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.

EastSider said:

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...

Click to expand...