SkyscraperCity Forum banner
61 - 80 of 90 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
115 Posts
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.
 

· Bleed Dodger Blue
Joined
·
6,074 Posts
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? :eek:hno: 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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,627 Posts
Perhaps I didnt get my point across correctly.



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).




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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
510 Posts
"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?
 

· Bleed Dodger Blue
Joined
·
6,074 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,696 Posts
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.



 

· Worldwide
Joined
·
6,869 Posts
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:
 

· /BMOREBOY
Joined
·
3,059 Posts
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.


Seattle (Bellevue included, BTW Seattle has the tallest building on the West Coast in floor's)


Portland (no offense but it lacks a skyline to me)

San Fransisco (my favorite west coast skyline)

San Diego (IDK)

East Coast Team

Boston (In my opinion it would have the 2nd best skyline if it were on the West Coast)

New York (If you play GTA 4 it heavily resembles this)

Jersey City (you guy's should a shamed of yourselves :lol: )


Philadelphia

Baltimore (We are working on two new skylines that will include towers up to 65 levels)




Arlington (Sorry D.C. :lol: It has 5 skylines itself)





Charlotte

Atlanta

Miami (AKA "The City of Skylines")


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

Houston



I believe it has a wonderful skyline!!!!

COME VISIT THIS THREAD TO REPRESENT LA!!!

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

· Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
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.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
884 Posts
^^ 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.
 
61 - 80 of 90 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top