago, on the other hand, has always thought of itself as the "second city"—and so it always will be, if not third or fourth. Even without the political power that resides in a national capital—one of the usual prerequisites for civic greatness—New York, the cultural, financial and commercial capital, is thus the only truly great city in the U.S.

Pleasures and Vices
A city does not have to be comfortable to be great, but it nonetheless must have the amenities to make life tolerable. Misery should not force thousands to live on the streets, as it does in the big cities of India; residents must be able to move from one place to another without undue strain or great delay; the conditions of life, ranging from prices to climate, cannot be totally oppressive. (very important point [rapid mass transit and a good freeway system] if LA will continue to grow into the great city that it is destined to become)A great city also must have within its boundaries a large leisured class to pay for the culture and pleasure that are the outward signs of its preeminence.(Broad) Money cannot buy a great city, but a great city must have money. The late Ian Fleming's definition of a "thrilling city," which emphasized girls and food, was adolescent, but he was not altogether wrong. A great city is always tolerant, even permissive, and provides outlets for a wide range of human pleasures and vices.

This was written when LA was still the 3rd largest city in the US and had a pop of around 1 million people. Now it is the second largest city in the US, the most dense metro area, 4 times the population and an array of social, environmental and civic problems to overcome, not unlike most great cities sometime in their history.

I think LA still has some growing to do before it can be at the same level at New York. It definitely has the potential though, more than any other American city.

L.A is capable of becoming the Top City in The U.S whether people believe it or not.

Remember that L.A was once just a Small Town or Village,while NYC and Chicago were already Large Cities during that period,but look at how quickly L.A caught up to become the 2nd Largest City in America.

If their is one thing that L.A needs to catch up on,it is definately Skyscrapers.

I think LA still has some growing to do before it can be at the same level at New York. It definitely has the potential though, more than any other American city.


^ Excuse me there....we never want to be in the same level as NYC. Why we have to cut ourself short. We want to become what not other city in the U.S. has ever become. :banana: We don't need chump change from no one....

L.A is capable of becoming the Top City in The U.S whether people believe it or not.

Remember that L.A was once just a Small Town or Village,while NYC and Chicago were already Large Cities during that period,but look at how quickly L.A caught up to become the 2nd Largest City in America.

If their is one thing that L.A needs to catch up on,it is definately Skyscrapers.

I'm not sure that skyscrapers will be LA's beckoning call of a great city. London and Paris don't have the amount of skyscrapers that NYC or Chicago has but yet no one can deny that they are 2 of the world's great cities on par if not greater than NYC by some standards, they def are older. So for LA it might be something else besides buildings that will ultimately make it a truly great city or it may not happen at all. One thing is for sure, it certainly has the potential.

a city wide heavy rail push would sure help!

shhh... dont tell anyone
http://getlamoving.googlegroups.com/web/wip031707.jpg?gda=nlAHLT4AAAACR4OcK4wzth01LzdFam5EiPEN-cGkSgLWaaJgac4EIWG1qiJ7UbTIup-M2XPURDSiM2kexGEj8Gfg7WpYbxpT

Los Angeles is already a great city. It is in its own league, completely different from everything else on this planet. It has its own voice and identity and is not overshadowed by any other city, certainly not NYC. Los Angeles is great because of the fact that it offers exactly what NYC DOES NOT. It is not inferior to NYC in that sense. It sits on the opposite coast, does its own thing and is quite successful at it. If LA were more like say Philadelphia, then I could see it striving to be more on NYC's level.

This was not a NYC vs LA thread. I love LA but I think we can all honestly admit that it has some growing up to do and THAT'S GOOD! It's nowhere near its potential peak and it's a blast watching it grow up, make dumb mistakes and then correct them with always a new innovative grand scheme. I thought that's what makes a great city........adversity-triumph, adversity-triumph.......

I'm not denying that LA has a ways to go before reaching its full potential. I just dislike it when people say that LA should be striving to be more like NYC or on NYC's level when LA was already on its own level to begin with.

That's true,but I still would like L.A to have a Better Skyline,but nothing compact like NYC or Chicago,but more of like Tokyo with clumps of Skyscrapers in different parts of the Metro Area.

I'm not sure that skyscrapers will be LA's beckoning call of a great city. London and Paris don't have the amount of skyscrapers that NYC or Chicago has but yet no one can deny that they are 2 of the world's great cities on par if not greater than NYC by some standards, they def are older. So for LA it might be something else besides buildings that will ultimately make it a truly great city or it may not happen at all. One thing is for sure, it certainly has the potential.

Its funny how most people try to rank L.A. with Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta when they know good well those cities are nowhere on L.A.'s level and never will be. L.A. is on a league of its own whether people like it or not.

Shame what people would do to deny and ignore L.A.'s success while only focusing only on the negetives.

^True. I too have noticed that people on here will rank LA with those other cities, labeling it as a "sprawling suburb." They just can't accept the fact that Los Angeles is the only sprawling, auto-centric global city which fares pretty well against the other nine Alpha world cities.

I just dislike it when people say that LA should be striving to be more like NYC or on NYC's level when LA was already on its own level to begin with.

I agree, no need to be another NYC, Chicago, London etc etc, it's already LA!

Exactly!! Kidding me? Atlanta was the center of the Confederacy 150 years ago while LA was just still a dusty trail. What LA has done with itself and rising to Alpha city status in less than 100 years is phenomenal and a trait of a 'great city' in the making.

fascinating article, klamedia. thanks for sharing.

what i found interesting from that 1960's perspective was the idea of the great city being choatic, unorganized, often unattractive...much of which adds up to its spontenaity.

i wonder how the Times author would look at the modern US city if he were to write something similiar today.

To a degree, we have taken out so much of the choas, the disorganization, the gritty, the unattractive. In the process, have we also eliminated some of the very spontenaity that made cities work well? Have our cities become too sanitized? have our cities become too easy to live in...if you have the money to do so?

I'd be interested to know how you guys would answer those questions.

Over time, Los Angeles has evolved into the global city it is today. Sure it has lost some of its spontaneity during that period of maturement, but it will always retain that messy, chaotic, disorganized, and unattractive quality to it. That's both good and bad. But it's what makes Los Angeles, Los Angeles. Some people love it. Some people hate it.

Well "edsg" as you and I both know for example if you never visit Chicago in person you never realize how graceful and beautiful understatement can be. Some cities needed to clean up their act and they're either better or worse for it, NYC (Times Square, Harlem, LES) comes to mind.
LA is still young and messy. Like a young celebrity, working out its problems on the world stage.

I agree with what's been said. I'm from the east coast, but about to relocate to LA. The main reason I love LA is that it is not like the cities back east. I like the fact that this city was built for the car with plenty of wide two way streets. Unlike the east coast cities I'm used to, where you have rush hour traffic trying to squeeze its way through narrow streets that were never designed for cars. As someone else said, I love LA precisely because it is not like NYC.

LA will never be at NY's level, it's like saying Phoenix being at our level. But, why bother?, as said here, LA is in it's own world, and that is something to be proud of. Just like Rome, and Paris, being their own world, a city in its rank has to have it's own traits that make it unique. I say, give it twenty-five years and LA will even be higher in prestige, and fame. All it needs to do is to pull itself together, more rail, less expanding. Just keep up the good work LA, keep up the good work...

Bad analogy! Los Angeles isn't to Phoenix as New York City is to Los Angeles.

Like I said, each city is on its own level, not looking at what's above or below. I don't know what you mean when you say that LA will never be on NY's level. In terms of "global city-ness" than no. LA is on its own level, always has been and always will be. In that sense, I could care less about being on NY's level.

Over time, Los Angeles has evolved into the global city it is today. Sure it has lost some of its spontaneity during that period of maturement, but it will always retain that messy, chaotic, disorganized, and unattractive quality to it. That's both good and bad. But it's what makes Los Angeles, Los Angeles. Some people love it. Some people hate it.

westside, I do agree; LA is one of the better examples of a city able to hold on to its quirky, break-the-rules type of atmosphere. And it is more good than bad.

but like all successful and desirable cities, it is creatng an environment for those with money that buffer the urban experience and allows those in a positon to do so to enjoy a more disneyesque version of what the city was once about. Certainly that is more than true in Chicago.

Well "edsg" as you and I both know for example if you never visit Chicago in person you never realize how graceful and beautiful understatement can be. Some cities needed to clean up their act and they're either better or worse for it, NYC (Times Square, Harlem, LES) comes to mind.
LA is still young and messy. Like a young celebrity, working out its problems on the world stage.

thanks for the response. my comments though were not the least bit LA related since I really do believe that you can see the "let's not get our hands messy" transformation in cities like LA, Chgo, NY, SF, Boston, etc.

I guess part of what I am saying is that successful cities need to be careful not to become charactures of themselves.

westside, I do agree; LA is one of the better examples of a city able to hold on to its quirky, break-the-rules type of atmosphere. And it is more good than bad.

but like all successful and desirable cities, it is creatng an environment for those with money that buffer the urban experience and allows those in a positon to do so to enjoy a more disneyesque version of what the city was once about. Certainly that is more than true in Chicago.

That quirky atmosphere is characteristic for other sprawling cities as well, like say Houston. Both are all over the place. But that quality is best found in Los Angeles. It creates an urban environment, a sense of place like no other. It's unique to some, and f*cked up to the urban elitists (they have actually used the term "f*cked up"). Los Angeles has been and probably will always be that city that breaks the rules and does things differently. That's just Los Angeles; I don't ever see that changing. However, I would like to see Los Angeles mature into a more organized city with a thriving city center that appeals to urbanists as well, all the while still retaining its free and open attitude.

thanks for the response. my comments though were not the least bit LA related since I really do believe that you can see the "let's not get our hands messy" transformation in cities like LA, Chgo, NY, SF, Boston, etc.

I guess part of what I am saying is that successful cities need to be careful not to become charactures of themselves.

Well, I don't think you can deny that LA still has that "messy" quality to it. It's why many urbanists here don't take LA as a city seriously. But again, LA IS somewhat of a caricature of itself. Angelenos are able to make fun of their city.

I guess what I want to know is what it will take for Los Angeles to be taken more seriously. Whatever that may be, will it result in Angelenos showing more pride in their city?

^True. I too have noticed that people on here will rank LA with those other cities, labeling it as a "sprawling suburb." They just can't accept the fact that Los Angeles is the only sprawling, auto-centric global city which fares pretty well against the other nine Alpha world cities.

Yeah L.A. is the only "sprawling suburb" that is a Alpha world class city. The truth is L.A. is a mixture of everything unlike most sprawling cities in the country; L.A. has urban living and suburban living.

Like I said before, L.A. is a world class city whether people like it or not and it seems more people (on SSC) have a problem with that. I guess they want a much older urban city, considering L.A. is also the youngest world class city.

Over time, Los Angeles has evolved into the global city it is today. Sure it has lost some of its spontaneity during that period of maturement, but it will always retain that messy, chaotic, disorganized, and unattractive quality to it. That's both good and bad. But it's what makes Los Angeles, Los Angeles. Some people love it. Some people hate it.

All cities have their own messy, unattractive areas.
The slums of LA still look much, much nicer than the slums of NY.

That quirky atmosphere is characteristic for other sprawling cities as well, like say Houston. Both are all over the place. But that quality is best found in Los Angeles. It creates an urban environment, a sense of place like no other. It's unique to some, and f*cked up to the urban elitists (they have actually used the term "f*cked up"). Los Angeles has been and probably will always be that city that breaks the rules and does things differently. That's just Los Angeles; I don't ever see that changing. However, I would like to see Los Angeles mature into a more organized city with a thriving city center that appeals to urbanists as well, all the while still retaining its free and open attitude.

Interesting concept, Westside. And your analogy to "other sprawling cities" is something I never consdiered.

But there is a flip slide to that, too. In my opinion, LA shares many of those qualities with a city that is the opposite of sprawl, a city you share California with. Obviously I mean San Francisco.

San Francisco's sense of tollerance and doing one's own thing led to it being a mecca for beatniks, hippies, gays, etc. Each have left their mark on the city's landscape: North Beach, the Haight, Castro. Sure the city has its prim and proper side from the towers of Nob Hill to the grand homes of Pacific Heights and San Francisco is parodoxically traditonal while being so tollerant.

If LA can give us the scantilly clad dress of Venice Beach, SF provides us with no clothes at all during the Bay to Breakers. How do you distinguish between the break-the-rules environments of Los Angeles and San Francisco? How do they both compare and contrast?

Where SF chooses to project many times an elitist/activist/leisure bent, LA seems to be much more proletariat/survivalistic/worker.

Where SF chooses to project many times an elitist/activist/leisure bent, LA seems to be much more proletariat/survivalistic/worker.

Yet SF claims to be more "progressive" because of the whole Hippie/Berkeley thing. THEY believe Los Angeles is the "elitist" one because of Beverly Hills/celebrities/etc.

In reality, SF people go Wi-Fi with their MacBookPro while many Angelenos have to go to the public library for their internet access.

Interesting concept, Westside. And your analogy to "other sprawling cities" is something I never consdiered.

But there is a flip slide to that, too. In my opinion, LA shares many of those qualities with a city that is the opposite of sprawl, a city you share California with. Obviously I mean San Francisco.

San Francisco's sense of tollerance and doing one's own thing led to it being a mecca for beatniks, hippies, gays, etc. Each have left their mark on the city's landscape: North Beach, the Haight, Castro. Sure the city has its prim and proper side from the towers of Nob Hill to the grand homes of Pacific Heights and San Francisco is parodoxically traditonal while being so tollerant.

If LA can give us the scantilly clad dress of Venice Beach, SF provides us with no clothes at all during the Bay to Breakers. How do you distinguish between the break-the-rules environments of Los Angeles and San Francisco? How do they both compare and contrast?

Just wanted to point out that the beatnik culture was very high in its beginning stages, but it later on moved onto SF. :-)

I love living in this moment in LA. I think we are in this transition from the 80's LA that had gang problems[still do, but not as much as then], boring architecture, malls malls malls, etc. Just a question for anyone who lived here through the 80s; do you think we are changing for the positive and how were things REALLY back then?

Los Angeles is not stuck in the 80's. It's extremely fresh and cutting-edge.

Just a question for anyone who lived here through the 80s; do you think we are changing for the positive and how were things REALLY back then?

The local music scene was better :) Back then, playing on the Sunset Strip really meant something. Now the Strip is a total joke. KROQ actually played good music back then. We had better radio stations back then...KMET, the original K-DAY, KIQQ...

On the other hand, the skyline was nothing special, and of course no Metro (just talk of it...) Many things change of course. I recently had a conversation with my parents about when they were young immigrant professionals in the late 1960s looking for jobs in the USA (which were very easy to get back then). In the 70s my dad worked as an engineer at a steel plant in Carson and he said after he left in '79 they probably got shut down by the AQMD for polluting...you hardly hear of things like that anymore, now that we have emissions standards, and most of our industrial/manufacturing is done overseas. It's more about distributing (import/export) and high-tech industries now.

And of course, there are things about Los Angeles that will never change...The Dodgers, The Lakers, the USC-UCLA rivalry, Griffith Park up on Mt. Hollywood...just to name a few.

I always believe the best Los Angeles is yet to come, with moire Metro lines, the river being beautified, etc. But them I'm also worried about being kicked out or silenced by gentros, and there's always a possibility that the future Los Angeles, despite all I have done in the community, might not be very welcome to me.

Where SF chooses to project many times an elitist/activist/leisure bent, LA seems to be much more proletariat/survivalistic/worker.
there are lots of stressed-out workaholics in Northern California-trust me.

Yet SF claims to be more "progressive" because of the whole Hippie/Berkeley thing. THEY believe Los Angeles is the "elitist" one because of Beverly Hills/celebrities/etc.

In reality, SF people go Wi-Fi with their MacBookPro while many Angelenos have to go to the public library for their internet access.

I dont think San Franciscans think LA is "elitist" in the least....because we all live in California, the majority of people here have been to LA and know that the westside/celebritydom is but one part of a much larger entity with all sorts of problems and issues similar to those that we face here.

Great article!

I dont think San Franciscans think LA is "elitist" in the least....because we all live in California, the majority of people here have been to LA and know that the westside/celebritydom is but one part of a much larger entity with all sorts of problems and issues similar to those that we face here.

San Franciscans hate Los Angeles more openly and more passionately than Angelenos hate San Francisco. I played a gig in SF a year ago, and though the crowd loved my music, I heard "boo"s when I told them I was from Los Angeles...wtf?

So much for all that hippie "peace and love."

^I can never understand San Franciscans and their elitist attitude towards Los Angeles.

San Franciscans as quite the smug bunch; everyone knows that. But they seem to exhibit their smug attitude more to Los Angeles than any other city.

But, whatever. They're idiots. LA kicks ass. It is a thriving metropolis unparalleled in creativity and diversity.

San Franciscans hate Los Angeles more openly and more passionately than Angelenos hate San Francisco. I played a gig in SF a year ago, and though the crowd loved my music, I heard "boo"s when I told them I was from Los Angeles...wtf?

So much for all that hippie "peace and love."

may it have something to do with we usually suck all the state funding away from them? and they want to break away and join the pnw

I think it's because San Jose is now the third largest city in CA after LA and SD... and even though is in their backyard it looks more like LA:lol: :lol:

My impression about the LA/SF rivalry was that it was strongest during the first half (and into the second) of the 20th century, when a booming LA surpassed "The City" in size and power in California.

With the total legitamacy of LA today, my impression is that this is far less of a rivalr from an SF persepctive than it once was. I get very little sense of LA-put-down on the part of San Franciscans and, believe me, I know that city very, very well.

My sense from San Franciscans (and this may be a little smug in its own right) is that they see SF and LA as the real cities in California (in relationship to SD, SJ, Oakland, Sacto, Fresno, etc.)

Their nothing but tree huggers up there... Not as creative as Angelinos!

Truly a great article! This thing was written 40 years ago and Los Angeles has quadrupled in size... Thats crazy. I truly believe this is the making of the world's greatest city by the end of many of our lifetimes. Its why we will be awarded the olympics again. We keep growing by leaps and bounds and change drastically every decade. Only 100 years ago there was nothing while Tokyo, London, NYC, Paris were already alpha cities. We are already alpha and still have crazy amounts of space [inner & outer city] to grow and change many more times. Most other alpha cities have reached a sort of peak already

Its funny, but today's ssc pic is of dubai and it shows a city of nothing but cranes and hundreds of towers. This article almost proves a point of mine. I have a feeling dubai will be a gleaming beacon once it is finished with all its mega projects, but what will be there? A city of fancy skyscrapers and huge swaths of marina bisecting the desert metropolis. I dont see it being a truly "great" city. It wont have any kind of grit or originality. It will be a playground for the uber rich and thats it... sort of like vegas... very much like vegas... on a much larger scale.

Speaking of Vegas... Has anyone ever noticed why all of vegas and its suburbs all look exactly the same? Its because there is an ordinance for Clark county [Vegas] where every house and strip must have a spanish tile roof in a variety of I think 4 different colors and you can only paint your house with earthtones, I think its like 6 or so colors. Truly not a great city in the making. A repressed city in the making is what it is

Truly a great article! This thing was written 40 years ago and Los Angeles has quadrupled in size... Thats crazy. I truly believe this is the making of the world's greatest city by the end of many of our lifetimes. Its why we will be awarded the olympics again. We keep growing by leaps and bounds and change drastically every decade. Only 100 years ago there was nothing while Tokyo, London, NYC, Paris were already alpha cities. We are already alpha and still have crazy amounts of space [inner & outer city] to grow and change many more times. Most other alpha cities have reached a sort of peak already

Its funny, but today's ssc pic is of dubai and it shows a city of nothing but cranes and hundreds of towers. This article almost proves a point of mine. I have a feeling dubai will be a gleaming beacon once it is finished with all its mega projects, but what will be there? A city of fancy skyscrapers and huge swaths of marina bisecting the desert metropolis. I dont see it being a truly "great" city. It wont have any kind of grit or originality. It will be a playground for the uber rich and thats it... sort of like vegas... very much like vegas... on a much larger scale.

Speaking of Vegas... Has anyone ever noticed why all of vegas and its suburbs all look exactly the same? Its because there is an ordinance for Clark county [Vegas] where every house and strip must have a spanish tile roof in a variety of I think 4 different colors and you can only paint your house with earthtones, I think its like 6 or so colors. Truly not a great city in the making. A repressed city in the making is what it is

You're right, Dubai lacks any substance, vibrance or culture. And even (especially even) people from more traditional Islamic countries would agree with that.

Las Vegas is my least favorite American city. No history (it's imploded virtually every month!) no real culture, just a big waste of money.

hi guys, i just found this page and im originally from LA (Hollywood to be exact). i've been living in sf for the past 4 years, and as far as the sf vs la thing, i've come to realize that sf's constant LA-bashing is just out of envy and bitterness. no one in LA cares about sf, and most people forget sf even exists. i mean sf is ok and all, but it is in NO way as exciting, important, and dynamic as LA. they're just jealous, just like everyone else who likes to hate LA....and as far as im concerned, there is PLENTY to be jealous of! http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/banana.gif

i can't wait to get back to LA next year so that i can actually feel the sun's warmth on a regular basis and be back in a real cosmopolitan place.

^I can never understand San Franciscans and their elitist attitude towards Los Angeles.

San Franciscans as quite the smug bunch; everyone knows that. But they seem to exhibit their smug attitude more to Los Angeles than any other city.

But, whatever. They're idiots. LA kicks ass. It is a thriving metropolis unparalleled in creativity and diversity.
creativity?
The Bay Area leads the nation in patents issued almost every year for a while now.

And as far as diversity-The Bay Area is one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse places in the world-period.

Its like your saying LAs "A+" in diversity is soo much better then SFs "A"

yes, SF is stuck up-why is that still an annoyance? Id have thought that Angelenos would be used to it by now-most people in LA I know could care less.

but as u stated, whatever.

^Los Angeles has long been considered the Creative Capital of the World. From the very beginning, the creative minds of the world have gathered here to innovative and to create a name for themselves. Wolfgang Puck, Frank Gehry, Walt Disney, Arnold Schwarzzenegger, as well as a number of celebrities come to mind. From the internet, to Juicy Couture, to Lucky Brand Jeans, to Guess, to In N' Out, to McDonald's, to the Walt Disney Company, to Myspace, LA is the place where the creative and artistic explore the boundaries.

As for diversity, NYC, London, Los Angeles, and Toronto are usually thought of as the most ethinically diverse cities but what sets LA apart is in terms of topography and socioeconomics.

My post was not intended to be a Bay Area versus Los Angeles argument.

hi guys, i just found this page and im originally from LA (Hollywood to be exact). i've been living in sf for the past 4 years, and as far as the sf vs la thing, i've come to realize that sf's constant LA-bashing is just out of envy and bitterness. no one in LA cares about sf, and most people forget sf even exists. i mean sf is ok and all, but it is in NO way as exciting, important, and dynamic as LA. they're just jealous, just like everyone else who likes to hate LA....and as far as im concerned, there is PLENTY to be jealous of! http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/banana.gif

i can't wait to get back to LA next year so that i can actually feel the sun's warmth on a regular basis and be back in a real cosmopolitan place.


Hey Welcome to LA Forum Wabbit.... Notify us when you arrive back in the southland? Now go to Roll Call------>

creativity?
The Bay Area leads the nation in patents issued almost every year for a while now.

And as far as diversity-The Bay Area is one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse places in the world-period.

Its like your saying LAs "A+" in diversity is soo much better then SFs "A"

yes, SF is stuck up-why is that still an annoyance? Id have thought that Angelenos would be used to it by now-most people in LA I know could care less.

but as u stated, whatever.


Hey bay_area your very welcomed to the L.A. Forum you being from Cali and whatnot. Therefore there's no need for the city vs city crap...

^Bay_area actually has a lot of respect for Los Angeles.

^Bay_area actually has a lot of respect for Los Angeles.

Yes I do.

My LA creds are quite impeccable. LOL

^Bay_area, I also have tremendous respect for San Francisco. It's my second favorite city in the United States and it would be my first choice if I were to move from Los Angeles. I have been there say around 10 times and will be going back up next month. It really is starting to feel like a second home to me. I also believe that it is THE most beautiful city in the US, perhaps the world. I was only referring to the San Franciscans who can't/don't respect Los Angeles as the idiots. Lastly, I truly believe that LA and SF, despite their differences, make a great pair. I really do believe that they are the most geographically diverse, innovative, and unique cities in the country, while sharing the California location and the humidity-free weather. :)

^Bay_area, I also have tremendous respect for San Francisco. It's my second favorite city in the United States and it would be my first choice if I were to move from Los Angeles. I have been there say around 10 times and will be going back up next month. It really is starting to feel like a second home to me. I also believe that it is THE most beautiful city in the US, perhaps the world. I was only referring to the San Franciscans who can't/don't respect Los Angeles as the idiots. Lastly, I truly believe that LA and SF, despite their differences, make a great pair. I really do believe that they are the most geographically diverse, innovative, and unique cities in the country, while sharing the California location and the humidity-free weather. :)

yeah,
my opinion on this issue is that we are lucky that we have 2 world class cities that are very unique and distinct in the same state.

Hey Welcome to LA Forum Wabbit.... Notify us when you arrive back in the southland? Now go to Roll Call------>

wait a sec,
so this blatant troll bashes San Francisco and gets a warm welcome yet Im told that in inciting city vs city "crap".

whatever.

You're right, Dubai lacks any substance, vibrance or culture. And even (especially even) people from more traditional Islamic countries would agree with that.

Las Vegas is my least favorite American city. No history (it's imploded virtually every month!) no real culture, just a big waste of money.

Dubai and Vegas,... I dont think they get that they are just being used by the uber rich of the 2000's, neither of these cities "existed" before 1995 and now everything is Vegas Vegas Vegas. In 20 years both of these cities will be so over processed and bland, the rich will want a brand new playground to invest their ridiculous amounts of money in. Vegas is already starting to die and Macao china is taking over its spot; but shhh... they dont know it yet. Dubai; same thing, people will be over it in 20 years, especially when oil is not the worlds most precious commodity...... And when all those construction jobs disappear and real estate crashes, then the true economy of these cities appears...

... And all those flashy towers and worlds tallest buildings and worlds biggest islands, and worlds largest hotels will all be sitting vacant or run down with poverty stricken people. And then, they will revamp and diversify their image and economy and thats when they become real cities, dealing with rich and poor.

^^^Any Thoughts?

I honestly wonder who is occupying all these buildings that they are building out of nowhere. Its not like its China where they have 2 BILLION people coming out of poverty. Dubai has like 1.5mill [metro] max and their 5 year future skyline signifies a city of 8 million [metro 12mill], bigger than Chicago

I do agree with many of the points this article was saying... Someone a long time ago in LA power must have read this and said we are going to achieve exactly that and be the worlds greatest city. In the short time span, LA has completely turned its direction from when the article came out with transit and density.

And what's interesting about LA is that it achieved this without the uber-dense density of the other Alpha cities, w/o hardly any rapid transit system in fact it's still a bus dominant system and yet their is a debate over in SSP about it either being urban or suburban and we're talking about an Alpha second tier city that has the economy of an Alpha top tier city obliterating cities like London and Paris and only following Tokyo and NYC. This city has been controversial since its beginning, land grabbing, stealing water and borrowing ports miles and miles away.
When LA finally (and it's in the process as we speak) appendeges more of those traditional city fixtures such as mixed use spaces, strong-er core/center and the must-rapid transit i.e. fixed rail, the city is going to be more awesome than it already is.........
But don't count on it looking anything like the old and cold cities back east, as usual LA will do it LA style.

hi guys, i just found this page and im originally from LA (Hollywood to be exact). i've been living in sf for the past 4 years, and as far as the sf vs la thing, i've come to realize that sf's constant LA-bashing is just out of envy and bitterness. no one in LA cares about sf, and most people forget sf even exists. i mean sf is ok and all, but it is in NO way as exciting, important, and dynamic as LA. they're just jealous, just like everyone else who likes to hate LA....and as far as im concerned, there is PLENTY to be jealous of! http://www.skyscrapercity.com/images/smilies/banana.gif

i can't wait to get back to LA next year so that i can actually feel the sun's warmth on a regular basis and be back in a real cosmopolitan place.

Welcome fellow tortured soul. I'm in the SF of the east coast (but shittier), aka Boston. Been here for 5 years now... 2 more to go. :banana:

^^ I feel sorry for both of you:ohno:

Interesting article. I think these are very exciting times for LA-

I take issue however with this line in the article

Though it has many parts of greatness, Chicago, on the other hand, has always thought of itself as the "second city"—and so it always will be, if not third or fourth.

This is not at all how Chicago sees itself. And the name "Second City" refers to the rebuilt Chicago after the near total destruction of the Chicago Fire, not its relationship to New York, that association came later.

Just wanted to clear that up.

Thank God we don't suffer the "second city" syndrome!! :banana: :banana:

Don't speak too soon, Hollywood is burning as we speak!

^^ yeap... you're right, would hate to get the syndrome.

I do agree that Los Angeles is a great city, its considered to be one the richest cities in the world. But what I agree with is its Skyline. considering its significance around the world, it could use a better skyline. After all skylines are what more or less, shows the economic margin that is in.

A better skyline? What does that mean? One with huge towers next to a body of water? Los Angeles is different. I love the downtown skyline with downtown and the snowy mountains right behind it and the hollywood hills to the side of it. No problems from me.

don't piss off the devil...Hey, Lucifer! How's it hangin'? :)

I do agree that Los Angeles is a great city, its considered to be one the richest cities in the world. But what I agree with is its Skyline. considering its significance around the world, it could use a better skyline. After all skylines are what more or less, shows the economic margin that is in.

I know what you're saying man, but I gotta disagree with your last sentence. One of the world's financial capitals, London, doesn't have that big of a skyline either. Anyway though, welcome to the forums.

No matter which we turn the picture upside down, sideways, whatever, Los Angeles will always be one of the most unique cities ever!

Here's a good pun, "although it has it's "faults" and may not ever be perfect, we will always love it no matter what.

How's that!:)

^it's really good... but what city is perfect anyways.

I like Barcelona60! :cheers1:

Here's our Los Angeles after we have acheived our blessed density, in the year 2011! Beautiful, isn't it? Yeah, the Hollywood Hills are there, and so is the beach but, no one can get to them any more..http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/michaelwolf-hongkong6.jpg
http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee192/trolltoast/michaelwolf-hongkong2.jpg michael wolf

That is hilarious but where is the "native" smog? lol:lol:

There's no more cars and no more sky- the buildings go up to the top of the sky...

For all the talk of whether LA is in NY's shaddow, so much of it has become totally irrelevant. LA is not in NY's shaddow. A good part of it has to do with LA's own accomplishments, but there is another factor I don't think has been considered here:

THE EVOLVING NATURE OF THE UNITED STATES PUTS NY AND LA IN DIFFERENT PLAYING FIELDS.

Our nation's development up through the mid-20th century was very americentric. The US was our universe. And for all the regional differences and even the long standing tensions that still played out from the Civil War, the US...for a nation its size...was a remarkably homogenous place culturally.

Much of that culture eminated from New York at a time when the status of one of our cities far exceeded all others. Some of that NYC luster has rubbed off on other cities, but the real reason i said New York and Los Angeles were on different playing fields is that LA's field increasingly looks west around the Pacific Rim and south to Latin America. Like tectonic plates, parts of the US are shifting from a more American regional role to one where their region interfaces increasing more with the world than the rest of the US.

California's culture at one time was transmitted westward across the Rocky Mountains from the established eastern parts of the US, parts with strong ties with Europe and a link with English roots.

LA increasily does not fit the mode of a place drawn to Europe or a place where the Anglo aspect of the US plays out most dominant.

In some respects, LA reaches out to places like Mexico City or Hong Kong as much as it does to New York. The age of Calif in genral and LA in particular being under the control and power of the eastern portion of the US is long over.

Yah, I don't think the buildings are tall enough. If they want L. A. to be in their shadow, they had better erect buildings that are taller.. those shadows do not reach here anymore. What am I talkin' about, they barely reach Vegas..:hi:

It's interesting because LA actually started as a paradise for the ultimate WASPy american. It was sold as a clean slate to only one kind of people.

One of the most interesting things about this city is how that WASP dream actually appealed to people of all races and ethnicities and now we have a city of people trying to live the lifestyle of a group of people who almost don't exist here anymore (obviously new spins have been put on the Leave it to Beaver life..).

los angeles is in a earthquake zone that's why there can't be so many skycrapers like other cities does. every city has its own style to it and los angeles is definitely on the top of the chart. its just simple and yet magnificant.

Los Angeles has as many or more talls than cities like London and Paris. The importance of a city is not to be judged by a few tall buildings. It will be a long time before Dubai or even Taipei approaches LA and London in importance even if they have taller buildings. I think some of the people on this forum really need to ask their doctors for a little Viagra to deal with their feelings of inadaquate erections. :lol::lol::lol:

"I think some of the people on this forum really need to ask their doctors for a little Viagra to deal with their feelings of inadaquate erections."

Hahahahahahaha! THAT made laugh. Spot on!