L.A. climbs past 4 million
The city has as many people as New Zealand, more than 24 states. California's total is nearly 37.7 million.

By Cara Mia DiMass
The Los Angeles Times
May 2, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2007-05/29481834.gif

Finally, something to explain the gridlock at your local coffeehouse and clogged freeways that seem to extend well into the night.

The population of L.A. quietly surpassed the 4-million mark for the first time last year, the California Department of Finance announced Tuesday.

Angelenos probably don't need a demographer to tell them what they already know: that the city is growing more densely populated. But the numbers show that the city gained 37,658 residents last year, and as of Jan. 1, its population was 4,018,080.

"It's a spectacular arc of development when you consider that in 1900, L.A. had a population of 102,459," said historian Kevin Starr.

L.A. lore holds that the city was founded in 1781 by 44 people, transplants from the San Gabriel Mission. That puts the 226-year gain in population at 4,018,036.

The L.A. numbers were part of a report released Tuesday that pegged the state's population at almost 37.7 million. That represents a growth of almost 1.3%, or 470,000, in 2006.

State demographers use a variety of data — including driver's licenses, school enrollments, Medi-Cal recipients, birthrates, immigration and state to state migration — to estimate population change.

The Riverside County city of Beaumont saw the state's fastest growth rate, 21.2%.

In Orange County, Irvine passed 200,000 in population, bringing to 20 the number of cities in the state that exceed 200,000 in population.

But it was the Los Angeles numbers that had most people talking Tuesday.

Just how big does that make L.A.?

With 4 million people, the city of Los Angeles has more people than 24 states, according to federal census data. And it's got roughly the same number as the entire country of New Zealand.

The increase occurred over the last year, as L.A. added 10,239 housing units, according to the state data.

Many of those units were downtown, where the city has seen a marked increase in population as former commercial buildings have been converted into lofts and apartments and a number of new residential buildings have opened.

The city, Starr said, is "embracing and exulting in its urbanism."

Starr and other historians have said that Los Angeles' role as an international city, attracting immigrants from all over the world, has been a key factor in its quick demographic rise.

Los Angeles, said Harry Pachon, a USC public policy professor, has "been in a growth mode…. The dynamism of Los Angeles continues to attract people."

Pachon sees modest growth in the foreseeable future. Families in Latin America are having fewer children, he said, diminishing population pressures there. He also said that the continued increase in housing prices in Southern California meant that more people were seeking economic opportunity outside the region.

L.A. threw itself parties (and the L.A. Times produced banner headlines) when the city reached the 1-million and 1.5-million levels, in 1923 and 1940. (The 1-million mark was estimated by counting the number of, among other things, barber shops.)

But don't expect a lot of celebrating of the new milestone.

Edward Soja, a professor of urban planning at UCLA, called passing the 4-million mark "not that dramatic a transition," especially as L.A.'s population gains are eclipsed, in percentage, by growth elsewhere in the region.

But he said that he worried that Southern California in general is ill-equipped to deal with rapid growth, especially the area's administrative and governmental structures.

"I would say never before is it more needed to have some form of regional coordination, whether we are talking about housing and homelessness or transportation and airports or environment and pollution," Soja said.

The L.A. region, he added, "has the worst housing crisis anywhere in the developed world. It's not being addressed with the urgency it needs to be addressed."

Janelle Erickson, a spokeswoman for Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, wasn't weighing in about whether the numbers were a good or bad thing. But she did hint that she understood why people were moving to the city.

"What the mayor always says is that Los Angeles is a city where the world comes together," Erickson said. "Los Angeles is a city of America's hope and promise, where the dreams of so many have come to life."

Except, perhaps, on the 405 Freeway at rush hour. Or the Starbucks line at 8:30 a.m.

but the city has 1,290.6 km² that a lot of surface area! it is not so crowded as I was thinking.

Los Angeles sprawls for miles and miles yet it maintains a pretty high density. It is also the densest metro area in the United States. For a car-oriented city, Los Angeles is very dense and matches the average population densities of some European cities even. Keep in mind that cities such as Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta all have population densities in the 3,000's while LA maintains a population density of about 8,500/square mile.

Los Angeles has a lot of sprawl going on, but is a very heavily car-reliant city, so having so many cars (not the people) is problematic.

^Statistics will show that more and more people are riding the Metro. We are extending the Gold Line to East LA which will open in 2009 and we also are opening a new line that will stretch from Downtown to Culver City which will open in 2010. That should ease traffic some.

Los Angeles has a lot of sprawl going on, but is a very heavily car-reliant city, so having so many cars (not the people) is problematic.

I'm not jumping on you but tell us something we don't know.

The beach front density is just incredible.

^Statistics will show that more and more people are riding the Metro. We are extending the Gold Line to East LA which will open in 2009 and we also are opening a new line that will stretch from Downtown to Culver City which will open in 2010. That should ease traffic some.

That's an advantage since I stay in Culver City when I'm in LA.

LA may surpass 4 million but it's still not the largest city in THE US.

I find I hard to believe that LA has only four million people. My guess is that with all the illegals it's probably around 5 million. I mean come on, the city has had for decades of heavy immigration from Mexico.

I find I hard to believe that LA has only four million people. My guess is that with all the illegals it's probably around 5 million. I mean come on, the city has had for decades of heavy immigration from Mexico.

LOL, there are illegal immigrants from other countries as well. They also liveamong the 8 million people in...shock..NEW YORK CITY!!!

You don't have to "hop a border" to be illegal. Getting a legal visa into the USA and staying long after it expires is illegal as well. A lot of Asians, Africans and...shock..EUROPEANS come into the county illegally that way.

Whatever...typical ignorant NYer.

I'm not jumping on you but tell us something we don't know.

Not everyone knows it, lol, pointing out the obvious and then posting about nothing but pointing out the obvious... :nuts:

It makes sense that a lot of LA's illegal immigrants come from Mexico, I don't get why you are being so aggressive. I'm getting out of this thread, many LAers being protective of their precious city...

Anyway, I think census doesn't care if you are illegal or not (of course, some people might be afraid to report themselves because of misinformation)... overrepresenting yourself in the census is a good thing, because a lot of funs allocation, electoral votes, etc. are based on census figures ( I think )

I'm getting out of this thread, many LAers being protective of their precious city...

Maybe its because of the majority of people on this board who likes to talk shit about our city and think they know what there talking about when they don't have no fucking idea whats going on here.

You're damn right were going to be defensive about our city.

4 million is very misleading. The metropolitan region of Los Angeles is closer to 17 million people. It is important to realize what geographic boundaries people are using. For example, the City of Toronto is 2.5 million, Greater Toronto is 5.2 million, the Greater Goldern Horseshoe (the urban region around the western edge of Lake Ontario) is 8.1 million.

4 million is very misleading. The metropolitan region of Los Angeles is closer to 17 million people. It is important to realize what geographic boundaries people are using. For example, the City of Toronto is 2.5 million, Greater Toronto is 5.2 million, the Greater Goldern Horseshoe (the urban region around the western edge of Lake Ontario) is 8.1 million.

When i first saw the thread i was like "NO WAY! THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE IN SYDNEY THAN LA!" I guess not if u say there are 17 mill.. hahahaha.

^It's actually 18 million. That's the CSA population of course.

Los Angeles sprawls for miles and miles yet it maintains a pretty high density. It is also the densest metro area in the United States. For a car-oriented city, Los Angeles is very dense and matches the average population densities of some European cities even. Keep in mind that cities such as Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, and Atlanta all have population densities in the 3,000's while LA maintains a population density of about 8,500/square mile.

From the US Census Bureau's American Fact Finder:

Population Density per square mile for Primary Metropolitam Statistical Areas in 2000:
1. Jersey City PMSA 13,043.6
2. New York PMSA 8,158.7
3. Orange County PMSA 3,605.6
4. Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA 2,344.2
5. San Francisco PMSA 1,704.7

I thought LA city proper had more inhabitants

I thought LA city proper had more inhabitants

that's because cities try to look bigger and always show big numbers to get investment. is something that has more than 1000 km2 a single city?

I thought LA city proper had more inhabitants

Data estimated for 2005 from the United States Bureau of the Census and rounded because of different estimation techniques used:

Los Angeles City ~ 4 million
Los Angeles County ~ 10 million
Los Angeles Urbanized Area ~ 12 Million
Los Angeles Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area ~ 13 Million
Los Angeles Combined Statistical Area ~ 17.5 million

Each one of these different geographic defintions for American Cities are precisely defined at:
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/reference.html
Yes it really is that complicated and to make matters worse every nation tends to use different definitions, especially for urbanized area.

From the US Census Bureau's American Fact Finder:

Population Density per square mile for Primary Metropolitam Statistical Areas in 2000:
1. Jersey City PMSA 13,043.6
2. New York PMSA 8,158.7
3. Orange County PMSA 3,605.6
4. Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA 2,344.2
5. San Francisco PMSA 1,704.7

The LA metro is the densest metro area in the US. You can ask other US forumers if you want. Though cities like NYC, Chicago, and SF have high densities within their central business districts, their suburbs are very sprawling. LA on the other hand maintains a consistent density for miles and miles.

I'm getting out of this thread, many LAers being protective of their precious city...



And STAY out, muh fuh! All the haters need to LEAVE!

The LA metro is the densest metro area in the US. You can ask other US forumers if you want. Though cities like NYC, Chicago, and SF have high densities within their central business districts, their suburbs are very sprawling. LA on the other hand maintains a consistent density for miles and miles.

in NYC case the whole city is much denser, not just central business districts. Brooklyn is over 30,000ppsm and it has almost 2.5million people. Queens is over 20,000ppsm, and Manhattan is over 60,000ppsm.
Chicago Neighborhoods peak in the mid 30,000ppsm; while some are far less.

Your state has more people than my country. Good on you.

The LA metro is the densest metro area in the US. You can ask other US forumers if you want. Though cities like NYC, Chicago, and SF have high densities within their central business districts, their suburbs are very sprawling. LA on the other hand maintains a consistent density for miles and miles.

You will like my next data from Fact Finder even less

From the US Census Bureau's American Fact Finder:

Population Density per square mile for Combined Statistical Areas in 2000

New York 2,028.7
Los Angeles 482.2

The problem is that this type of data is reported on the arbitrary county boundaries which do not neccessarily match population distribution. The CSA for Los Angeles contains the Mohave desert. The better statistic would the population density of the urbanized region but unfortunately the Bureau of the Census does not appear to compute the total area of the urbanized regions.

I was extremely surprised by my original data and I agree with the fundemental assertion but the currently published and easily available data does not actually support it. This a problem with the data not the premise. After all:
There are lies, dam lies and statistics

in NYC case the whole city is much denser, not just central business districts. Brooklyn is over 30,000ppsm and it has almost 2.5million people. Queens is over 20,000ppsm, and Manhattan is over 60,000ppsm.
Chicago Neighborhoods peak in the mid 30,000ppsm; while some are far less.

Los Angeles has neighborhoods on par with Brooklyn, Queens, and even parts of Manhattan.

I was referring to the suburbs of New York City, which are very spread out and aren't very dense. By contrast, LA's density is more uniform as is the case for more car-oriented cities. All the houses are packed in right next to each other.

It doesnt matter if its car dependant or not. Its a four million person city and will always be a more major city than any of those stereotypical "urban" cities in North America.

The L.A. hatred on this site is getting old.

^^ There is a city in every country that every1 loves to hate. I take it in US its LA??? In Australia its Sydney. They just love to hate it. Every1 is so jealous thats why. They all wish they can live or have what Sydney has but cant. It ruins all the forums. You cant even say one good thing about Sydney without every1 jumping on you, same with LA it seems. Dont worry LA looks beautiful, and keep saying positive things about your city, just ignore the jealous.

LA - Thanks for Hollywood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That in itself deserves everything!

From the US Census Bureau's American Fact Finder:

Population Density per square mile for Primary Metropolitam Statistical Areas in 2000:
1. Jersey City PMSA 13,043.6
2. New York PMSA 8,158.7
3. Orange County PMSA 3,605.6
4. Los Angeles-Long Beach PMSA 2,344.2
5. San Francisco PMSA 1,704.7

US Urban areas by density:
city - population - area (km) - density (ppl/sqkm)

1. L Angeles-L Beach-S Ana -11,789,487 - 4319.93 - 2729.09
2. New York-Newark - 17,799,861 - 8683.32 - 2049.89
3. Miami - 4,919,036 - 2890.66 - 1701.70
4. Chicago - 8,307,904 - 5498.05 - 1511.06
5. Phoenix-Mesa - 2,907,049 - 2069.42 - 1404.77
6. San Diego - 2,674,436 - 2026.11 - 1319.99
7. Washington - 3,933,920 - 2996.01 - 1313.05
8. Detroit - 3,903,377 - 3267.14 - 1194.74
9. Baltimore - 2,076,354 - 1768.26 - 1174.24
10. Houston - 3,822,509 - 3354.72 - 1139.44

US Urban areas by density:
city - population - area (km) - density (ppl/sqkm)

1. L Angeles-L Beach-S Ana -11,789,487 - 4319.93 - 2729.09
2. New York-Newark - 17,799,861 - 8683.32 - 2049.89
3. Miami - 4,919,036 - 2890.66 - 1701.70
4. Chicago - 8,307,904 - 5498.05 - 1511.06
5. Phoenix-Mesa - 2,907,049 - 2069.42 - 1404.77
6. San Diego - 2,674,436 - 2026.11 - 1319.99
7. Washington - 3,933,920 - 2996.01 - 1313.05
8. Detroit - 3,903,377 - 3267.14 - 1194.74
9. Baltimore - 2,076,354 - 1768.26 - 1174.24
10. Houston - 3,822,509 - 3354.72 - 1139.44

Source ??

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua2k.txt

LA outer sprawl seems to be nowhere near as bad as NY outer sprawl.

^^ There is a city in every country that every1 loves to hate. I take it in US its LA??? In Australia its Sydney. They just love to hate it. Every1 is so jealous thats why. They all wish they can live or have what Sydney has but cant. It ruins all the forums. You cant even say one good thing about Sydney without every1 jumping on you, same with LA it seems. Dont worry LA looks beautiful, and keep saying positive things about your city, just ignore the jealous.

LA - Thanks for Hollywood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That in itself deserves everything!

You got it baby... LA IT'S THE PLACE!!

It doesnt matter if its car dependant or not. Its a four million person city and will always be a more major city than any of those stereotypical "urban" cities in North America.

The L.A. hatred on this site is getting old.

Agreed.

http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua2k.txt

Thank you. This is a new data set for me

L.A. climbs past 4 million
The city has as many people as New Zealand, more than 24 states. California's total is nearly 37.7 million.

By Cara Mia DiMass
The Los Angeles Times
May 2, 2007

http://www.latimes.com/media/graphic/2007-05/29481834.gif

Finally, something to explain the gridlock at your local coffeehouse and clogged freeways that seem to extend well into the night.

The population of L.A. quietly surpassed the 4-million mark for the first time last year, the California Department of Finance announced Tuesday.

[snip]

Edward Soja, a professor of urban planning at UCLA, called passing the 4-million mark "not that dramatic a transition," especially as L.A.'s population gains are eclipsed, in percentage, by growth elsewhere in the region.

But he said that he worried that Southern California in general is ill-equipped to deal with rapid growth, especially the area's administrative and governmental structures.

"I would say never before is it more needed to have some form of regional coordination, whether we are talking about housing and homelessness or transportation and airports or environment and pollution," Soja said.

The L.A. region, he added, "has the worst housing crisis anywhere in the developed world. It's not being addressed with the urgency it needs to be addressed."

[snip]

The big reason why there is such a crisis in housing in the Los Angeles area (and overall in California, too, as well as in many other parts of the USA) is that in many areas, it is *illegal* to build all of the housing units that the market is demanding. See the local zoning laws. I have read articles over the past few years where the zoning law in many sections of Los Angeles is so close to collapse that many houses, especially south and southwest of downtown, that were built for one family are having to be shared by four or five - this because nothing is available in the 'legal' marketplace.

I do see some big changes on the horizon regarding that. Zoning laws all over the 'Basin' (not just inside the city limits) will have to be loosened to allow for safe housing for all of the people moving in and I also do see the area having to bite the bullet and start wholesale restoration of the extensive transit system that it once had, perhaps even including incrementally building a NYC-density subway network.

Mike

Chicago Neighborhoods peak in the mid 30,000ppsm; while some are far less.

Actually River North in 2000 had a population density of 48,000 ppm. I'm sure today it substantially greater with all the building that has been going on there.

LA outer sprawl seems to be nowhere near as bad as NY outer sprawl.

Riverside/San Bernardino is the most sprawling MSA in the US, far more than NYC's Northern New Jersey suburbs. L.A. is an enigma. A modestly dense city proper (with some hyper dense communities), an immediate metropolitan density more dense than any other in North America, and a sprawling exurban or adjacent metro......

^^ There is a city in every country that every1 loves to hate. I take it in US its LA??? In Australia its Sydney. They just love to hate it. Every1 is so jealous thats why. They all wish they can live or have what Sydney has but cant. It ruins all the forums. You cant even say one good thing about Sydney without every1 jumping on you, same with LA it seems. Dont worry LA looks beautiful, and keep saying positive things about your city, just ignore the jealous.

LA - Thanks for Hollywood!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That in itself deserves everything!

well actually, there are alot of U.S cities people hate. On here, Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, L.A., Miami, and basically any city in the South that isnt New Orleans are attacked. In the U.S. as a whole (not skyscraper and urban nerds) its Detroit, St. Louis, and the Rust Belt cities of the Midwest/East Coast.

People on here can be somewhat jealous of L.A. Its a big, newer city that dwarfs the streotypical gritty Rust Belt City. Our cities lost alot of population, therefore we naturally seem to object to the Sunbelt as having legitamate cities.

Sydney seems like a great place. I cant imagine anyone bashing it. That seems like it would be similar to people here bashing San Francisco or Seattle.

The problem I have with L.A. is that I hate its downtown. L.A., on this site, would not be hated so much if its wonderful skyline was built on the ocean.

Congrats.

Anyway. it is not really crowded. Singapore has around 4.5 million residents excluding tourists with an area of just 600+ km square.

for an American city, its crowded. We cant compare Singapore, Hong Kong, or many European cities to ours. Asian cities will always be 10 times as dense. L.A. developed around the car and boomed post WWII--when people wanted houses, not tiny apartments.

^^ Yeap. Im just saying it's not that bad yet:)

4 million people and ONE subway line.

Fucktastic urban planning right there!

:rock:

^Technically, it's two.

The problem I have with L.A. is that I hate its downtown. L.A., on this site, would not be hated so much if its wonderful skyline was built on the ocean.

I don't think it matters that Downtown LA isn't located on the ocean. It's fine where it is. It's centrally located in the Basin, making Downtown more accessible.

The problem I have with L.A. is that I hate its downtown. L.A., on this site, would not be hated so much if its wonderful skyline was built on the ocean.

Downtown LA has an advantage over the downtowns of Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta because even though our financial district is borderline office park, our Historic Core has a more urban flavor to it. You really can't recreate that certain natural urban flavor today.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/139/334824778_9dfd3b7d42_b.jpg
From Flickr, by Nitro101

1. Jersey City PMSA 13,043.6


Congrats to Jersey City :cheers1:...That IS a city!!!!

The problem I have with L.A. is that I hate its downtown. L.A., on this site, would not be hated so much if its wonderful skyline was built on the ocean.

Downtown LA's skyline is fine where it is.

I'm not sure however I agree with this 'city skyline should reflect it's population' nonsense. Downtown LA has always been shit on this forum for no other reason that it's 'small.' Show me London's skyline because I haven't seen it. And if you took out The Grand Arch, if you showed me a picture of La Defense, I would think it was Houston. People should understand that LA is not New York or Chicago. We are not a typical city in the sense that we are everything and we are nothing. You could live in Compton, Hollywood, El Monte, Torrence, Van Nuys, and Duarte and you would still be in LA.

Sorry guys but this question has been on my mind for months:

How do (poorer) immigrants afford to move to California when homes there are way too expensive? Where do they go? Santa Ana? That place I heard is the most overcrowded city in the USA.

Santa Ana?

If LA's downtown was on the shore, it would have grown long like a strip and have occupied several miles of prime beach space. It would have made no sense. LA's downtown looks good where it is, in between the sea and the mountains.

Not every city needs to have a downtown like New York or Chicago, and be crowded as fvck like Japan or Hong Kong and have people peddaling around on bicycles like Amsterdam (despite what a lot of people on these forums seem to believe is ideal for human civilization). LA is just fine the way it is.

New York and LA have always been huge rivals. It is understandable being the number one and number 2 in population. That whole East Coast vs West Coast thing. Both cities have a great atmosphere and are alot of fun to visit.

Actually River North in 2000 had a population density of 48,000 ppm. I'm sure today it substantially greater with all the building that has been going on there.



Riverside/San Bernardino is the most sprawling MSA in the US, far more than NYC's Northern New Jersey suburbs. L.A. is an enigma. A modestly dense city proper (with some hyper dense communities), an immediate metropolitan density more dense than any other in North America, and a sprawling exurban or adjacent metro......

Riverside/San Bernardino is only so "sprawly" because of all the hills and the little farm land that is left, there are tons of hills all over the area, it is impossible for many of it to be urbanized, and this area is many times taken into account in these statistics, which I dont think is very fair

^^ Yes, that is the case, I'm guessing.

New York sprawl has plenty more room...it's already taken over almost the entire island of Long Island, half of the states of New Jersey and Connecticut, and it's slowly getting farther and farther into Pennsylvania.

The NY metro area technically starts about 15 miles (25km) south of my house, and I live more than 100 miles away (~167 km) from New York itself. :shocked:

^^ haha... wow, hey, give it a few more years and youll find yourself being part of "New York" :D

NY metro it's twice the size of LA.

it's ONLY 4 million?! I feel it's very crowded, esp the downtown area.

Riverside/San Bernardino is only so "sprawly" because of all the hills and the little farm land that is left, there are tons of hills all over the area, it is impossible for many of it to be urbanized, and this area is many times taken into account in these statistics, which I dont think is very fair


That's possible, but when they measure how sprawly one metro is, they basically look at it's population density. Hills or no hills, San Bernardino/Riverside communities have very light density levels. BTW, Chicago's outer collar counties are not much better either......



NY metro it's twice the size of LA.

Not exactly. It depends how you measure the two areas.

Here are the stats


Urbanized areas: (2000)

New York--Newark, NY--NJ--CT 17,799,861--------------3,352.60 sq miles
Los Angeles--Long Beach--Santa Ana, CA 11,789,487------1,667.93 sq miles


New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), with an estimated population (as of 2005) of 18,747,320 in 6,720 sq. miles


The Los Angeles–Long Beach–Santa Ana Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is home to 12,923,547 people (July 1, 2006) in 4,850 sq miles


New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA Combined Statistical Area (CSA) with an estimated population of 21,903,623 (as of 2005) in 11,842 sq. miles


Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside Combined Statistical Area (CSA), with a (July 1, 2006) population estimate of 17,776,000 in 33,954 sq miles

L.A.'s downtown is pretty tall. I dont know why people even say that--because it does dwarf any place in London and is more iconic than Sao Paulo, Rio, Mexico City, Tokyo, or most places in Asia.

But I cannot help but think how incredible it would look right next to a body of water---like San Diego, San Francisco, or some of the Great Lakes cities. If you took Milwaukee's skyline and put it inland--it would be pretty weak. Putting it overlooking Lake Michigan greatly adds to it. Same goes for Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, etc.

I think L.A.s skyline overlooking Redondo Beach or somewhere to be breathtaking. Building them on the hills would be even more awesome.

Or you could build more high rises in Santa Monica....

Nah... we have Long Beach as our beach skyline, Santa Monica is great as it is now, I wouldnt like skyscrapers there

and is more iconic than Rio,Tokyo
:lol: :rofl: :hilarious.... please give me a break :nuts:

Why is that so funny. It's true. ;)

L.A.'s downtown is pretty tall. I dont know why people even say that--because it does dwarf any place in London and is more iconic than Sao Paulo, Rio, Mexico City, Tokyo, or most places in Asia.

But I cannot help but think how incredible it would look right next to a body of water---like San Diego, San Francisco, or some of the Great Lakes cities. If you took Milwaukee's skyline and put it inland--it would be pretty weak. Putting it overlooking Lake Michigan greatly adds to it. Same goes for Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, etc.

I think L.A.s skyline overlooking Redondo Beach or somewhere to be breathtaking. Building them on the hills would be even more awesome.

If it were located on the water, it wouldn't have as great a mountain backdrop.